FUTURE DEMANDS - Getty Outrageous prices

[gabon]

After getty bought picscouts, getty raised the prices per license/photo
In 2008 - 2010, the price per license/photo was , $20 - $50 ,
In 2012, the price of the same license/photo is $ 500- $1000 .

could they request now a larger settlement demand for "actual damages"?
(instead of proofing " statutory damages")

[lucia]

Are the new prices for the same license?

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

This is further evidence that they've changed their business model from selling images to issuing demand letters. Anyone receiving a demand should also insist on seeing the pricing history for that image.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This is further evidence that they've changed their business model from selling images to issuing demand letters. Anyone receiving a demand should also insist on seeing the pricing history for that image.

Could not agree more with the above statement, I guess Getty Images, justifies these price increases cause they need to pay for picscout somehow, and just selling images isn't going to cut it.

[Oscar Michelen]

Getty has always gone after "actual damages" since they don't register their images (and therefore cannot get statutory damages) Their pricing regimen is one thing, how often they sell them at those prices is another and what the fair market value of the image is a third!

[Lettered]

Let's not forget that letter that GETTY published that explained why low resolution web based usage of stock photography isn't worth more than $49.  At least that's the way I read it.  I'd say the letter would be pretty good supporting information in assessing actual damages for low resolution web based usage.

http://www.abouttheimage.com/2858/getty_answers_critics_of_the_49_web_use_product/author3/

The letter was back in 2007, but in my opinion, the fair market value would have went down rather than up considering the state of the economy post 2007.

[Matthew Chan]

Very good observation.  I went back to the image I allegedly infringed upon to see the retail pricing and it was ridiculously high. It is way more now in 2012 than what they listed for back in 2008.

There is no question in my mind, the extortion letter business side has clearly influenced and dominated the retail sales side. In my view, the retail side is mostly for show.

I also agree that the overall market value of images and stock photos (as well as music, newspaper articles, etc. for that matter) have all plummeted. What Getty Images displays is artificial and inflated pricing designed to justify the extortion amounts. People are simply not willing to pay that much due to the sheer abundance around.

After getty bought picscouts, getty raised the prices per license/photo
In 2008 - 2010, the price per license/photo was , $20 - $50 ,
In 2012, the price of the same license/photo is $ 500- $1000 .

could they request now a larger settlement demand for "actual damages"?
(instead of proofing " statutory damages")

[rock]

Can a class action lawsuit be brought now?

Many lawyers have been dealing with Getty for many years now, and they have a lot of data about the sale price of a lot of photos in the past, and they can easily check on the new OUTRAGEOUS PRICES that getty is using now.

What Getty Images displays is artificial and inflated pricing designed to justify the extortion amounts.
Isn't this illegal conduct they are engaging in gives rise to a claim?