ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Innocent Infringer on February 14, 2012, 02:30:45 PM
-
Does anyone know if the "Stone Collection", which I understand from this website was acquired by Getty in 2008, was ever licensed in any other way prior to 2008?
To make a long story short, my images came from an outside web designer in July 2008; they are now included in the "Stone Collection". Getty is pursuing this with me; I'd like to know if Getty actually has the right to go after me on this or could the images have been legally obtained under a different license prior to Getty's acquisition, for example, if the original photographer licensed them in some other method prior to 2008.
The design shop cannot figure out where their designer got the images back in 2008, so that avenue is a dead-end for me. I wonder if it is possible that they got them from a stock photo site or CD that was perhaps correctly licensed in 2008.
The images that the designer provided did not have any watermarking on them, yet the images from the Getty site do have watermarking, so I believe that the images provided to me did not actually come from Getty, they instead came from another source.
Thanks,
Ralph
-
Ralph
I'd like to know if Getty actually has the right to go after me on this or could the images have been legally obtained under a different license prior to Getty's acquisition, for example, if the original photographer licensed them in some other method prior to 2008.
The image Getty contacted me over is also in the Stone collection. The only things I know about the collection in general is it seems to contain a million zillion images by many different artists. In the case of the images Getty contacted me over, the image does not appear to have been a work for hire. I don't know when the photograph was taken by the photographer. But if she took it long before 2008-- which is possible, it is plausible she might have granted a license to someone, somewhere prior to licensing the image to Getty. I think that information is not very useful unless you obtained the image before 2008 or have the license in your hand.
Also, that photographer's heirs continue to license the image in the Stone collection at photoshelter after 2008. See http://www.photoshelter.com/search?_ACT=search&I_DSC_AND=t&I_DSC=male+female+cardinals. So even without considering what happened after 2008, it's possible that someone could get what the consumer believes to be a valid license through someone other than Getty. I don't know precisely how a lawyer would package that information during a case. But it's worth checking around.
-
I have found examples of each of the photos in question on the internet with dates that precede 2008. That tells me that these photos were available prior to Getty registering the copyright on them. Since the photos in question are stock photos - not particularly interesting - this leads me to believe that they were sold via another service, perhaps a photo CD or a stock photo website.
Is it possible that Getty sold them online prior to them registering them as "the Stone Collection"?
It is disturbing to me that Getty can try and enforce rights on photographs that it does not have exclusive rights to.
Ralph
-
If memory serves, I think the stone collection was indeed sold as a set of CD's way back when, I think I had the complete set of them, it was like a 12 -15 CD package, that I purchased at Best Buy or somewhere similar, many, many, many moons ago. I now regret getting rid of them, as the image in my case was also from the stone collection.
-
I just found a link
http://www.ellenboughn.com/is-tony-stone-the-true-founder-of-getty-images
-
And I just found this..I'm sure there are other versions that were available on CD..Granted it is old, but shows cds were available..what caught my eye was this
" the CD utilizes the latest technology to allow individuals to download low-resolution images as well as present the imagery in a conceptual context. "
"Tony Stone Images Goes Wild With Its Newest Catalog/CD."
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Tony+Stone+Images+Goes+Wild+With+Its+Newest+Catalog%2FCD.-a053012028
-
Here is some more information:
http://www.getfilings.com/o0001047469-98-013098.html
CD-ROM CATALOGS
Tony Stone Images also produces CD-ROM catalogs, and was one of the first stock photography agencies to produce an electronic catalog in digital format.
CD-ROM catalogs enable customers to select from a wide range of images on-screen at their offices. Although CD-ROM catalogs are significantly less expensive to produce than printed catalogs, a substantial majority of customers currently prefer to select images from printed catalogs. It is the Company's intention to provide a CD-ROM version of all printed catalogs for distribution with the printed catalog, as well as producing focused stand-alone CD-ROMs covering specialized subjects.
GETTY-IMAGES.COM
The web site was launched in 1997 allowing customers from anywhere in the world to request images from the Tony Stone collection or order catalogs and CDs. In addition, some 160,000 images from the Hulton Getty collection are currently available for on-line selection. New images have been continually added to the on-line site during the year.
During 1998, the Tony Stone Dupe Master Collection will be made available on the web for search and selection by and digital delivery to the client. The move to digital delivery is a critical element of the Company's future strategy and it is anticipated that the application of PhotoDisc's digital know-how will allow the Company to accelerate its move to digital delivery of the Tony Stone Dupe Master Collection.
Here's my question: assuming that in the time since 1997, someone pirated these CDs and resold them as "royalty free stock images", how much culpability does someone who purchased such a collection have to Getty?
-
Here's another 10K filing:
http://www.123jump.com/10K_Reports/GYI/1998/1998.htm
It would be interesting to see more recent filings to see when/if they start mentioning enforcement as a primary business activity.
Based on what I have learned from these filings, I think it is highly doubtful that the Tony Stone collection was ever offered as royalty free CD. According to the 10K, the Tony Stone Collection was the genesis of Getty Communications' forming. It was their core product from day #1.
However, I think that since they offered their catalog on CD-ROM as early as 1997, it is very possible that these images have been "in the wild" for a very long time. It is very possible that they have been gathered and offered - illegally - as rights-free "public domain" stock photos.
To me, this is the grey area. Image licensing is not a run-of-the-mill subject. If someone buys a CD or buys an image from a website that purports to offer royalty-free or public domain images, I'm not sure how they can be held culpable. To me, this is squarely innocent infringement - as is being provided the images by a design company. I can understand that Getty doesn't want to get involved in such squabbles, but on the other hand, I have to believe that they know that they have a very weak hand if they go to court.
-
Good question.
What you describe is something like what Hawaiian Art Network (featuring Glen Carner, and Vincent K. Tylor) are doing now.
Their images are seeded everywhere and offered for free (even for online use).
They have demanded large sums of money from alleged infringers, and some people have been sued already.
That's as far as something like this has gone to date, as far as I know.
In any case, Getty doesn't register its images, and its contracts with the artists are shoddy in most cases.
So, I don't consider Getty to be a serious threat at this time.
S.G.
-
I totally understand that Getty has to protect their IP, and that due to their size, they spend a lot of time and money doing so. On the other hand, since they make a lot of money due to their size, a lot of that should be the cost of them doing business.
I don't think they are being reasonable by ignoring the circumstances of the infringement. There *is* a difference between someone who says "I'm going to the Getty site and take one of their photos - no one will ever know", someone who says "I found it on the internet, so that means I can use it", someone who was given the image as part of a web design, someone who gets the photo from a legitimate-looking website that presents the photo as "public domain", or someone who buys a photo CD that is represented as public domain or royalty free.
I also don't think they realize that not a single person they are chasing would have paid the prices they quote for images because the people affected are not plugged into the "rights managed stock photo" world. I don't know who actually pays $900 to use a photo on a website - perhaps a mid-level manager at a Madison Ave. design firm does, but that's the cost of one or more year's worth of hosting for most websites. I realize that goes against their view of their own business, but it's reality. I replaced the photos on my site with pictures I took with my cellphone. No drop in my traffic so far - my benefit from using their photos was $0.
I didn't take the photos from their site or from the internet - a design company supplied them to me as a minor design element on my site. Had the design company said to me "the cost to use these 4 images will be $4,000", I would have told them to stuff it.
Also, had Getty said to me "you are using our images without our consent, remove them and pay $50 per image", I'd have paid up. Hell, if they said "$200 per image, based on the minimum innocent infringement penalty in US Copyright law, I'd probably have swallowed hard and paid it. But nearly $1000 per image? That's insanity, and is not in line with what the law values a completely innocent infringement to be.
OK, enough venting.
-
I and probably most others would agree with you on this, and it's healthy to vent once in a while.. 1 point I think your missing is the fact that yes Getty is a large company and worth millions, their business model has greatly suffered, and there is just no money to be made anymore with stock photography, microstock maybe..So they basically have moved into this new "business model" knowing they can recoup some of the losses by chasing innocent infringers and relying on the fact that the general public is ignorant, in terms of the law. I would love to get my fingers on some stats showing how many letters get sent and the percentage that are just paid. I will continue to believe and will until I am shown something different , that Getty Images, Hawaiian Art Network, and the other copyright extortion trolls make most of their money thru these letters..
-
For 900,-- $ you will get a decent photographer for a day and afterwards you will have more then one photo and you will get the copyright too.
-
For 900,-- $ you will get a decent photographer for a day and afterwards you will have more then one photo and you will get the copyright too.
I must disagree here, you won't get the copyright for the photos, photographers don't like to let loose of their IP, as it prohibits them from using the photo elsewhere. Most will offer some sort of licensing option, but will never release the copyright.
::EDIT:: Much like when I design /develop a website, I retain the copyright, the end users only has a license to use it, this gives me the freedom to use any elements I wish in other works, I can also have control over the coding / programming. There are times when I will sign a copyright release, but the price is significantly higher.. Naturally this is all spelled out in the contract, so the client is aware of this.
-
Good discussion here...
I agree with Innocent Infringer's assertions about the pricing.
If the photographer "works for hire", then the hiring company (or hiring person would own copyright of the photos).
If the terms are not "work for hire", then the photographer would retain copyright.
Anyway, most photographers aren't worth anywhere near $900 dollars a day in my opinion.
Here's an article about the economics of photography and the stock image industry that's surely of interest:
http://penumbraproject.com/2011/10/20/surviving-as-a-photographer-in-the-new-economy-2/
The butthurt is palpable.
S.G.
-
I got the copyright. He took photos of my products. But it may be different with product photos I did not try other photos yet. :)
-
Good discussion here...
I agree with Innocent Infringer's assertions about the pricing.
If the photographer "works for hire", then the hiring company (or hiring person would own copyright of the photos).
If the terms are not "work for hire", then the photographer would retain copyright.
Anyway, most photographers aren't worth anywhere near $900 dollars a day in my opinion.
Here's an article about the economics of photography and the stock image industry that's surely of interest:
http://penumbraproject.com/2011/10/20/surviving-as-a-photographer-in-the-new-economy-2/
The butthurt is palpable.
S.G.
Interesting read Soylent. It is indeed hard to compete with "free" with regard to being a photographer in this economy and times. Even the billion dollar porn industry is suffering due to the amount of "free stuff" available on the net not that I am heartbroken over this. ::) It will be interesting to see where it all ends up as there does not seem to be any end in sight. All the more reason for the trolls to come up with a new "business plan" consisting of extorting huge dollar amounts from potential alledged infringers.
I also found it interesting the comparison to working at Starbucks where one would make more money verses making a $100 a day shooting photos. Personally I'd rather be shooting but that's just me. No offense to Starbucks.
:D
With regard to Khan, I'm not sure where you are coming from. If you are thinking that you have "copyright" just because the photographer took photos of "your products" I think that you are a bit mis-informed.
:o
-
I got the copyright. He took photos of my products. But it may be different with product photos I did not try other photos yet. :)
Yes, in a case of a work for hire..same would apply to my and my field, if I was under the employ of SG's Butthurt Inc. and developed a site, SG would automatically own the copyright, because I was on his payroll.
My question is did the photographer actaully sign over a release of copyright for you? If not I don't think you would technically own the copyright..Unless he was on your payroll that is.
::edit:: From the US copyright site:
What is a work made for hire?
Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle. The exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.
-
"With regard to Khan, I'm not sure where you are coming from. If you are thinking that you have "copyright" just because the photographer took photos of "your products" I think that you are a bit mis-informed."
We had a contract which said that I got the copyright oft the pictures. ;)
With regards to the photo industries:
I think that there is nothing stable outside there; everything is changing fast. Look at the travel agents 15 years ago and today. Or look at the company which produce the blackberry phone (RIM). They had really good times and now they are almost broke. And I am convinced that GI needs the extortion letters to survive.
-
"With regard to Khan, I'm not sure where you are coming from. If you are thinking that you have "copyright" just because the photographer took photos of "your products" I think that you are a bit mis-informed."
We had a contract which said that I got the copyright oft the pictures. ;)
With regards to the photo industries:
I think that there is nothing stable outside there; everything is changing fast. Look at the travel agents 15 years ago and today. Or look at the company which produce the blackberry phone (RIM). They had really good times and now they are almost broke. And I am convinced that GI needs the extortion letters to survive.
Well that's good then so this was a case of "work for hire". Good for you, bad for the photographer with regard to future royalties.
-
Hi Khan, I hope that I have interpreted your statement correctly.
However, "Copyright Ownership" isn't based on the "type" of photos or "subject matter" in the photos.
It's based on the contract that you have with your photographer.
Again, if the photographer simply works as a consultant, he'd own the copyrights.
If he's on your payroll as an "employee", your company would own the copyright.
But, you may choose to write up any contract that you choose; this would supercede the above.
"Trademark Infringement" may come into play with some photos, but that's something different.
S.G.
-
"With regard to Khan, I'm not sure where you are coming from. If you are thinking that you have "copyright" just because the photographer took photos of "your products" I think that you are a bit mis-informed."
We had a contract which said that I got the copyright oft the pictures. ;)
Not trying to be a hard ass or anything...but...
Did he specifically provide any sort of form transferring the copyright to you? or was it just in the contract...just like a contract which would be separate, it would need to be signed and dated by both parties...
::edit:: something similar to this as I can't find my pdf that I use.
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/copyrightinc.pdf
-
No problem.
It was def. the copyright. In this case I needed the copyright.
-
wut?
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/8159/reactionwut132105543814.jpg
S.G.