ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on July 30, 2012, 08:56:06 AM
-
I'm trying to get my hands on an actual contract from 2012, in the meantime I'll ask the community to dissect and comment on this agreement from April of 2011. Getty continually suggest they cannot provide information due to a confidentiality agreement, which has prompted me to look around a little bit...
Note that this document states that Getty in incorporated in the State of New York, it may be beneficial going forward to submit complaints to the Attorney General in EVERY state Getty is licensed to do business in addition to Washington.
There will be new threads concerning complaints, that will cover such topics as:
what to include, who to send to, what NOT to do, the overall process from start to finsh, etc...
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/2011%20contributor%20agreement%20v.4.0%20(d)%20sample-english.pdf (http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/2011%20contributor%20agreement%20v.4.0%20(d)%20sample-english.pdf)
We'll get this document added to library ASAP, since it appears sometime when we post certain item they seem todis-appear rather quickly. ::)
-
Thanks for posting this, Buddhapi.
This is a sample of one of their "exclusive agreements", I guess?
"1.1 License Grant to Getty Images: You grant Getty Images a worldwide, exclusive right to market and sublicense the right to copy, reproduce, display, transmit, broadcast, modify, alter, create derivative works of and publish the whole or part of any Content (as defined below) that you submit to Getty Images."
Their limitations on liability:
2.3 Limitation of Liability.
...liability is imposed on Getty Images for any of these reasons, in no event shall Getty Images’ liability exceed US$10,000 in the aggregate.
Do we have any of the agreements that were used in the Advernet case?
S.G.
-
Clause 1.1
1.1 License Grant to Getty Images: You grant Getty Images a worldwide, exclusive right to market and sublicense the right to copy, reproduce, display, transmit, broadcast, modify, alter, create derivative works of and publish the whole or part of any Content (as defined below) that you submit to Getty Images.
I agree with S.G. This would seem to me to be about as close to the transfer of an "exclusive license" as we are going to get. The document isn't signed by either party, and it doesn't mention any specific images.
The fact that the document isn't signed seemed to be of importance to the judge in the Advernet case, but he didn't use this reason alone to rule that Getty had not proved ownership of the exclusive license for 27 of the images.
Wojtczak testified that the Getty Images Contributor Agreement did “not have signatures. It is a digitally accepted agreement. The contributor signed via our online contributor contract portal.” The following ensued:
THE COURT: And where, if anywhere, does a representative form Getty execute, sign the document, digitally or otherwise?
THE WITNESS: You know, I'm not entirely familiar with where in the process that happens. All I know is the contributor agrees to the terms at the time of submission, and from that moment the contract becomes viewable as that contributor having a revised agreement, essentially. Any contributor that has not entered into the newer Getty Images contributor agreement as of yet, when viewing their information, when I went in to look for their contract, I could tell who—who had executed and who had not, but I am not familiar with the process in terms of the actual execution.
THE COURT: So you don't know if Getty representative executed the contributor agreement that is part of Exhibit 4 that you were discussing with me.
In light of the foregoing analysis of the plaintiff's claim that the images at issue are licensed exclusively to it, the Court finds that material issues of fact exist with respect to the plaintiff's copyright ownership interest in twenty-seven of the images at issue, as discussed above.
The fact that no specific image title is mentioned seems important to me. For example. if a photographer has 10,000 images in his entire collection, and has transferred only 1,000 of these images to Getty, what would there be to stop Getty from claiming the exclusive license for all the photographer's images? After all, the above agreement doesn't differentiate between or list specific images. Getty could claim to own the exclusive license of an image for which the photographer had transferred the exclusive license to another stock company.
Wouldn't the transfer of an exclusive worldwide license for a specific image have to include the identification ( title ) of that spefific image? After all, Getty uses these contracts to prove ownership of an exclusive license to specific images. If anyone is interested, I have a dozen or so real examples of these contracts ( sent by Getty to Marot Image). The name of the photographer is printed.
It's worth comparing the above contract with the form recommended by the copyright office for registering a copyright in the visual arts
http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formgr_va.pdf
It contains details such as the title of work, the date of creation, etc. These details are not included in the Getty contract.
-
In your hypothetical of a photog who submits 1,000 of his 2,000 images, this applies:
that you submit to Getty Images.
Using this wording, Getty only gains rights over the images submitted and has none over the images not submitted.
Getty may still have a problem however because some copyright holders may be very sloppy in their submissions and submit the same images several places. I don't know what happens in court if a defendant can show that the photographer granted exclusive licenses to multiple parties.
-
4.8 Confidentiality. “Confidential Information” means any information that is designated as confidential or, information that by its nature or circumstances of disclosure would reasonably lead a recipient to believe that it is confidential. Confidential Information of Getty Images includes art direction and information posted on the Contributor Website as well as any username/password issued to you to access the Contributor Website and any other restricted online areas. Confidential Information of you includes your earnings. A Party that receives Confidential Information (the “Receiving Party”) from the other Party (the “Disclosing Party”), agrees not to disclose such Confidential Information to any third party or use any of the Confidential Information except as necessary to perform its obligations under the Agreement. The Receiving Party agrees to return all Confidential Information to the Disclosing Party upon request. If a Receiving Party is required by a competent legal authority to disclose Confidential Information, the Receiving Party shall provide the Disclosing Party with prompt notice prior to disclosure so that the Disclosing Party may seek judicial protection. The Receiving Party may also share Confidential Information with its professional advisers under an obligation of confidentiality for the purpose of obtaining professional advice
First: It does seem Getty can't disclose the photographers full earnings. But presumably, each photographer may have numerous photos. So it's not clear to me that Getty cannot disclose the amount collected for a specific image. Lawyers would have to tell me how to interpret that.
That said, it appears that they can disclose information "as necessary to perform it's obligations under the Agreement". It seems to me that demanding penalties for copyright violations is one of Getty's obligations under the agreement, as is negotiating the amount of the penalty. So, I would think they can reveal how much is collected of that photo during negotiations about a penalty. Once again: I need an attorney to say for sure.
I certainly don't see how the confidentiality agreement precludes Getty either a) showing anyone the contract itself, b) showing anyone the records proving a copyright owner had entered the contract or c) showing indicating the person who signed the contract submitted the image -- even though that is probably just an entry in a database.
-
This "sample" (see the "sample" watermark) agreement has been online for quite a while.
I recall that a person claiming to be a "lawyer" tried to use this to reinforce the "Getty has only exclusive agreements" angle on ELI.
I think that Getty keeps this on-line in order to give the impression that all of its contracts are similar to this.
S.G.
-
This "sample" (see the "sample" watermark) agreement has been online for quite a while.
I recall that a person claiming to be a "lawyer" tried to use this to reinforce the "Getty has only exclusive agreements" angle on ELI.
I think that Getty keeps this on-line in order to give the impression that all of its contracts are similar to this.
S.G.
Which is EXACTLY why I want the real McCoy...a recent one..and I WILL get one...man on a mission!
-
I'm eagerly awaiting...!
There may well be some agreements similar to this.
They're probably few and far between, however...
So, I know that you're looking for the ones that represent the majority of the actual agreements.
Maybe somebody that's disgruntled with Getty will send one over, and the team can redact any personal info?
...like I said... can't wait Buddhapi!!
S.G.
-
It would be nice to see "Exhibit 4" from the Getty vs Advernet case.
That contains the redacted copies of contributor agreements related to the case.
S.G.
-
This should be available in the public record...i'll have a look at pacer and report back first chance I get.
It would be nice to see "Exhibit 4" from the Getty vs Advernet case.
That contains the redacted copies of contributor agreements related to the case.
S.G.
-
Which is EXACTLY why I want the real McCoy...a recent one..and I WILL get one...man on a mission!
I have a few real ones from 2011. Robert, I will e-mail one to you if you like. You know where to find me!
-
I think that it's a given that you should send what you have to Buddhapi, Scraggy!!
That would be great!!
S.G.
-
He told me he sent it, but it might not get here, as I have israel blocked..he'll have to send it thru a proxy. In the meantime I'm going to pacer to get exhibit#4 if i can.
I think that it's a given that you should send what you have to Buddhapi, Scraggy!!
That would be great!!
S.G.
-
Funny when I was writing my reply to Getty's response to the BBB complaint I filed I was going to reference and quote their own contributor agreement but for some reason you only get this now.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/ng80ee.jpg)
Has the original made it to Scribd for viewing and reference?
Funny how lil ol' ELI can embarrass and make big ol' global Getty and make them hide stuff when you call them out on it.
-
Yeah, that's "odd" that shortly after referring and commenting on it it disappeared...just so happens, they left this link intact for us to continue using
https://contribute.gettyimages.com/olc/agreement_form/sample_agreement
when they remove/change this one I guess I'll be forced to upload it to scribd, which I'll do anyway...If nothing else it appears Lisa Wilmer or someone at Getty is visiting us on a regular basis..
-
Much Getty butthurt detected.
I don't see what the point is of taking it down.
But, whatever makes them feel better.
S.G.
-
I'll bite, their BS complaint response form letter states that they cannot provide the complainant with proof due to confidentiality agreements between Getty and the artist but the user agreement says that they can provide confidential information when necessary to uphold the contract which lucia called them out on. At least that's the way I interpret the way that paragraph reads. Trying to settle a case quickly could be done by providing this information but it just shows that Getty isn't really interested in protecting their artist's rights as they are in trying to grab money they are not entitled to.
Much Getty butthurt detected.
I don't see what the point is of taking it down.
But, whatever makes them feel better.
S.G.
-
In addition to what Greg said, they don't want us "non-legal" types to rip apart their agreement, nor do they want ELI linking to it, thus using their bandwidth, altho this seems fine for picscout to steal our bandwidth...
I can visualize Lisa Wilmer sitting at her desk for yet another day, then going home to whomever..
whomever: how was you day dear?
Lisa: oh just another day in the trenches, sending out extortion letters and dealing with those thorns in my side at ELI. They just won't seem to go away..
Much Getty butthurt detected.
I don't see what the point is of taking it down.
But, whatever makes them feel better.
S.G.
-
Yeah it really sucks when the non-legal types can rip apart your contracts let alone what the legal types do to them. I wish Getty v Advernet could have played out to end. Just saying. ;)
In addition to what Greg said, they don't want us "non-legal" types to rip apart their agreement, nor do they want ELI linking to it, thus using their bandwidth, altho this seems fine for picscout to steal our bandwidth...
I can visualize Lisa Wilmer sitting at her desk for yet another day, then going home to whomever..
whomever: how was you day dear?
Lisa: oh just another day in the trenches, sending out extortion letters and dealing with those thorns in my side at ELI. They just won't seem to go away..
Much Getty butthurt detected.
I don't see what the point is of taking it down.
But, whatever makes them feel better.
S.G.
-
BuddhaPi, did you just pre-release the idea for your next meme?
Or were you asking one of us to put the thorns in Lisa Wilmer's sides?
Just asking.
-
I don't think I need to ask to put thorns in Lisa Wilmers' side, the community tends to that on it's own when deemed necessary, or at least I do. I also never mentioned the neme..you did!
BuddhaPi, did you just pre-release the idea for your next meme?
Or were you asking one of us to put the thorns in Lisa Wilmer's sides?
Just asking.
-
I guess that at this point, we can all agree that payment is "optional".
They ask for too much in their settlements, so less people are taking that above "option", though.
S.G.