Getty Images Director of Corporate Counsel Lisa Willmer Hosts YouTube Video

[Matthew Chan]

In a recent YouTube search, I discovered that Getty Images has launched their own educational YouTube Channel.

Most interesting and worth watching is Getty Images Director of Corporate Counsel, Lisa Willmer host Getty Image's educational video: . I think the video is worth watching and commenting on.

While I don't have an axe to grind with any particular photographer, I can honestly say that the best thing to do is to just stay away from the stock photo industry. No one needs the brain damage that thousands of letter recipients have received as far as I am concerned.  

Personally, I think many photographers are naive and will not change their revenue model. They are so lost in their "art", they refuse to acknowledge the new world of digital cameras and the new world of business. I won't support an outdated model and old mindset.

Vote with your feet and run away and avoid this nonsense. I would much rather spend my money on my camera equipment and take your own photos. Or find a local photographer and make a work-for-hire arrangement. Until they stop this nonsense of extorting people or at least become more reasonable in their tactics, count me out.

Read the article I wrote over a year ago about How to Stop Using Stock Photos and Boycott the Stock Photo Industry.

Share your thoughts in this thread.

[Helpi]

Staying away from the stock photo agencies isn't going to solve your issues.  You didn't use a stock agency. Or at least a reputable one. If you had you would have had a license. You would have shut Getty down with one letter.

Let's be clear. What got you into this was using a photo for which you didn't have authorization from the copyright owner. It's as simple as that. All the rest is noise about what the law should be, what the remedies should be, whether Getty has standing, proof issues, defenses, strategy, costs etc...

So to avoid "this nonsense" (which I'll take to mean getting letters from people purporting to own the copyright and threatening you with infringement), you have to not use photographs on your website that you don't have permission to use. And if you're going to acquire images you should deal with reputable businesses and keep good records. Just like you would in any other aspect of your business.

Yes, you can take them yourself, hire someone or use a stock agency among other solutions.

The taking them yourself. Well everyone has to decide how important images are. As for pro verse stock.  There are obviously a bunch of issues including cost. It's very hard to beat the stock photos on a cost basis.

But I think you know everything I wrote. You like ranting.  So here is something you may enjoy more then my comments:

http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/infringement/

[Matthew Chan]

Using your words, let's be clear. It doesn't look like you read my story very carefully. And if you did read it , you clearly didn't get my message.

I didn't lift any photos. My website banner designer in India did. It never occurred to me they would do something so blatant or that I would have to tell anyone I hire to not engage in copyright infringement activities.  And even if I did make an innocent mistake (which it would have been), I would have very much like a "cease and desist" letter or some more "reasonable" dollar. The problem would have been solved quickly.

I understand your point of view. Believe it or not, I do understand how to "prevent" myself from getting into trouble going forward.  Having said that, you reap what you sow. It meant if Getty Images were more reasonable, it would have been so easy to take care of it and no drama. This website would have never existed. I would never have done research to eventually meet Oscar. Oscar would not become the advocate he is today. All of this came about by their actions. I chose not to sit around and be victimized or threatened.

Also, Getty Images is not the only stock photo company doing this. Nearly every major stock photo industry is partaking on this. Many photographers are supportive of their actions. Hence, I see no point to financially support any of the stock photo companies. I am fairly certain others feel that way and my article provides some solutions and work-arounds.

Fortunately, I am creative enough to find ways around stock photos.

You may think I am "ranting" but I stand by what I say and I back it up. I don't do it anonymously.  People know where I stand.

I built this website from nothing so that other letter recipients would become more educated on the issue and equalize the argument. This website was not intended for the opposing sides view.  Anyone can take the opposing side's view but this website and forum is the wrong place for it. I tell them go find their own corner of their the Internet and rally their own support.

There is no question where I or website stand on the matter.

MatthewC

[Oscar Michelen]

Helpi: I agree with Matt that you miss the main point of the thrust of this site and our position. It is the hard-line inflexible stance that the digital image warehouse take that we are against. When Masterfile comes down to a reasonable demand we settle. We have settled over 95% of our cases against them and Corbis at numbers that are fair and satisfactory to BOTH sides. If Getty were willing to do the same and I think they are getting to that point, then we will be able to resolve the Getty claims as well. Matt and I are both content producers in our regular lives and we would never support copyright infringement. And believe me if you look at most other "issue-driven" forums  you will see a lot more "ranting" than you see on this page.  Both of us stick to the facts and the issues and make arguments based on examination and analysis.  The fact is that in my opinion  Getty  is harming its reputation through this program by making insupportable settlement demands and by not caring how why or when a company obtained the image. If Getty was sincere that its main interest is in protecting its photgraphers' property they would have added content management information to protect its images and resolve once and for all where an image came from.  I could go on with other reasons why I feel their program will ultimately effect their reputation, but I wouldn't want you to accuse me of ranting

[Helpi]

You think I miss the main point and the thrust ?

I'll have to try harder.

[ewk]

Matt: I work for a publishing company and I think your article on not using stock photography is GREAT. It is really well written and gives web site operators some helpful ideas on how to do handle themselves. You are also correct that the old days of photography are gone. You do not need high resolution images taken with expensive cameras for the Internet. Many people can take these photos. Many Getty images are NOT that special. Why take the risk?