ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on October 12, 2011, 07:24:15 PM
-
Oscar Michelen wrote a blog post regarding Getty Images getting a taste of its own medicine.
http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2011/10/makers-of-pine-tree-deodorizers-allowed-to-proceed-with-lawsuit-against-getty-images/
Here is the complaint on Scribd.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/67629206/Decision-Tree-Freshner-Getty
Enjoy.
Matthew
-
Imagine that! Maybe some other companies will jump on this as well...
-
Any chance the judge handling this case would accept a letter detailing Getty's ongoing extortion program so he could consider their actions when assessing penalties, etc against them? Might shine some light on this whole Getty Extortion Letter scheme.
-
Here is the complaint on Scribd. Quite long to go through.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/67629206/Decision-Tree-Freshner-Getty
Matthew
-
Perhaps a quick email to the legal depts. of other well known companies, bringing this to their attention is in order... Getty's library has plenty of images showing other trademarks, logo, etc... I wonder how Happy Coca Cola would be to know that Getty accepts images containing their logo, then sells the images??
-
Maybe they should sue Masterfile also! Find this in their catalogue....
http://www.masterfile.com/em/search/#session=1318606408670&id=1318606408140&color=&colour_key=0&format=hvsp&keyImage=&keyword=pine+tree+scent&license=ALL&mode=search&sort=alice
-
Whoa, what a concept. I know Coca-Cola can be protective of their trademark but I wonder if they have a record of actually enforcing copyrights through litigation. If they do, there could be mind-blowing consequences against Getty.
I bet they are going to relook at all of their photos again.
Matthew
Perhaps a quick email to the legal depts. of other well known companies, bringing this to their attention is in order... Getty's library has plenty of images showing other trademarks, logo, etc... I wonder how Happy Coca Cola would be to know that Getty accepts images containing their logo, then sells the images??
-
Good blog post by Oscar.
I really get the irony of Getty getting into hot water over this.
But, in the greater scheme of things, imagine how vulnerable everyone is over any photo that we take, or anything that we say or write.
In today's terrible economic conditions, there's an attitude that everything must be "monetized".
However, the laws don't clearly define where infringement begins and ends in terms of modern communications.
Therefore, practically anything is up for argument, which means "court". Court is expensive, and that's used to force settlements.
It's like putting a photo of me driving my car onto my website that sells oil changes.
Then, having to pay Ford a license fee, or go to court. You know, "you're driving our car brand", and "your site makes money".
Or, having to pay thousands to the likes of Getty even if the site makes no money, as in a family website.
A statement in Oscar's article jumped out at me:
"The judge went on to state that Getty could also be responsible for allowing others to infringe on the plaintiff’s trademark by licensing the image for others to use commercially. The case will now proceed onto discovery, where Getty will likely have to show how many times and for how much money it sold or licensed images with those little trees in it."
Is Getty going to go after the end users that they licensed the images to if they haven't paid more for "legal protection" in their contract?
Refer to the link that Buddhapi posted recently:
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/blog/2010/05/17/getty-images-lauches-stockphotorights-com/
A quote from the article:
"Almost half of the respondents (48%) said they did not fully understand legal protection or indemnification, (the form of warranty where the image supplier agrees to bear liability and assume certain legal costs if a claim around the image arises). Almost 45% of respondents were unaware that you can still face a legal claim relating to an image you used, even if you license it. A mere 18% reported paying for legal protection when licensing an image. Even among respondents who understood that certain image licenses include legal protection, 26% said they have considered themselves at risk by sourcing an image which doesn’t include it."
So, end users should get ready for the possibility of many threatening letters from Getty/Deodorizer manufacturer if they don't have legal protection in their contract.
Or, heaven forbid, lost their receipt from Getty.
S.G.
-
Good point SG, I wonder if it will get to that
-
I wonder if GI has removed all of these images? I was thinking maybe I should run over and purchase them, then raise a fuss with GI when they loose this case, I could send them a letter demanding a full refund and a little extra for the aggravation of them selling me images they had no right to sell.. I could even "claim" I was contacted by the freshener company, and demand more and not show proof, tell them I can only show that when I sue them..
Just kidding of course I'm not one to stir the pot
-
Getty has certainly removed the images.
The other day, I was searching for news articles about the issue, and I accidentally came upon a Getty image of a car deodorizer in the shape of a hula dancer.
Even that's been removed now...
Yes, of course, by Getty's yardstick and methodology, one could 'claim' all manner of damages, without having to submit any proof.
Maybe next time? Lol.
S.G.
-
The court in this case recently denied almost all of Getty's motion to dismiss dismissing only one small part of plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff had claimed that Getty should be responsible for the photographer's use of the tree fresheners in their photographers (Vicarious liability) but the court said that it was GETTY and not the photographers who are placing the images in commerce and therefore violating the trademarks