Screengrabs lack of credibility??

[SoylentGreen]

The problem with attempting to invalidate Picscout's evidence in court is that Getty would spend millions to defend it.
Picscout is Getty's bread and butter, and a strike against it would cost Getty dearly.

It's probably cheaper and simpler to fight Getty on standing (they don't own the rights to much of their collection).

S.G.

[Lettered]

. . .
Does this constitute reasonable doubt that the image was ever on Joe's website at all?

I think it's important to remember that the large majority (almost all?) of these cases are civil.  That means that the standard of proof required is not "Reasonable Doubt", but rather "Preponderance of Evidence" which loosely means "more likely to be true".  Also you can be compelled to testify against your own interests.

Assuming that you did indeed have the image on your website, I really think that insisting that they provide more proof that the image was on your website is a waste of time, with the possible exception of cases where the image was hotlinked and you can provide reasonable proof of that.

I agree with SG, and I think that other defenses (lack of standing, amount of demand, SOL, etc) would be a better focus of time and resources.

I'm no lawyer, thats just my layman's understanding.

[lucia]

. . . Otherwise they can't demonstrate the image was hosted by the person they are suing . . .

I think that this would be easily accomplished by asking that person under oath (deposition or trial). In most cases where infringing pictures were used in a website design, anyway.  You might have a few that honestly don't know, but  even then, I think an "I don't know" answer would raise a few eyebrows to say the least.  If it was indeed hotlinked and you know it, thats another story . . . in which case I think it would become important that Getty could not prove otherwise.

Lettered--
I don't disagree with you.  I think the issue of whether Getty has sufficient evidence that the person they are suing hosted the image only becomes relevant if the person sued denies hosting the images and would deny hosting the image under oath.  But 3rd party evidence in favor of ones position is always useful.

If someone was sued, said the person sued when questioned under oath answered they did not host the image  and Getty has no archived html to contradict the defendants testimony, Getty has no case. If beyond that the person being sued has 3rd party evidence showing the image was not hosted-- Getty's case is in the toilet.  (I can't image they'd sue in such a case. But if it's brought up as a hypothetical, I think if they did, they would lose. As they should. )

[SoylentGreen]

Further to Lucia's comments, I think that the strongest position to be in is as follows.
It's probably best that the alleged infringer could produce the website code to show that he/she didn't host the content on their server.
If one attends court without such supporting evidence and the plaintiff says, "yes it resides on the server", but the defendant says, "no it doesn't", then the judge has to make guess as to whom is most credible.
That can be unpredictable.  But, I do think that with such evidence on hand, one probably wouldn't be sued in any event.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I would find it remarkable if GI DIDN'T copy the HTML source code behind the page at the same time they documented the image on the page. But who knows? The way they go about these things seems to be so reckless and half-assed that nothing should surprise me.

But I'm with SG, Lettered, et al: Other defenses like lack of standing and possibly amount of demand is a better focus of time and resources. That is unless you really were hot-linking the image.

[lucia]

I would find it remarkable if GI DIDN'T copy the HTML source code behind the page at the same time they documented the image on the page. But who knows? The way they go about these things seems to be so reckless and half-assed that nothing should surprise me.

Not doing so would be half-assed. By the same token, they went after me for hot-linking.  So, either a) they either don't have the html or don't look at it , b) they are not aware of the existing court rulings or c) they don't care and figure, "What the heck? maybe we can scare the money out of her anyway."

But I'm with SG, Lettered, et al: Other defenses like lack of standing and possibly amount of demand is a better focus of time and resources. That is unless you really were hot-linking the image.

I agree with this. "You have no evidence I hosted the image" is useful only if in addition the defendant is denying the claim and can truthfully answer "No I didn't host that image".

[Oscar Michelen]

Recall that archive.org and other sites exist that could establish the actual screenshot at a particular point in time. Also, the sites own information could show when and how images were uploaded so it should not be so hard to show that this screenshot is a fake. Not only is Lettered correct IMO that the focus should be on damages, but these companies have plenty of fish to trawl for without having to fake websites.