Haters

[stinger]

Nicely written, danaisle  http://wp.me/p1S8Jh-1F

And you are completely correct April, that the difference between you and them is that you keep looking forward, you know your business, and you have confidence in the fact that you can adapt with the changing terrain.

But wait, isn't that the difference between a winner and a loser?

[cmeskee]

Explain what exactly you did.  Did you go to www.gettyimages.com, browse their image gallery, decide you liked an image they had for sale, then purposely use the image without paying for it? 

Or, are there extenuating circumstances that led to your "inadvertent" theft of a Getty Images image?

I'm from the camp that sees these things in the really dark grey and off-white-to-white shades (black and white..ish) more often than not, but I'd be willing to hear your case.  More than likely however, I'd side with Getty unless you can really definitively show you didn't try to steal from them.  I hate thiefs, that part I can say.

Explain why you shouldn't have to pay for an image they paid someone to acquire for the express purpose of making available for sale?  They are a business, in the business of selling rights to use images from their bank of images.  They can't just give their images away...

[Matthew Chan]

cemskee,

FYI, you are in "hostile" territory here on this website. That doesn't mean you can't post or participate here. It also doesn't mean you can't disagree with us.

Having said that, I don't think you are in any position to ask anyone to "explain" themselves. You can ask nicely the circumstances or the motivation of the alleged infringement. But for a newbie to come here and start barking up the "theft" analogy and demanding explanations from anyone is a bit presumptuous.

[cmeskee]

It's fine Mr. Chan, I don't think I'll be back.  You all can go back to your regularly scheduled complaining about getting caught stealing. 

I'm pretty sure I called an ace an ace and you called it a round-cornered spade in the size and color of a playing card, which is obviously totally different, I understand.

What I don't really understand is why you're defending the actions of thieves, but that's not for me to worry about.  Please go back to your thievery, err I mean "righteous fight against the big bad evil man's extortion).  It's okay for you to steal - the rest of us will pick up the slack and pay more for our images...

[Matthew Chan]

I don't simply complain or bitch & moan.  I strategize, educate, and implement action plans.

I call it "legalized extortion" and "copyright extortion" and have done so for 4 years now.

I help others defend against extortion letters because I like kicking tail, mocking extortionists, and make their lives miserable in general.  I educate others on legal issues and self-representation when I really get bored.

[SoylentGreen]

cemskee,

When you were employed by Getty, did they go by word of law (using words like infringement), or did Getty go by the concept of "theft" (a criminal act)?

That is, do you personally feel that this is "theft" under law, or is this a construct that Getty goes by?

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

cemskee, if you read the thread and follow the links, you will see the explanation has been given. The explanation is simple and clear:

The image was taken with a personal iPhone and it was apparently similar enough to something in the Getty catalog to trigger a false positive.

Does that change your mind about danaisle? What would YOU do if you were in her place?