Is is smart to contact the photographer about letters?

[gncnew]

I've found the original artist/photographer via their blog after getting a SuperStock letter.  Would it be smart to contact them as technically they're the infringed party?  My thoughts where that I could work with them and mitigate the entire issue instead of dealing with the thugs.

[Matthew Chan]

That was one possible strategy that I had planned to use but never got around to it. I wanted to find out the photographer's position on it and I did find him but never got further than that. There is no harm in trying to find out. It shows you cared enough to make an effort.

Matthew

[mackers74]

That was one possible strategy that I had planned to use but never got around to it. I wanted to find out the photographer's position on it and I did find him but never got further than that. There is no harm in trying to find out. It shows you cared enough to make an effort.

Matthew

I agree it shows that you cared enough to make an effort, but for me, sadly, the photographer does not/has not contacted me back.  At least I tried.

[Oscar Michelen]

Most photogs will not contact you back, at best they  will refer you to Getty which usually has the exclusive right to enforce the image's copyright.

[Helpi]

"Would it be smart to contact them as technically they're [photographer] the infringed party?"


If photographer entered into an agreement with Getty, for example, to allow Getty the exclusive right to license worldwide for display on the web for X years then photographer no longer owns those web display rights for X years. Getty does.

[Oscar Michelen]

Correct - it would not be the photographer's call  to make as he has normally assigned to Getty or MF the EXCLUSIVE right to enforce the copyright.

[SoylentGreen]

Hi Oscar,

Thanks so much for spending a good chunk of your busy Sunday answering questions and commenting on the forum.

Most people would agree that Getty has many exclusive agreements with photographers/artists.

However, I recently read a thread on the forum where "Getty Letter recipient" discovered that the image in question appeared on three other stock image sites as well.
Wouldn't this imply that Getty doesn't always have exclusivity in these matters, and that it's useful to check into these things before paying?

Or, have I misunderstood your point about "exclusive rights"?

Thanks,

S.G.

[Helpi]

SG, it's been explained to you several times. Normally I'd try to find some online source that explains it to you since you clearly don't trust anything I write but you're being a doosh today impugning my integrity so I'm in no mood to assist you. Once I get over it, which shouldn't take that long, maybe I will dig something up.

And how many times do you have to be told by anyone that no one should accept those letters at face value. If you're concerned about an actual letter you of all people need to speak to a lawyer.

[SoylentGreen]

Helpi,

I don't have any legal issues.  I cleared it up myself a while ago.
It didn't cost me anything, but I sent a few buck's Matt's way to help support the forum.

People are starting to see that you aren't who you say that you are, Helpi.  You're not an attorney.
I noticed how Oscar had to explain to you that you cannot collect statutory damages for unregistered images in this thread as follows:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2139.0.html
"Helpi - you only get atty's fees if the work was registered prior to infringement. But if the work was registered, then attorneys fees are a real deterrent."

So, please don't assume that I require, or even desire your "legal advice" here.

Buy the way, the word is "douche".  It's French for "shower".

S.G.

[Helpi]

"People are starting to see that you aren't who you say that you are, Helpi.  You're not an attorney."

Oscar, Cuomo LLC should be so proud of this site. The quality of the posts. Maybe Cravath will set one up next.

[theisgroup]

Correct - it would not be the photographer's call  to make as he has normally assigned to Getty or MF the EXCLUSIVE right to enforce the copyright.

just trying to clarify here. i understand assigning the exclusive right to license, but the exclusive right to enforce? does that mean that the photog assign his copyright to Getty? if so, tnat would mean Getty owns the copyright the images? or are you saying that Getty will try and proceed with enforcement, but at the point of filing suite, it would be actually be the photog filing suite against you?

[Helpi]

"just trying to clarify here. i understand assigning the exclusive right to license, but the exclusive right to enforce? does that mean that the photog assign his copyright to Getty? if so, tnat would mean Getty owns the copyright the images? or are you saying that Getty will try and proceed with enforcement, but at the point of filing suite, it would be actually be the photog filing suite against you?"

(1)  "copyright" is not a single right.  It is a collection rights. And the rights may be carved up and subdivided as to time and place. For example, you can transfer the right to display on the web for 1 year. You would retain the remainder of the right to public display as well as the rest of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner.

(2) You can't assign the right to sue by itself. By statute, the right to sue attaches solely to a copyright owner. 

(3) An assignment of one or more of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner is a transfer of copyright ownership.

(4) An exclusive license is also a transfer of copyright ownership. This may be tripping you up.

(5) It follows from (4) that an exclusive licensee has the right to sue to the extent of the exclusive license. Following the example, the exclusive licensee would have the right to sue you if you displayed the image on the web during the relevant one year period of their license. If you infringed any other right they would not have the right to sue you.

(6) So, Getty if it has an exclusive license (and no other agreement carving out the right to sue from the license or control litigation) would be the one that could sue you. Not the photographer. 

(7) Note the use of the word exclusive. A non-exclusive licensee does not have the right to sue.

[SoylentGreen]

Helpi,

Thanks, I know all of that.

My point was simply that Getty doesn't have exclusive rights in every instance.
When multiple stock image companies are selling the same photo (in addition to Getty), that might show that Getty doesn't own it exclusively.
In fact, Oscar said that Getty sheepishly admitted that they didn't have exclusive rights to the image, and backed off.

If you feel that Getty has exclusive rights in every single instance, that's your opinion.
It's just so unfortunate that you've told the readers here that you're an attorney to imply that you're an expert, in order to advise readers of the forum to pay Getty without questioning anything.  It's a shame.

S.G.

[Helpi]

SG,

It wasn't addressed to you.

Please stop attributing remarks to me I never said.

""If you feel that Getty has exclusive rights in every single instance, that's your opinion."
"in order to advise readers of the forum to pay Getty without questioning anything."

[Katerina]

It is getting hot here! I think everyone should stop fighting each other about who said what and to the address of whom. We all are here for a different purpose - try to share the information and experience, to discuss, educate and try to help "victims" of "legalized extortion". Don't forget it.
So, please calm down.
We all have opinions, and we all have rights for this. There are as many opinions as many people in the world. So, please respect each other. If you do not agree, just say that you do not agree and explain why, and that's it. This forum carries informative function.  Besides, there is no right or wrong opinion, it all depends on each particular situation.
The law has a lot of gaps in it, and there are some "grey areas", which can be read in different ways by parties. Am I right?
So, please calm down here.