ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: ECA317 on February 03, 2015, 03:54:41 PM

Title: Is this a Defense???
Post by: ECA317 on February 03, 2015, 03:54:41 PM

One of the reasons I refuse to give in to the ridiculous demands of Getty is that they have lost a lawsuit brought by a photographer because they distributed his photographs without his permission.

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/23/daniel-morel-awarded-1-2m-damages-law-suit-afp-getty-images/

Because of this situation I would think that Getty would need to provide proof that they owned the rights to image at the time of the supposed infringement.  Would this seem reasonable in court?

Also, is anyone aware of any other lawsuits similar to the Daniel Morel case??  If so please post.

Title: Re: Is this a Defense???
Post by: ECA317 on February 03, 2015, 03:57:14 PM

I also found this one: http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-images-aef-lose-photographer-lawsuit

Title: Re: Is this a Defense???
Post by: Matthew Chan on February 03, 2015, 04:09:10 PM

The Morel case is an exceptional out of the norm case. Getty was clearly on the defense there.  It's funny to watch them make the same arguments that their victims make when they are on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

Getty generally doesn't sue.  But once in a while they will make a "show of force" and file a few lawsuits to scare the ignorant.

A lot has been discussed on Getty here in these forums. You just need to put in the time and read several of the threads to get educated for what is truly going on and the defenses.