New wording and interface on Getty's site

[scraggy]

Getty has changed its wording and its interface when purchasing Rights Managed Images.

Let’s take this image as an example:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/eye-46-high-res-stock-photography/102386149

Click on “View Pricing”

One reaches “Price a rights-managed image” interface

For “Image Usage” I selected “Web and App”, followed by “Web – Corporate and promotional site”, which includes “Commercial or promotional use on a website,”

I clicked NEXT, and chose size (low resolution), placement (secondary page), start date (today), duration (up to one month) and industry (Baby/Childcare).

I clicked NEXT, and reached “TARGET MARKET”. This is new! At this stage, the site used to ask:  “ In which territories will the image appear?” I never understood this question. Today you can click on the question mark, and receive an explanation of what is meant by “target market”. The explanation is as follows:

Territory

Choose one or more geographical regions in which your image will appear. If you are licensing for the web, select a territory that best represents the location of your primary audience. For example, if you're licensing for a company website that does a majority of its business in the US, Canada and United Kingdom, select those territories. If a territory is not listed, please call for a price quote.

One might expect that the location of one’s “primary audience” would determine the price.



Leaving all the above parameters the same, I chose the US, Canada and United Kingdom (a combined population of over 400 million people) as my “primary audience”. The licensing price was $315.

Then I chose ONLY the South Atlantic Ocean island of Saint Helena (which has a population of around 4,000 persons) as my “primary audience– the price was an unchanged $315!

Now I chose “select all”. Guess what? A bargain at $315

If the price is the same for any and or all target markets, then why bother asking??

As I have already stated on this forum, one price for Internet licensing makes perfect sense. The Internet is one territory, and cannot be divided into territories for the purposes of image licensing.

How can anyone be sure who are ones “primary audience”? Some sites may be multi-lingual, and be aimed at a worldwide audience. Many English language sites have a worldwide audience. With Google translate, language is no longer a barrier to potential audiences. Ones “primary audience” can also change on a monthly basis.

So why does Getty ask the above question? The answer, in my opinion, is a sinister one. It lies in this sentence  -

If a territory is not listed, please call for a price quote.

PLEASE CALL is a link that opens up a page with a local Getty representative.

Around 30 countries are missing from Getty’s list – among them  - China, The Czech Republic, Israel, Argentina, Greece, Russia, Turkey, Brazil and others.

Why are these countries missing from the list?

If one added these countries, would the pricing be any different? The above evidence would suggest not.

If an American purchases an image license from Getty for his Russian language website, is his license valid in Russia (a country missing from the list)? (No need to reply to this question – clearly no one will actually sue under these circumstances).

If an American has a web site in several languages, does his license from Getty cover the whole Internet?  Or does he need to purchase multiple licenses from multiple Getty representatives around the world? These are rhetorical questions!

If you are in one of these missing countries, and you click for a price quote, you reach the offices of a local Getty representative (not necessarily a Getty office) . For example, in Israel, you reach Marot Image. In the Czech Republic you reach ISIFA  and in Russia you reach Fotobank Biblioteka. There is a drop down list of countries.  Marot Images claims that they own the exclusive license because Israel is missing from the list, and only they can sell licenses for Israeli territory.

If they were right, then an American who purchases a license from Getty, would be violating Marot’s exclusive license if the primary audience were in Israel.

If as an Israeli, I have a web site whose primary audience is foreign tourists, then I can purchase the image directly from Getty! (This didn’t stop Marot from suing me!)

Getty’s question is absurd! Getty’s removal of 30 or so countries from the list of “primary audiences” is not only absurd, but it is also sinister. If the pricing is the same for an island of 4,000 people or for a continent of 400 million people, what possible explanation can Getty have? If Getty owns the “worldwide exclusive rights”, as is written in it agreements with photographers, why bother trying to create the illusion of territorial rights?

Sorry for the long post!
Ian

[SoylentGreen]

Great posting, Scraggy!!

However, the Internet is not a "territory".  It's not a geographical place.
The Internet, is in fact a "medium", much like television or radio.

You'll notice that demand letters and lawsuits are always between actual entities with physical addresses.
It's always "plaintiff of city/state/country" versus "defendant of city state country".
Legal procedures and thus decisions are then governed by the laws of each city/state/country, and the contracts/conventions between them.

The concept of actual territories is actually quite easy to understand, even if the actual content is broadcast on the Internet.
Assume for a moment that I'm a German national.  I can register my photograph with the Canadian copyright office.
My photo is now protected in Canada, and I'll do business there.
Next, I'll register it in the United States, then transfer all rights to a person named "John Smith".
Now, I control rights in the Canadian territory, and "John Smith" controls all rights in the American territory.

As an aside, one may write up a contract that says something to the effect of "I grant the rights for "John Smith" to stream my video on the Internet".
But, the Internet is still a medium of transmission.  In any dispute, the laws that apply correspond to those of the city/states/countries having to do with the residence of the deal-makers, and the city/states/countries wherein an infringement occurred.

More succinctly, the Internet is fact a network infrastructure, with the World Wide Web being a protocol to handle and route traffic.

As for Getty not selling images in some countries, it may be simply that they do not have the right to retail certain images in those places.
A different company may selling those images in such countries.  In any case, there's no onus on Getty to sell their images in every market.

S.G.

[Mulligan]

Ian, that post wasn't too long at all. It made for very good reading, as did SG's comments. Good stuff, both of you. Thanks.

For me, all of the hoops that Getty makes people jump through to license one of their images reveals the depths of their greed, as well as their lack of understanding of the Internet. They're going to complicate themselves right out of business one of these days with their various payment extraction models, and that will be a happy day for the world wide web.

[SoylentGreen]

I think that things are getting more complicated as everybody in the business seems to be getting more and more litigious.
In such an environment, the contracts get much more complicated as companies and people seek to protect themselves.
I'm sure that all this adds to the overhead costs of doing business.

All the more reason to buy royalty-free images and bypass all this.

S.G.

[scraggy]

Getty sells image rights to individuals from all countries, but supposedly not for use on Internet sites whose "primary audience" is in a country that doesn't appear on their list ( a third of the world! ). This is, of course,totally absurd! In my opinion, it's part of the Getty scam! Getty's licenses cover the world. If not, then website owners who purchased licenses would have to block a third of the world from viewing Getty's images!

[SoylentGreen]

I get the point that you're making...
Why would Getty ask about what country that an image will be used in, yet the audience that could see the pic would be "worldwide" if used on the Internet...
...It's a good point.

I hope that Getty's just asking this because they have to know which country/region that they're licensing into.

S.G.

[stinger]

I am still a little confused.  In Soylent's example, my multi-national company, with offices in the U.S. and Canada, can license the image in Canada for web use.

When John Smith, the U.S. rights holders sees the image in the U.S., he can threaten to sue me.  I can show him my Canada obtained license, but he can still threaten to sue me claiming that he has exclusive rights for the U.S.

As a decent, law-abiding customer, I am screwed.  Why would anyone want to deal with these issues?

[SoylentGreen]

I believe that the territories are based on where the rights owner can sell the image in question.
The concept of "infringement" is not necessarily based on where a person can "see" the image.

S.G.

[stinger]

So Soylent, what you are saying is that my license in Canada covers me in the U.S. even though John Smith, the U.S. owner of copyright rights, did not make a nickel on my use of the image?

Would John Smith agree?  What if the Canadian company undersold him?  Wouldn't he feel like his territory was being compromised by these Canadian licenses?  Would he harass me?  Would this make him want to become a troll to companies like mine that license the image elsewhere, but use it on the internet - where it is seen in his territory?

I just feel like the world needs one set of laws when it comes to the internet and all things digital.  Does anyone else agree?  Or have a better way to make this work for all partie?

[SoylentGreen]

I think that international copyright litigation is a bit beyond the scope of ELI, but that's just my personal opinion.

But, I'll give an example.  I have a Canadian company with a website.  I need some images.
I'll license some images from a retailer that owns the rights to sell to Canadian customers.
So long as the images were licensed to my company, I can use those on my website.
It doesn't matter if somebody in the USA or Poland can see the images on my website.
That's not an infringement.

Now, any disputes about pricing and territories are the sole concerns of the retailer(s), and rights-owner(s).
It doesn't have anything to do with the end user.  Any disputes would be a breach of contract situation between the retailer(s), and rights-owner(s).

Again, we shouldn't confuse a type of "media" with a "territory".

There will never be "world copyright law", just as there will never be "world government".

Like I said, all this is quite beyond the scope of ELI.

S.G.

[scraggy]

My opinion is that there can only be one exclusive license holder for images that are licensed for display on the Internet. Such a license would necessarily be worldwide because the Internet cannot be exclusively divided geographically.
 
For Getty, the home country of the purchaser is not a factor, only the "primary audience" of the website. ( As the price remains the same for whatever primary audience you choose, this is also not a relevant factor !! )
 
I believe that the local Getty representatives in the non listed countries are only local salesman selling Getty's product, but they don't own any exclusive license. Getty owns that! However, creating the illusion of a local owner of an exclusive license facilitates the ability to extort and sue local people.
 
 
I sent the following question to Getty's sales representative on 30 January 2012

If I buy an image for the net, I see that many countries are missing from the list - and some pretty big ones among them!! - such as China, South Africa and Russia!

Do I need to buy separate licenses for these countries, or will one license do the trick for everywhere?

Thanks for your time

I didn't think this would be so complicated!

Ian

His reply was as follows:

Hi Ian


You are right they are missing, but I can do it this end for you and cover it for World use, it’s a function only we have for some reason.


Kind Regards


Mark

So Getty has the worldwide license, and there is no genuine reason to send those whose primary audience is missing from the list to the local representative.

Ian

[SoylentGreen]

I don't think that there's any law that states that only one person can have exclusive rights for something that's on the Internet.

I went for a soak in the bathtub... now I'm back...
The best way to explain everything is as follows.

Assume that I'm making a website in Canada.  So, I license some images from a retailer has the right to sell to me in Canada.
Anyone, anywhere in the world can look at my webpage without infringing.
That includes me as the author of the webpage, and the person viewing the webpage in their web browser.
That's because, it's all "fair use". It's not an infringement for the servers to cache and transmit the web page.
Also, it's not an infringement for the end user's computer to cache the web page (including all images), and present it on-screen.

No infringement occurs at all.

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

Good points, everybody. The first thing that came to my mind is how I wouldn't pay $315 for the image even if it was for global rights and for the life of the website. There are a lot of less expensive alternatives if one MUST buy a stock image.

I think part of the intent of the form is to give themselves the air of being some kind of elite media source that sells to all kinds of huge media clients, so they pack their form with important sounding questions that are mostly irrelevant.

I don't see how Getty expects to enforce regional internet licensing boundaries if that's what they're up to. They won't even go to small claims here. At best it's a silly distinction to make, at worst their intention could be to create international "legal" trappings that sound viable on an extortion letter.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Just to be clear there is no "small claims court" for infringement  it's a federal deal.I think if small claims were an option, they would be more likely to harass people to go in front of Judge Judy.

[Moe Hacken]

Yes, Robert, I agree. I didn't mean to suggest a copyright claim could be heard in small claims court, thanks for clarifying that.

Since they seem to try a number of approaches to intimidate people into paying, it's plausible they could try threatening a small claim action when they shift tactics from treating the matter as a legal claim to handling it like a debt collection. Of course they won't even go there anyway. It appears their "debt collection" strategy doesn't have legs because of consumer protection laws.