No enforceable copyright and acquiescence

[stcrim]

I have a friend caught up in the scam and was wondering if anyone has ever taken the time to see it Getty actually has registered copyrights?  They can not legally enforce a copyright belonging to someone else.

I know of a somewhat larger case where a company wanted hundreds of thousands of dollars for photos but was forced to drop it because they didn’t have registered copyrights.

Also, has anyone ever check to see if the free sites that give these pictures away can be traced back to Getty?

And, if Getty doesn’t go after the free sites doesn’t that fall under “acquiescence” barring them from enforcing any rights they may have?

My friend got his photos straight from Ford Motor Company, free for all Ford websites.  Getty has no interest in Ford, that also should be acquiescence, shouldn’t it?

-s-

[Lettered]

My understanding after lots of reading. I'm no lawyer, this is just my layman understanding:

None of these things make copyright unenforceable (though some substantially lower HOW MUCH you can be successfuly sued for):

-prior registration,
-the fact that you got the image from a third party,
-lack of copyright markings,
-lack of cease and desist warnings.
-ignorance of the fact that image was violating someone's copyright

Very few of Getty images are registered.  That doesn't mean that they cannot enforce the copyright and sue you for damages.  All they have to do is register the image before they bring a suit.  Whether or not it was registered before unauthorized use makes no difference in whether they can sue.

Photogaphers grant Getty the right to pursue claims to their copyright.  This apparently works as Masterfile does this frequently. Getty has done this too, just not as often as Masterfile.

If the image isnt registered before the violation occured, then only "actual damages" can be awarded.  "Actual damages" is typically the market price for use of the image(s) in question (assuming you weren't reselling the image(s)).  This is very good news as attorney fees and statutory damages arent awarded in this case. Note that Getty seems to disagree with this as they ask for much more than the market price for licensing of their infringed images.

Even in the case of previously registered images, the judge can substantially lower statutory damages if the infringement wasn't willful (meaning you didnt know you were infringing and can prove it).

Bottom line, in my opinion, is to not worry about whether Getty can sue you (they absolutely can) ... but try to determine how much they could really recover from you if they did.  

Hope I got all that right.  Someone please correct me if not.

[Oscar Michelen]

Right on the money lettered!! I would add that Getty has sued no more than a handful of times since 2004 when they started this program

[stcrim]

Any opinion on Getty bating people with free picture websites being a form of acquiescence?    It's like a fireman setting the building on fire so he can put it out.  Some good attorney general would have a heyday with this.

My friend got the picture directly from Ford Motor Company with their blessing to use it on Ford websites from Ford's private archive.  That's like giving someone your car and them calling the police because your car was stolen.

-s-

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Just my 2 cents worth... Just because the image came directly from Ford , doesn't mean that Ford did not license the image, and have legal permission to use such image. However this doesn't mean that Ford can turn around and say "sure you can use the image" as it's not theirs to give away, they only have a licence to use the image. As web developer if I want to use the same image on 2 completely different project I would need to seperate licences for each project.

[stcrim]

It states clearly in Ford's assets bin that Ford holds the copyright.

-s-

[stcrim]

In my opinion, the issue here is how they are getting the pictures into the hands of their unsuspecting copyright infringers!!!

There has to be a problem with freely distributing images to places they know will spread them around, then pouncing on the people who use them, I would think.

All of my thoughts on this issue are simply my opinion since I'm not a lawyer.  Can anyone verify?

-s-

[Lettered]

stcrim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my opinion, the issue here is how they are
> getting the pictures into the hands of their
> unsuspecting copyright infringers!!!
>
> There has to be a problem with freely distributing
> images to places they know will spread them
> around, then pouncing on the people who use them,
> I would think.
>
> All of my thoughts on this issue are simply my
> opinion since I'm not a lawyer.  Can anyone
> verify?
>
> -s-

I have always suspected something similar to this.  
1) Are they purposefully creating widescale pilfered content so that they can send out more demand letters?
2) Did they accidentally create widescale infringement with sloppy copyright protection, and then decide to keep being sloppy when they saw how much unauthorized use had been generated and realized how much revenue could be generated with demand letters?
2) Why aren't their images watermarked?
3) Why were non-watermarked Getty images distributed with Microsoft Vista in a folder called "Public\Public Pictures\Sample Pictures"?  How many Vista users would assume they could use these pictures as they wished?
4) If they really wanted to attack the problem then why aren't they educating nonwillfull infringers (e.g. a one time warning to victims of unscrupulous web site developers) and focusing on suing willfull infringers (unscrupulous web site developers)?

It would thrill me to see Getty in court answering these types of questions under oath.

The whole thing has disgusted me so much that Ill never buy another image again from any company.  Canon now has all the money that I would have spent with Getty Images.

[Oscar Michelen]

There has always been talk and speculation about this and it would be very difficult and expensive to prove.  Getty (and the other image companies) are always careful and seem not to go after any very large companies.  They target small to midsize businesses that cannot spend big dollars to prove that they were innocent infringers never mind trying to prove that this is all a conspiracy.  It is very frustrating