ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Engel Nyst on September 05, 2016, 11:35:56 AM
-
A fairly interesting decision in Palmer/Kane LLC v. Rosen Book Works LLC, filed a few days ago. As the decision notes, Palmer/Kane licenses its stock photography through licensing agencies such as non-parties Corbis Corporation and Alamy Limited.
The first part of the decision discusses the ways in which Palmer/Kane was registering a bunch of images, and finds most of them unsufficient:
http://propertyintangible.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Palmer-Kane-LLC-v-Rosen-Book-Works-LLC.pdf
The main issue is that Corbis registered multiple images as once, and, when it did so, it didn't fulfill conditions for any of the two possibilities: (1) group registration of multiple individual works, or (2) registration of a compilation of individual elements/works.
Group registration has a bunch of details that have to be fulfilled, for it to be properly done, including in how long it is filed after publishing the works and others. Palmer/Kane, or its agent Corbis, now Getty, didn't fulfill those, and argued that it didn't need to, because it actually wanted to register the images as a compilation. But that doesn't work for a formal reason: copyright office requires such registration to specifically write to a field on the form, that it's a compilation..
Only a couple of images, out of 11, survive this step, and will be on trial for infringement. All the rest of images failed, for unsuitable registration.
-
Note:
The judge in this case is Rakoff, the judge that took over Highsmith case, as noted here (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/highsmith-v-getty-first-amended-complaint-was-filed/msg20301/#msg20301).
IOW, we have the opportunity to see first hand how he thinks in a stock images case. To me, it looks correct and very very to the most formal detail. Generally speaking, that's not necessarily the best thing - individual author would be held to the same -, but for trolls' cases, it most likely is.
-
Thanks to Engel Nyst for drawing out the order and opinion on the case. We rarely get that far with most of the case we deal with but it is interesting to see and read recent copyright cases and decisions elsewhere. Good stuff.