Resolution of Getty v. Advernet (A blow to Getty & Stock photo companies)

[SoylentGreen]

Getty would never send anything to alleged infringers who requested proof of ownership.
So, it was kind of obvious that they never had the goods.  It was a sham from day one.

I would imagine that Getty went ahead with this lawsuit thinking that they'd win automatically because of the defendant's default.
A win would have put a lot of fear into all future Getty extortion letter recipients.
I guess that the money/stakes were high enough that the judge did a thorough inquest into the facts.

S.G.

[Khan]

I am new here and I am really impressed of all your work and knowledge. Since English is not my mother tongue please excuse my grammar and misspellings 

I am just curious about one point:

How does GI verify that he got the rights of the photos from the actual holder of the rights? For example: My father is a photographer and he does not like so sell his photos. Just in case I think this is a waste of money and I go and register in his name with GI and do the contract with them in his name. (We learned that they do not know their counterparts in person because all goes through their portal)

How do they insure that they are dealing with the correct person through their website?

Thank you much for your help

Khan

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Khan -- you bring up a good point. They don't know the photographer. At least if my experience with Getty's microstock company istockphoto is an indicator. The photographer is asked to digitally sign an agreement that they are the owner of the copyright to the image they are selling and they have to provide a bunch of contact information. But I do not believe they even asked if what I submitted was REGISTERED.

Perhaps they would contact the photographer before launching these lawsuit threats. But considering how shoddy all the other paperwork seems to be, I somehow doubt it.

[Matthew Chan]

In doing additional research for my upcoming "Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter" report, I revisited the Getty vs. Advernet case.  I re-read the decision.

I also went to PACER and downloaded the initial complaint, the docket, and Oscar's answer on behalf of his client to the complaint. I was especially interested in viewing Oscar's affirmative defenses.

I have uploaded the new documents into the new Getty Images vs. Advernet Lawsuits Collection on Scribd.

http://www.scribd.com/collections/3494705/Getty-Images-vs-Advernet-Lawsuit

[Khan]

I am working myself through the law language . Here comes my question regarding this text:

Wojtczak explained that Exhibit 3's category “Collection” is “the image collection that the image belongs to, on the Getty Images website” and category “Contract Company/Brand” is “thecontract detail for the original contract company or brand that the photographer first signed the agreement; the corresponding agreement date.” When asked by the Court “how one determinesthat a photographer gave rights to what is called a brand company or contract brand companyand then how those rights from the photographer come to Getty Images,” Wojtczak failed to respond;
 

In many cases the Stone Collection is involved. Do I read correct that the judge asked how the rights (iwere transferred to GI in case they buy a collection or stock company ? And that the Getty guy could not answer this?  So for example GI bought the Stone collection but the exclusive rights from the photographer are not automatically transferred to Getty ?  I am afraid I am missing something here.
Thank you very much for any comments

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This is how I read it, and I could be mistaken...

Getty buys the stone collection, but the rights for all of those images don't "come with the collection" unless the photographer transferred his copyright ( which is unlikely in regards to stock photo's)

asked where the signature from the photographer giving Getty the rights, goes un answered, because there is no signature, IMHO it looks like getty "assumed" as much.....DENIED

In this case I also find it interesting, that when a photographer comes on board with getty, they generally use the online process and digitally sign the contract, giving getty whatever rights...however if someone at Getty does not also sign and date this, it isn't a contract, as contracts have to be signed by both party's.. This was asked also , and the guy answering said "he didn't know"

[Khan]

Hm… O.k. Just in case we are correct: 
So GI bought the stone collection and that allowed them to sell the photos. But that did not allow them to go after copyright infringers for that they had to go to the photographer and ask for the transfer of the copyright.  Just create following situation:  They bought the collection in 2008. In 2009 they contacted the photographer and they got the copyright from the photographer. But they started in 2008 sending the letters to people who were using  photos of the stone collection. All of them took the pictures off their website in 2008 at once. Now Getty has no case against this people and cannot sue them. But the photographer could sue them because he owned the copyright in 2008.

Thank you very much for your input

[SoylentGreen]

Sorry to hijack the thread... was the Advernet case about the "Stone Collection"?

S.G.

[Khan]

Hello S.G. 
I used the Stone Collection just as an example since I come across a thread http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-and-the-stone-collection/   and I tried to use this info to draw a conclusion out of the facts we got from the court papers 
I hope this makes sense
Khan