Getty: terminated

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Agreed, patent trolling is far more costly than copyright trolling and that is why congress has had several hearings on it, many more so than they have had on copyright trolling (which I am trying to change).  My ultimate goal is to see companies like Getty Images and McCormack IP Law either change their practices voluntarily or be forced to by a change in the copyright law.  I would like the copyright law to not only protect the artists and their works but protect the innocent/non-willful infringer from copyright bullying and extortionist practices.  There should be a fair amount in these cases (1200.00 for a sprinkler head is WAY out of line) and punishment for these businesses should be equal to punishment for willful infringers.

I figured you'd have that opinion, Greg 

Patent abuse is an ugly thing, especially when companies cease to innovate and simply sit back and strong-arm the competition through legal process, especially when there are very compelling cases for prior art which would invalidate the patent.

It's also disappointing when some companies use their patents as a means to stymie would-be competitors in the marketplace (I'm looking at you, Apple & Samsung) - as if it's not enough that they can be successful, they have to actively destroy their rivals.

On a personal level, I'd far prefer if Getty were stung by those they claim to represent: creative artists. I have a feeling that the NFL case will be one such blow. What worries me is that, in the light of these actions, creatives still support Getty by funneling their work through them. That's the part that confuses me the most.

[stinger]

Well said, Greg Troy.

[DavidVGoliath]

I would think most photographers like taking pictures and not all the work that goes into selling and distributing them.  Getty makes it appear that they will handle all the work the photogs dislike.

Ain't that the truth; the creative mindset doesn't often gel well with the necessary business acumen or even simple administrative tasks that you have to do in order to earn a living. Heck, to this day I'm sometimes tardy on getting invoices out the door once a job has wrapped. This also points to why a good many shooters become emotional to the point of hyperbole when infringed on - they're passionate about their art, and want blood when someone takes it.

Maybe someone needs to show them a better way.  Maybe ELI can host a forum for photogs to help them find more or better ways to market themselves.  Putting their collective heads together could do a whole lot of good for this industry.

Well there are smaller independent agencies that are effectively collectives - the VII agency springs immediately to mind... but quite a few photographers that I've met over the years are extremely territorial and untrusting of others.

I remember quite clearly an incident in my first year where I had just joined a relatively high-end agency that specialised in getting direct access to actors and celebrities; I had emailed them speculatively and sent some examples of my work, and they were happy to have me contribute to them. Unbeknownst to me, a local shooter in the same city - who I assumed worked directly for a newspaper (as he was always shooting on assignment for them)  was also contributing to the same agency, and he got up in my face about it when we next saw each other, accusing me of "cutting his own grass" - my response was that if the agency had felt they had sufficient material from our area, they wouldn't have needed me - and if he was a better shooter than me, he'd have nothing to worry about.

Almost nine years later and those attitudes are still prevalent; I'm sure that there's quite a few shooters where I live who would kill to land some of my clients. If my clients believe their work is qualitatively better than mine - well, I'll have dropped the ball and deserve to be elbowed out. Same goes if I majorly screw up a shoot.

Collectives work when shooters have gotten comfortable enough that they don't have an ego in the sense of "someone is going to take my place" and, instead, just get on with what they do. I've met almost no-one in my locale that would qualify as such 

[DavidVGoliath]

I would like the copyright law to not only protect the artists and their works but protect the innocent/non-willful infringer from copyright bullying and extortionist practices.

 

I hear what you're saying here, Greg, and I think perhaps your issue lies less with copyright law as codified under 17 USC and more with how pre-court action is handled.

As I see it, the infringement penalties are just fine as they are; actual damages for unregistered images equate the lost license fee and a plaintiff would have to prove that the license they're seeking to recover is reasonable and in line with an industry average.

Statutory damages are also just fine as they are: the starting point of $750 is quite apt for a lot of cases and it's at the jury's discretion as to how far north of that point they will go. If an infringer is found to be innocent, the damages might be as low as $200.

Now, demand letters / emails are another thing entirely: they are akin to saying "hey, this is what you've done and, if you want to avoid me taking you to court about it, this is how much I think you should pay me"; whether that demand letter cites $100, $1,000 or $100,000 as the offer to settle - it's all perfectly legal.

Why? Because you are within your rights to say "no, I don't think that's reasonable", refuse the offer and maybe even counter with your own offer. You are also well within your rights to refuse to engage them at all until the point you're named in a federal suit.

I said in another posting that creatives are, by and large, emotionally attached to their work - so when they perceive that they've been wronged, they'll unleash the proverbial fire and brimstone. There's an emotional tendency to tar all infringers with the same brush, so to speak... especially if it's a large entity that's appropriated their work: one issue that springs to mind is Samantha Ravndahl in her case against rap artist L'il Kim http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/22/samantha-ravndahl-vancouver-makeup-artist-sues-lil-kim-lawsuit_n_4578168.html

By all accounts, Ms. Ravndahl made efforts to settle the matter without it "going legal" and was rebuffed; instances such as this get the creative community fired up and emotional. One would like to think that the larger the entity, the quicker they'll put a situation right. My personal experience has been quite the contrary with very few exceptions.

There should be a fair amount in these cases (1200.00 for a sprinkler head is WAY out of line) and punishment for these businesses should be equal to punishment for willful infringers.

There's always going to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes fair. You're entitled to hold the opinion that someone seeking redress to the tune of $1,200 for unlicensed use of an image of a sprinkler head is excessive - much in the same vein that the creator of the shot is entitled to an opinion that the use of their work without license was because their image was the best fit and, if properly registered, $1,200 is a fair offer to settle without having to go before the courts.

As an example: moments ago, I went to Google Images and searched for "sprinkler head" - many of the shots were very run-of-the-mill and a few were quite technical. The first one to pop out at me was this file

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sprinkler_Irrigation_-_Sprinkler_head.JPG

It stood out from the other searches because of the use of a slow shutter speed, the creative use of depth of field, the angle of view and the overall framing & composition of the shot. It just so happens that the author, Anton Croos, has also made the file available via Creative Commons licensing.

Now this creates an interesting situation: knowing that there is a highly creative and artistic shot to illustrate a sprinkler head which is freely available to use (with minimal caveats) - what if an entity just instead lifts a different picture from the web, one which happens to have been timely registered?

In a free market economy, the person appropriating the other image has made a choice through whatever value judgement is relevant to them. They had the options to create their own shot of a sprinkler head, or to make use of an image that was free-to-use... but they instead elected to choose a different file. Their choice may well come with consequences - remembering, of course, that they also had a choice to not use an image at all.

To my mind, this is why copyright law is codified in the present form: ample exemptions exist for uses which the law considers to be fair (as long as your use genuinely meets all four criteria) and any use outwith that scope must be viewed through the framework of protecting the artist's rights in the free market economy.

Laws generally aren't written with fairness in mind - they're more concerned with justice (which is not the same thing); the only time that any concept of fairness comes into play is via jury trial, where both parties have to hope that the panel of peers will rule on the facts, considering the respective - and often disparate - positions of the defendant and plaintiff.

In closing, I really do get where you're coming from, Greg: when a demand letter lands at anyone's feet, I have no doubt that it's a stressful experience and will definitely feel very one-sided;  one should never lose sight of the fact that the attorneys who send these letters are doing so on the specific instruction of their clients and, like I said, a person is quite free to ignore the offers that those letters contain.