ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: parkerbenson on April 15, 2011, 04:20:23 PM
-
A friend of mine recently received a $600 demand letter from Getty for use of an image in the Stone Collection.
#1 Does anyone know if the Stone Collection registered individual authors as required per the Muench ruling? I have seen where Getty Images has registered a couple Tony Stone collections, but have no way of knowing if the photo my friend used is registered. His web designer obtained the image from what he believed was the public domain.
# 2 Does anyone know of any unfavorable court rulings, etc., in the US for people using one or two Getty images?
# 3 Has the Michelson letter approach proved any more successful than simply removing the image and ignoring the demand letter? I ask this to see if any one strategy is more effective at resolving these issues reasonably.
# 4 Is there a statute of limitations after Getty alleges infringement in a demand letter and before they must file suit; in other words, if they haven't sued within 3 years of a demand letter, are they barred from suing?
The only case I have found regarding one image resulting in a judgment against the private party was in the UK, see below:
Getty Images wins £2,000 settlement over unauthorised web use of photo
OUT-LAW News, 10/09/2009
A removals firm has been ordered to pay nearly £2,000 to photographic agency Getty Images for using a copyright-protected photograph on its website. The company had removed the picture when notified by Getty Images but had not paid a requested fee.
JA Coles, of Manchester and London, used a photograph entitled 'Mother with daughter (6-8) looking at each other and smiling' on its website. Getty Images had a contract to market the picture on behalf of its owner, Canadian photographer Larry Williams.
Getty said in its court submission that it had used image tracking technology to detect the unauthorised use of the picture in late 2007. Getty said that it wrote to the company seeking payment for the use of the photograph. The photograph was removed from the site but JA Coles did not reply to Getty Images' letter or pay the fee requested in int.
Getty Images sued in the High Court for copyright infringement. That case has now been settled and JA Coles has admitted that it infringed copyright by using the image and has agreed to pay damages.
The company has agreed to pay £1,953.31 in damages and interest over the use of the picture, plus Getty Images' legal costs.
As well as the commercial rate for the use of the picture, Getty Images had originally claimed compensation for the cost of detecting the infringement; 'insidious damages' it said were caused because such use of its images undermines its ability to be paid in full for all its images and exploit the rights it has; and additional damages once it had more information on the full circumstance of the case.
There is no mention in the short court order issued by the High Court of additional or insidious damages.
Courts will usually award as damages the normal commercial fee that would have been paid by a company to license the image in the first place in such cases and award additional damages only where a company can show that the breach of copyright was flagrant.
Pinsent Masons, the law firm acted for Getty Images in the case.
OUT-LAW News, 17/03/2009
-
Although seemingly bad news, there is some good news in this article. The stock photo companies are running around trying to tell people they could lose big like get a this huge award plus legal fees etc. The fact of the matter is common sense prevails. At most, they will pay some nominal fee plus reasonable legal costs. Unless the situation is really egregious and there is infringement with malice and intent, there will be a reasonable cap to the reward.
The vast majority of the infringement in the U.S. is unintentional and limited to very few images with limited commercial usage. The benefits gained from usage of the photo is also not huge. And most photos being infringed on are not registered individually nor super high ticket items either. Given the holistic view, even if a stock photo company were to sue and win, I cannot imagine them winning much.
It would be unfortunate but not catastrophic for most people. And, of course, if they sued someone with limited assets, they wouldn't collect much either.
Matthew
-
that's what makes me wonder if it's worth arguing them down to $500 and paying $500 to settle the matter and put it behind him, cheaper than absorbing Getty's legal costs if they decided to make an example.
-
Yes, it is worth negotiating it down. $500 is NOT a good deal. I got that deal on my 2nd letter and this was nearly 3 years ago. Although, the girl working my case probably figured out I wasn't the average letter recipient. She dropped it very quickly on me. I still thought it was a crappy deal. I had a different number in mind.
Matthew
-
$49-$200 seems reasonable to me given there are no damages, and Getty provides no proof of exclusive license, or individual registration of the image, but I doubt they will agree to this. so, then it comes down to how many hours it will take personally, or legally, to deal with the issue, and what value those hours have. unfortunately, this is like any extortion scheme, such as localized towing companies... they will tow cars from a lot whether the car was parked legally or illegally, and then demand payment to release the automobile. the police don't get involved as it's a civil matter. you have to pay to get your car back (ransom) and then sue in small claims court, which is costly and time consuming, and hardly worth the effort for a $100-$150 tow. it will take legislation to fix this.
-
Given that Oscar alone has nearly 600 cases and there have been thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of letters sent over the years with little sign of court action, STATISTICALLY speaking, most people don't even have a 1% chance of getting sued by Getty. Not even half a percent, really.
Even if Getty went out to sue 100 people tomorrow, STATISTICALLY speaking, you still have a less than 1% chance of getting sued because so many letters have gone out. However, if you are one of those 100 people, it then becomes a 100% chance!
I am not giving advice what to do but to provide an alternative perspective on where any one person/case stands in the big sea of SDLs! (settlement demand letters)
Matthew
-
Let me answer your questions in order:
#1 Does anyone know if the Stone Collection registered individual authors as required per the Muench ruling? I have seen where Getty Images has registered a couple Tony Stone collections, but have no way of knowing if the photo my friend used is registered. His web designer obtained the image from what he believed was the public domain.
Getty did register the Stone collection but as a compilation. I think the Muensch decision explained that the manner in which it was registered means that their is no registration for the individual images in the compilation, but remember this case is just one case from a trial court, it is not an appellate decision. While it has weight because it comes from the administrative judge of the southern district of NY (a copyright heavy courthouse), other judges are not required to follow it though it provides guidance
# 2 Does anyone know of any unfavorable court rulings, etc., in the US for people using one or two Getty images?
Getty has only won by default in the handful of cases they have filed that I have become aware of.
# 3 Has the Michelson letter approach proved any more successful than simply removing the image and ignoring the demand letter? I ask this to see if any one strategy is more effective at resolving these issues reasonably.
I have no way of knowing that. I do know that once they get my letter (its Michelen, by the way) they cannot contact you directly and have to go through my office so it stops the seemingly endless trail of emails, phone calls, NCS recovery, Attorney McCormack, Notice of Case Escalation, etc
# 4 Is there a statute of limitations after Getty alleges infringement in a demand letter and before they must file suit; in other words, if they haven't sued within 3 years of a demand letter, are they barred from suing?
I would argue that the 3 years begins to run from when PicScout notifies Getty not when Getty contacts you. That would be the earliest the statute would start to run. The latest could arguably be when you take the image down.
-
thank you, i appreciate your detailed responses
-
Thank you for all your well-reasoned posts and your obvious interest in the issue. One of the things Matt and I appreciate the most about this forum is that when we started it we never envisioned it would become the central resource for information about this issue. It has a life of its own and people like yourself and others who contribute to the conversation really make it useful.
-
This question is directed at Mr. Michelen for clarification please. In #3 question posted above by Parkerbenson (asking if your letter approach proved any more successful than simply removing an image and then ignoring the demand letter) you responded back you did not know, but that any further contact would need to go through your office. So my question is this: I've been searching through a lengthy history of posts on this topic of Getty demand letters and it appears if one receives a demand letter from Getty and does not remit payment, Getty will escalate their attempts to receive payment through additional settlement demand letters, collections, attorneys, etc. So if one uses your letter approach and any further contact then needs to go through your office, what has your office found with regard to how Getty typically responds to receipt of your letter? Does your office tend to continue to receive these escalating settlement demand letters, as an individual person/company may very well continue to receive, or has your office found that once Getty receives your letter, they typically tend go away and do not continue sending escalating threats to sue if payment is not received within a given time frame? When I read Parkerbenson's question (#3), my interpretation of his question was that this (what I'm asking in this post) was what he was trying to figure out. From reading this website and posts, obviously Getty is aware of who you are, so I'm wondering (as I think Parkerbenson was) if your office has found that a letter from you acts as a deterrent to Getty, causing them to cease additional collection actions that they would other partake in. Thanks so much for any guidance in this regard!
-
Getty generally at this point does not respond to my letter. There is an understanding between us that once they receive my letter, I understand that their prior responses to the earlier rounds of my letter stand in place as a response to my new letters. We then try to globally resolve a large block of cases at one time at a reasonable figure. Some clients have accepted the figure and moved on, others haven't. Getty has repeatedly stated that they will soon begin suing companies that do not settle (both that are represented by me and that are not). As Matt and I have stated, I think a wave of litigation from Getty is inevitable just because it cannot let the letters and demands be their final position. How they will choose who they sue and don't remains to be seen. On the other hand, we have been saying this for awhile and no lawsuits have come, so who really knows what their game plan is?
-
Hi Mr. Michelen! Thank you so much for your reply. That does help! Can you give me an idea as to what a reasonable figure might be per photo in question? In searching the forum, I saw a mention of $ 100. Is that the ball bark you might tend to settle in and Getty may tend to accept? Also, I've researched the 3 photos in question (in my case) and found they are all very popular photos and when one searches Google images, they come up on a multitude of websites, including other stock photo websites that also sell photos, as well as on websites that offer the free use of the photos on their site. It appears these photos are not exclusive to Getty, so how then does Getty have the right to demand settlement? Also, is it at all possible the photographer may have allowed a website to use their photos, knowing that that website offers free use of the photos on their site and the photographer is okay with that? If so, would Getty still have a legal right for payment if the photographer is aware their photos are available for free on other websites? Thanks for much for the insight Mr. Michelen!
-
The Getty contract bars photographers from selling, or giving away, images or similars on other websites. The only exception is the contract allows photographers to sell limited edition prints that are signed and/or numbered.
My guess is the other sites are probably infringing, as well. If the site is in Asia or a former eastern bloc country, ce la vie, good luck trying to stop or collect on it. (I have a number of images that are now located in countries where I can't enforce my copyrights. I can still enforce my rights if you grab one and use it here though.)
When Getty settles a claim, the photographer receives his/her standard percentage. The contract also states that Getty may pursue an infringement on the photographer's behalf.
If Getty declines to pursue an infringement, the copyright owner has the right to do so. You might be off the hook with Getty, but not with the photographer. On the other hand, most photographers have no idea how to proceed with a claim.
When you refuse to pay, you are screwing the artist, too. but, hey, that's the name of the game in today's world, isn't it? "I got mine, so fxxk you."
-
so is what you are saying is that is getty licenses your image on their site for say 49.00, you get x% of that 49.00 seems right and fair to me.. However if Getty sends out a demand letter for 1200.00 on the same 49.00 image and the person settles for say 800.00, are you saying that the photog still gets the standard percentage of xx based on the 49.00?? If so then GI is screwing you as well. I would hope that if they demand 1200 and settle for 800 that the artist would collect a bigger chunk of this..
Bottom line as a photographer/ hack myself I respect the rights of copyright owners, and would never intentionlly steal, grab, borrow, ect anyone elses work. Yes there are folks out there that do this, but I think Ia majority are just ignorant of the way it should be done, they figure if it's on goole it's free..then there are those who get tangled up with off shore develope companies that are well known to use anything and everything, because they have no scruples or morals and are looking to make some fast cash.
-
To clarify, it's my understanding that the photographer gets their standard percentage of whatever Getty settles for. So, if it's a $900 settlement, and the shooter gets 30%, then it's $300 to the shooter.
I do have a contract with Getty for stock images, however my style/type of shooting isn't all that condusive for the type of images that are needed/wanted, so I have a very, very limited number of images selling through them. I make enough to take my wife to dinner a couple of times a year, no big deal.
It's not just offshore companies that infringe, I'm in the midst of an infringement suit with a US design company, one that purported to license images through a microstock company. Innocent infringement my butt on that one, they couldn't find what they needed/wanted on microstock so trolled the web to find something and grabbed one of my shots. I've also had to deal with an author, an ad agency, an international travel company, a politician, a couple of major online publishers and a major multinational financial institution. Only three infringers have been individuals, of them two were teenage girls and one was a college student. They got a lesson in copyright and how to ask permission, nothing more.
The law is a double edged sword, sure big companies can use it to intimidate the "little guy", at the same time, it gives a "little guy" like me some very sharp legal teeth against the "big guys". Weaken the law, and you'll see more big companies willing to infringe because they know the damages will be small and worth the risk.
-
I will say it's comforting that GI will give the whole percentage of the amount, and I also agree thats it's not just offshore people. The problem I have is mainly how they go about it. Last i knew this was the USA where one is innocent until proven guilty, GI seems to think the other way around with the threatening letters, I have myself had issues to deal with as well, but I send a cease and desist first, I have also thought about registering my works so I could have more protections if the CD doesn't do the trick, but it certainly woul;d not be my business model as it appears to be with GI. Just so you know a little about where i'm coming from, GI came at me for an image which I did purchase almost 12 yrs ago. I provided the license to said image, but they also insisted on an invoice..I keep very good records, however I don't have an invoice dating back that far...
So another question for you...whats to stop an artist / photog from working with getty and also selling that image to a smaller image company that is affiliated with getty.. Besides the fact that the getty contract states they can't do this , doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, as you well know there are dishonest people everywhere in just about any business...
so now the image is for sale in two places ( maybe more) who has what rights to do what?? or do they both come after you??..
I also tend to agree it's a double edged sword, there needs to be some way that artist's can better protect their works , whilst at the same time protecting the users of these images from suits/demands that could potentially put people out of business..
-
To answer your question, of course there is the chance of someone "double dipping". It would be foolish on the photographer's part to do so considering that a company like Getty can afford the best image tracking/recognition software. Chances are, the shooter would get nailed and face a breach of contract suit.
In my own experience, I had a company take an image, place it on their site and basically say "Here, take it, share it, use it." That image appeared on at least 14 other websites, including ones in Asia and eastern Europe. For all intents and purposes, I've lost all control of that image.
I think part of the issue is people have this perception of "innocent until proven guilty", which is a criminal law concept. What we are talking about here is generally a civil matter, which pertains to liability, not guilt or innocence.
Burden of proof is the key, the burden is much lower in civil matters, not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal cases. If there's a copy of the webpage with the infringing content, there's proof. If the image was registered, there's proof of ownership. Now it's up to the infringing party to prove that the infringement was innocent since the law places that burden upon the defendant. If it is a BS argument, a judge or jury will probably see right through it. In this day and age, with all of the information out there about copyright infringement, there really isn't an excuse anymore. I've heard a lot of them, "I got it off of Google and thought it was free", Google has a notice that material may be copyrighted, BTW. My personal favorite, and the one that I've heard the most, "Our intern did it." Yeah, and every high school and college in the country has an internet policy that explains copyright infringement. My second fave is "It's fair use." On a business website? Really?
This is how it goes for me: I find an infringement, I send out a DMCA notice with a cease and desist clause. Then I send out a letter of demand/offer to settle. Usually, there is a bit of negotiating about the amount, which I usually lower a little as a good faith gesture.
If the other party refuses to negotiate, I ramp things up and, if need be, spend the $350 to file a complaint in federal court.
If I have to file suit, the amount goes up sharply. The other party had a chance to settle for a fairly low sum and refused. Now I want statutory damages and what could have been settled for four figures will now probably cost the infringer five figures, plus costs.
-
@Newzshooter -- welcome to ELI. Can you confirm that GI's policy is to equally share any winnings in a court case? Paying the photographer a clean 30% of the court proceeds seems like the fair thing to do. But their demand letters indicate that they incur extra expenses tracking down infringers. I assume this is the extra cost of the PicScout software and their internal administration costs. So I am unclear how they handle this in the very rare cases where there has been a default judgement.
I don't have any stock with GI and what I had with iStock was at a flat rate. So I would not have shared in any court proceedings. I don't know the nature of the GI contact and I wonder if they would be so much more generous with their photographers.
Also, can you share with us some of the cases you have filed and won a five-figure award? I have been scouring the records to find such cases and have not found them.
-
I would think that GI and I-Stocks contractual numbers woulkd be very similiar, as Getty owns them both, and a bunch of others..To bad they didn't Corbis otherwise they may very well have a monopoly, not that it would matter much...
-
Newzshooter,
I think you're being foolish if you truly believe that the average Internet user is well versed in copyright laws. I think for most Americans when they think of copyright violations they think of a musician stealing the hook in a song, such as Vanilla Ice taking Queen's "Under Pressure." Or a person taking someone else's photo and using it in a poster, such as the Barack Obama Hope poster. They think it's when someone steals someone else's work and makes money off of it.
However, when a blogger tosses a picture up on their blog that they found in Google images search, I guarantee you most of those people have no idea what they are doing could land them an extortion letter from someone asking an insane amount of money that they probably do not even have. I get a laugh when you talk about the terms on Google image search, assuming people read those, come on.
Yes, what they did was wrong. Asking them to remove the image is fair. But is fair asking someone to pay thousands of dollars for a mistake? We are in a recession, unemployment is rampant and these extortionist are causing stress and adding financial hardship to people's life, for a mistake, a mistake.
Answer me this, did you ever burn a CD from a friend, ever, even once? Ever download a song of Napster? If you did and you're out there asking people to pay thousands of dollars, you're a hypocrite. Well... unless you went back and paid four digits for a song that you downloaded on Napster, which I'm sure you did.
-
@ mcfilms: The Getty contracts specifically states it will pay the photographer royalties on any settlements it receives through its claims department.
None of my infringement cases have gone to trial, and one settled in the five figure range. There is one current case, which has been filed, and I have solid evidence that the infringement was willful, and the company at fault has received a offer to settle for six figures. No counter offer has yet been received.
@MikeD: On Google images when you click on an image: "This image may be subject to copyright". Fair warning right there. If you wind upon my page, right clicking brings up a copyright notice and every page has a copyright notice AND the image's exif information contains a copyright notice (For my more "recent" photos after I switched from PhotoPaint to Photoshop. PP stripped exif info for some reason.)
I'm fully and painfully aware of the state of the economy, I purchased a business in 2009, the economy tanked a few months later and I closed the doors a year after I bought it. Lost my a$$, basically everything but my house, and put seven people, not including myself, out of work. Where my photography was a large part of my business before, it is my only income now. So, yeah, I'm going to be a hellion when it comes to commercial infringers.
To be honest, I have never copied a CD, DVD, used Napster or any other file sharing service. I'm not much of a music or movie guy, I prefer visual works. I have recorded VCR tapes (remember those?) and dvr'd shows/movies. All perfectly legal. I have berated my own mother for copying a photo.
As of today, I've found yet another infringement thanks to a contact who sent me a link. It's a start up, but I really like the idea behind the business. A lawsuit would probably kill them, so I'm probably going to offer to take a small percentage in the company instead of a cash settlement.
-
Anyone else here getting the feeling that they're glad that they didn't become a photographer?
S.G.
-
Anyone else here getting the feeling that they're glad that they didn't become a photographer?
S.G.
Actually just the opposite, I no longer have to rely on stock image companies. I also highly dount anyone would want to grab my images, being the hack that I am... : )
-
Regardless of both views on this issue, because of the unethical tactics being used against "innocent infringers," I have a very bad opinion of photographers and stock photo companies. I can understand going after "willfull" infringers, but to charge in excess of $5,000 for a generic photograph is ridiculus, unethical, and borders on piracy itself. I know that I will never use a web designer that purchases or uses stock photo images again. I will insist the photos being taken by me or the web designer himself. I will never ever support those that knowingly hurt others by going after small businesses just because the law has not been updated here in the US like it has in other countries to address this kind of problem. Furthermore, if the situation had been handled differently without the threats, the large amounts of money being asked for, I would not feel this way. A "cease and desist" letter without threats should be sufficient. Even if they asked for a reasonable amount to cover all parties, say around $250 would not have left me feeling this way. But rest assured, there are many like me, and when the dust settles, I feel these tactics will be the downfall of stock photo houses and the overly aggressive photographers that have branched out on their own to make a living off litigation.
-
@ Bekka: Only one of my photographs that have been infringed on could be construed to be "generic".
I ran a search on the one the design company stole. Getty had nothing similar, neither did iStock nor Corbis. A google search brought up nothing similar either. In fact, almost every one of the images I've had infringed could be called extremely rare, at the least, or even one of a kind. I really don't deal in generic.
@S.G. yeah, I didn't realize a law degree was highly recommended in this profession. Good thing I worked in my step-grandfather's law office while in college. He offered to pay my way through law school. I declined, there are enough attorneys in the family already :)
-
Well, the one they are trying to get $5520.00 is very generic... a woman with a note pad wearing a telephone headset. Most photos I have seen are generic unless they are nature scenes, such as natural disasters as they are happening, or certain sunsets, etc. Most objects and people photos fall under the generica category.
-
@ Bekka: If your situation is that a third party (web designer) produced your site and represented to you that all images were licensed or in the public domain, I would suggest that it would be highly unlikely that a stock footage company would successfully pursue a five figure judgement. I have seen threads on this board where GI is demanding over $1000 for a small shot of a handshake or hundreds of dollars for a shot of someone in front of a house. But you are saying they are asking $5520.00 for a very generic of a woman with a note pad wearing a telephone headset. Equivalent images can be found for prices ranging from $49 down to free.
If I understand your case correctly, and it comes to it, I would be happy to kick in for a legal defense. Meanwhile, you should contact the developer and inquire what he is willing to do. Also, find out what the "going rate" is for these images. I don't subscribe to the "ignore ignore ignore" philosophy some have proposed. I think it is better to either present a compelling argument why they got the wrong person or to make a firm offer to settle for a low fixed amount. You can also push back on them by requesting proof that the image has been registered with the copyright office and proof that they represent the image. They will deny this and say they will only present it in court, which I believe weakens their hand.
I seriously believe a judge would laugh this sort of demand out of court. All it would take is for you to show a dozen examples of similar stock photos with price tags in the $49 to FREE range.
@ newzshooter: It sounds like your situation is VASTLY different from most of what Getty is going after. The stuff they are threatening people over is, by and large, as generic as you can get. A one-of-a-kind or very unique photo can and should command a higher price. And it sounds to me that you have taken multiple precautions to indicate an image belongs to you. You would have a very strong case for a decent settlement. But this is not the same situation most recipients of the Demand Letter are in.
-
Sadly, I have not been able to get in touch with the young man that did our site. The site was done many years ago, and since then we took over maintenance on the site, but had no idea that the images placed there were not legal to use. This very generic photo is "rights managed." MF did send the registration documentation. It is one of 33,000 images registered at one time in a compilation according the the number assigned in their catalogue. It is my understanding from one of our employees that the web designer used foto search to buy his images from, however this image is not on that site now. I don't think any web designer would pay the price of a rights manged photo as opposed to a royalty free, since he/she is going to pass the image along with the work. I hate to suggest this, but I wonder sometimes if these companies that are relying so heavily on litigation for their income, aren't putting these images out on "free to use" sites as bait? If you google search the same image that MF claims is worth $5520.00, it is on 43 other sites at the present, mostly in foreign countries. These look to be small businesses, so I doubt very much they paid for licenses on rights managed images given the cost and time restrictions. So, the question is .... how did they come across that image?
-
Anyone else here getting the feeling that they're glad that they didn't become a photographer?
S.G.
Actually just the opposite, I no longer have to rely on stock image companies. I also highly dount anyone would want to grab my images, being the hack that I am... : )
You made a great point, buddhapi. You're right.
My point is that if I was a photographer, I wouldn't have an interest in sending out demand letters to anons on the web.
Certainly, we all must make a living, however the aspect having a "creative" pursuit, but then having to strong-arm people to make a living off of it would be quite a turn-off for me.
Even if you've been infringed upon, you still have to threaten many people, you may become paranoid when a strange car parks in front of your house, you have to pay thousands up-front for a lawyer just to take your case, and you may never even collect a single cent.
Those are just my personal feelings.
Much of this is a symptom of an industry changing. The high-end "boutique" stock image industry is dying out in favor of cheaper non-rights managed content.
The "boutique" companies are fighting back with the attitude of "you wouldn't buy our expensive shite, so we're taking your money anyway".
That's been working for a while. But it can't last forever. Just look at the photos that teenagers take with cheap point-and-shoot cameras.
Let's face it; not every image infringed upon is an original "Ansel Adams" original, no matter how threatening the letters are and how high the demand is.
There will always be a good market for news-worthy photos. But even that's shrinking.
Many news-worthy photos are taken by anons with cell-phones.
S.G.
(http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1471/lawyercatsm.jpg)
-
If you google search the same image that MF claims is worth $5520.00, it is on 43 other sites at the present, mostly in foreign countries. These look to be small businesses, so I doubt very much they paid for licenses on rights managed images given the cost and time restrictions. So, the question is .... how did they come across that image?
even these foreign companies are getting letters, theres is some interesting math here.. I think the number they come up depends on how long the image was used for...so your's is 5520, let just say for giggles that the over 43 site used the image half a long as you did...2500.00 x 43 = $$107500.00 nice potential payday for one single image, if they all pony up the cash..these companies are making tons of money, all the while closing small business down...and we thought the oil companies were a bunch of douche-bags!
There is another thread somewhere, raising the question of whether some of these images appear on other "free" site and whatnot, and this would not surprise me in the least
-
Even if you've been infringed upon, you still have to threaten many people, you may become paranoid when a strange car parks in front of your house, you have to pay thousands up-front for a lawyer just to take your case, and you may never even collect a single cent.
SG, you make a good point.
I would be nervous sending out all of these extortion letters, knowing that there are a lot of crazies out there who might actually come looking for you. You never know what state a person will be in when they get that extortion letter, did someone close to them just die, are they going through a divorce, did they just lose their job? You're playing with fire and I imagine if you do it long enough, you will get burned.
-
Thanks for the support, MikeD.
Here's a little cartoon which I think sums up some people's experiences with the stock photo business and rogue photogs:
(http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/8919/okayfacelifegettymaster.jpg)
S.G.
-
SG,
Do you know something we don't know about Ryan McGinnis and improperly registering images?? You've got me curious.
-
I get the feeling that Ryan has the same weak copyright registrations as the other trolls.
His lawyer created that elaborate demand letter, but added no copyright info.
So, it just screams "weak registration".
S.G.
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5597/okayfaceg.jpg)
-
I don't think you'll be seeing the mass registrations in the future. The Copyright Office has begun requesting that registrants issue a title of each work with collective submissions. I've got a feeling that it will become a rule in the not too distant future.
My largest collection was about 500 images, all submitted online, and took me several hours to complete. Adding a title to each image, and then adding the title into the collection titles will add quite a bit more work to the process. For me, it means that I'll probably keep my collective works submissions to somewhere between 200-300 images.
On the plus side, it'll take away any doubt about whether an image is registered or not and may cut down on frivolous litigation.
As for being worried that I'll anger a nutcase, not really. I don't send letters to "John/Jane Doe", I research the site/owner/ceo before I commence any action.
-
The Title requirement will slow down the compilation filings, but I wouldn't be surprised if they dont ask for that for larger filers.