ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Khan on July 23, 2012, 09:46:54 AM
-
I talked to Scraggy on the phone a couple of weeks ago. We talked about the topic who owns the exclusive rights.
I have a copy of a letter where Getty Image International ( Ireland) confirms (signed by their Director) that they own the international exclusive rights of certain photos of a US Photographer (who lives in the US until today). (Getty International Ireland is a subsidiary (daughter company) of Getty Image US INC.)
If you look at the standard Getty Image license agreement : Getty Image (US) should hold the exclusive rights (because of the Location of the photographer). But Getty Image International claims to own the exclusive rights.
Just in case a US Person uses one of the photos of the mentioned US photographer without permission. Who is allowed to go after this person (according US Law)?
Getty Image US or Getty Image International in Ireland? Who is allowed to sue in the US?
If Getty Image (US) claims in their demand letter that they own the exclusive rights, would that be legally correct, since their daughter company GI International (Ireland) owns the rights?
Would the IRS be interested in the fact that a US company claims that they own the copyright of a photo which is owned by their daughter company which is established in a tax shelter country (Ireland) in terms of their license revenue?
Thank you very much for your comments
Khan
P.S. : Personally I think that Getty Images writes in their letter (regarding ownership) whatever would help to get their money. If the person lives in the US it belongs to Getty Image US if the person lives in Europe it belongs to Getty Image International and so on.
Khan
-
Quite simply, it's up to Getty (in this case, for example) to prove that they own the "exclusive rights".
Obviously, any person/company that threatens lawsuits in order to extort money but refuses to prove their claims is lying.
Also, there's no convention that dictates that the person holding exclusive rights (or the company that holds exclusive rights) must reside in the same country as the artist/photographer.
People/companies may sue "internationally". However, any legal process would have to abide by the laws of whatever country the defendant resides in.
Furthermore, I don't really see any onus on the alleged infringer to determine who owns what, or to sort out some sort of international web of B.S.
If they can't prove their assertions, then you're done with them.
S.G.
-
I agree. Just assume GI Ireland has the exclusive rights. (I know it is not very likely ;))
What I wanted to point out is that if GI US claims (and try to extort money from US Citizen by threatening to sue ) they have the exclusive rights but the rights are with their affiliates in Ireland would that be fraud ?
Khan
-
Wouldn't it also be fraud to claim they have the rights, but no Getty firm has "exclusive" rights. I think I have seen cases on this board where Getty claims rights, but the author is also selling or claims they quit with Getty.
I think Getty plays the gray area with the courts on that issue - having just enough deniability with their electronic agreements with publishers to not have gotten caught - SO FAR.
-
This is part of the reason, why Getty rarely files suit...they have weak cases at best with shoddy or no registrations, no exclusive contracts...
-
It would be a pain to go through the motions to show that "Getty US" and "Getty Ireland" are somehow a different company.
Getty lacks legal standing because they don't own their content. It's easy, guys.
S.G.