Would this judgement against Righthaven have implications against Getty?

[phxsunbum]

Please see this article from September 27, 2011: http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/sep/27/judge-righthaven-lacked-standing-abused-copyright-/ 

The highlights that caught my eye are:

Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas lacked standing to file copyright infringement lawsuits in Colorado under its lawsuit contract with the Denver Post and abused the Copyright Act in doing so, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane in Denver granted summary judgment for Righthaven lawsuit defendant Leland Wolf and the It Makes Sense Blog against Righthaven.

"In light of the need to discourage the abuse of the statutory remedies for copyright infringement, I exercise my discretion under the Copyright Act and order that Righthaven shall reimburse Mr. Wolf's full costs in defending this action, including reasonable attorney's fees," Kane's order said.

In total, Righthaven had filed 57 lawsuits over Denver Post material in Colorado since Jan. 20. These suits alleged websites, message board posters and bloggers had used a Post TSA pat-down photo without permission -- even though the photo had gone viral on the Internet, was distributed to news outlets by The Associated Press and many defendants said they had no idea it came from Denver or the Denver Post and was subject to copyright protection.

In addition, Four federal judges in Las Vegas have dismissed seven Righthaven lawsuits because, under precedent in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals including Nevada, copyright infringement plaintiffs must have actual ownership of the material they sue over, not just the bare right to sue. 

Kane found language in the agreement about a "purported assignment of 'rights requisite'" is "meaningless."


Would the same logic apply to Getty?

[SoylentGreen]

The same logic could apply to most anyone if the conditions were the same, now that there is a court precedent.
This court precedent would be greatly strengthened if Righthaven appeals the decision, and loses once again.
Then, it becomes quite iron-clad, indeed.

The lesson that the Righthaven cases have illustrated is that Righthaven cannot sue for damages over property that it simply doesn't own.
Stephens Media owned the property in question.  They were the only ones who could have sued for damages.

Likewise, Getty couldn't sue for damages over content that it doesn't own the rights to.
The details as to whether Getty owns the rights to something or not would reside in the actual contract between Getty and the artist.

My personal opinion is that the more rights that are transferred to Getty in a contract, then the stronger their standing would be.
Getty would have to show that they largely "control" the use, distribution, and modification rights, in addition to the right to litigate in order to be in a very strong position.

S.G.