Yet another recent blog post

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I stumbled upon this one this morning, I haven't had a chance to read and digest the entire post ( it's very long) which I wanted to do today to be able to make some comments..however it's not going to happen today so here it is, I'll give the ELI family first opportunity to share your thoughts, opinions..

http://dentingmyuniverse.com/tag/getty-images-demand-letter/

[Peeved]

Well at first I thought that perhaps this was going to tie into the class action lawsuit which Ian brought to attention given the references to Image Bank Israel.

Here again is Ian's post:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/class-action-suit-filed-against-getty-images-master-delegate-in-israel/

As I kept reading however, I was just hearing general information regarding Getty's operations with regard to demand letters. Then it seems more weird as the blog ends with the explaination as to how to "protect" yourself by "properly licensing" images.


In other words, the tone to me is to preach the "do the right thing" and you won't be sued by Getty. Maybe I'm wrong?

[SoylentGreen]

Interesting post and link.
I've taken note of the entire "theft" and "stealing" spin.
Sigh.

S.G.

[Couch_Potato]

Interesting post and link.
I've taken note of the entire "theft" and "stealing" spin.
Sigh.

S.G.

I stopped reading after that point.

[SoylentGreen]

Actually, I did too... lol.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Well you may have missed these classics from the CEO:

“If you use a photo that wasn’t taken by you, and you don’t bother with licensing it”, clarifies Aviva – “you are performing copyright infringement”. And that is all there is to it.

WRONG! There are many instances an image doesn't require negotiating a license. Examples include: fair use, public domain images, images released under Creative Commons or Share A Like.

“But we try to settle as much as possible with smaller business owners/bloggers. Many times we end up with a simple act of cease and decease and an apology. Other times we settled for the blogger buying the license at market price. Hundreds of them become longtime returning customers afterwards.”

LOL! Seriously. LAUGH OUT frickin' LOUD. They NEVER accept a simple apology. I have NEVER EVER heard them do this. And I am fairly certain that once people are coerced into paying an extravagant fee for a license to an image they thought was free, they are not likely to return for "seconds."

By the time I got to the part where the blogger tried to scare the reader away from using public domain images, I realized he must be a shill for Getty Images.

[SoylentGreen]

Great points, McFilms.
The blog entry was so long and rambling, I have to wonder if it was a crummy SEO effort.

"Lunch meeting with Getty"?  Here's the look on my face:



S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Well hells bells, I'm glad I didn't read it all the way thru, no I don't have to, nor do I need to waste my time commenting on it..

[scraggy]

Oh Aviva! Oh Aviva!

I had the dubious pleasure of meeting Aviva Weinman a few weeks ago. She was supposed to give a lecture at a conference on photos and copyright. However, I sued her company for 47 million shekels that very same morning, and she left without speaking. Can't imagine why!

The article is about MAROT IMAGES, Getty’s representative in Israel. MAROT IMAGES is not “ Getty Israel” , however much they would like people to believe otherwise. They are registered here (in Israel) as a completely separate Israeli company.

The blogger indeed writes

“First, Aviva points out that ‘Image Bank Israel’ are merely Getty’s delegates in the region.”

I think for the first time, I actually agree with Aviva Weinman!

“Copyright infringement is an offense”, states Aviva. “Just like stealing a car or robbing a supermarket”.

Well actually not! Clause 52 of the Israeli copyright act states as follows:

Infringement of copyright or moral right is a civil wrong and the
provisions of the Ordinance on Torts (New Version), shall apply
mutatis mutandis subject to the provisions of this Act.

Furthermore, how ironic that we have just sued Marot Image for falsely representing themselves as owners of the right to sue, when in fact they have no such rights!

“First, at least the Israeli law defines a ‘default’ penalty per picture that was used against terms. This is the same in most countries, and usually serves as the starting point. If we go to court, the photographer can sue for the entire value of the photo, determined by much money he could make of licensing it over a period of ten years.”

Fascinating! There is no default penalty, or statutory fine in Israeli law. Since the new copyright law of 2007 -  the minimum penalty has been ZERO! 

I should add  - I am not a lawyer.

[SoylentGreen]

Thanks for the clarification, Scraggy.

Personally, I think that blogging efforts like these (that are intended to generate positive PR) are pretty worthless.
They're so contrived and obvious.  It reminds me of kindly "Uncle" Glen Carner and his efforts to "help" people while suing them.

Getty (along with McCormack & NCS) in particular seems almost like a joke now.

S.G.