ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Legal Controversies Forum => Topic started by: RiddickCritic on May 15, 2013, 08:37:32 PM
-
"Canadian Anti-Infringement Enforcement Company Caught Using Infringing Photos On Its Website"https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/20283923089/canadian-anti-infringement-enforcement-company-caught-using-infringing-photos-its-website.shtmlCanadianAnti-InfringementEnforcementCompanyCaughtUsingInfringingPhotosOnItsWebsite (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/20283923089/canadian-anti-infringement-enforcement-company-caught-using-infringing-photos-its-website.shtmlCanadianAnti-InfringementEnforcementCompanyCaughtUsingInfringingPhotosOnItsWebsite)
Classic excuse: "Logan claimed that the company used a 3rd party vendor to develop their website and that the vendor had purchased the image from an image bank. "
-
Zero sympathy from me; if you position yourself as a champion of rightsholders works, you need to be whiter than white when it comes to your own behaviours.
And yes, I've seen this happen before.
-
If memory servers, according to a post written not too long ago by Oscar, Getty Images' legal team has used the same arguments that many ELI readers offer as defenses when Getty has been caught infringing a photographer's copyright.
What?
Getty Images -- the grand defender of its photographers is itself a copyright infringer?
Getty Images -- just another scum of the earth image thief who put a thumbnail on a secondary page of a website getting a total of 132 monthly views from 17 unique visitors?
Well, no. Actually a French agency, The Washington Post, and Getty Images have been sued for $120,000,000 for what was a major copyright infringement. Story with most recent update info I could find is at...
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2236638/agence-francepresse-infringed-on-photographers-copyright-in-landmark-twitter-case
Of particular interest from the above story:
Getty Images' Direct Liability
The facts and arguments: "Getty claims that it cannot be liable because it is entitled to the benefit of a safe-harbor under the DMCA, one that covers infringement claims that arise 'by reason of the storage at the direction of a user material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for a service provider'." In effect, since Getty Images has an automated system to stock and sell AFP's images, it cannot be held liable for copyright infringement, the company says.
The judge's ruling: "In order to qualify for the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act safe harbors, a party must meet a set of threshold criteria. Most importantly for purposes of the present motions, the party seeking the benefit of the safe harbor must be a 'service provider', defined in pertinent part as 'a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor'." In this case, however, the Court has encountered an issue of fact regarding whether Getty qualifies as a service provider. While Getty's argument is that it "merely provides a file hosting service for AFP's images", the record before the Court "contains evidence from which a jury could infer that Getty does not, in fact, simply host AFP's images", especially since Morel has presented evidence that Getty's employees were actively involved in the licensing of the photos.
Getty of course rejects all arguments, explanations, and defenses when they're demanding $780 and up from Mom and Pop website owners but hypocritically uses many of the same arguments, explanations, and defenses when trying to defend lawsuits against their own alleged egregious violations.
This kind of arrogance and utter hypocrisy of copyright trolls and speculative invoicers is a big reason I despise the people cruel reptilian-brained money suckers who earn their livings extorting money over thumbnail images most likely used innocently while pretending all the time to be lilly white defenders of holy copyright.
-
Well, no. Actually a French agency, The Washington Post, and Getty Images have been sued for $120,000,000 for what was a major copyright infringement. Story with most recent update info I could find is at...
Not quite; Agence France Presse, The Washington Post and Getty Images are in the process of being sued. The jury trial date is set for September 16, whereby rulings will be sought on some of the outstanding claims in this suit.
Back on January 14, Judge Alison J. Nathan granted partial summary judgment in favor of Morel i.e. she agreed that AFP and the Post had infringed his copyrights, but decided that it would be up for a jury to ascertain the level of damages to be awarded.
During the same trial, the Jury will also be asked to determine Getty's liability. The fact is that Getty has a reciprocal partnership with AFP which allows each party to access the others image library.
Much will depend on what evidence is presented to show how aware Getty was that AFP had no rights to the images, as well as what steps they took once they were notified that they were infringing. This will really hinge on the technicalities of the reciprocal agreement and how they are implemented between the two agencies libraries and content delivery systems.
Lastly, the judge also ruled that AFP, the Post and Getty will only be liable on a per image basis, not on a per infringement basis (irrespective of the fact that the photographs were licensed some 820 times); this has significantly reduced Morel's potential damages award to a maximum of roughly $1,400,000...
My gut feeling is that there will be a very significant award re. the actions of AFP and the Post, whilst Getty might be able to demonstrate that the largely automated nature of their reciprocal agreement with AFP absolves them of liability... though this will hinge on their post-notification actions and the evidence of such.
-
Yeah you'd think since Getty is so protective of their "so called" copyrights, and they have all these in house and outside IP attorneys, that they would also have a clue about trademark infringement...dare i mention the scented tree case...they tried to weasel out of that one as well.. They like to claim "honest mistakes" but god forbid a US Veteran collecting smokes for fellow veterans and making ZERO dollars claims to make an honest mistake... Jonathan Klein and the rest of Getty images including outside counsel Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack and his crew of sleazebag clerks or nothing other that douche bags and jerk-offs of the highest magnitude...
Other than that I don't feel to strongly about it..end of rant
-
Let's not forget about Rock Photo either. Anyone have an update on that case?
-
Let's not forget about Rock Photo either. Anyone have an update on that case?
I mighthave to go into pacer see if there is anything new on this case...been awhile now