ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Legal Controversies Forum => Topic started by: DavidVGoliath on June 13, 2013, 01:45:12 PM
-
I was having a browse of this page
http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/press_room/Press_Room_Galery.page?lang=&lid=2
... and I noticed that the PicScout plug-in for Chrome flagged two results; now, I'd heard from some forum users that PicScout has a habit of incorrectly matching images so, to get to the bottom of it, I clicked through to the results.
All I can say is colour me f'n shocked.
The alleged rights managed images that PicScout flagged were this
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/nikon-d4-digital-slr-photographed-on-a-white-background-news-photo/161617159
and this
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/nikon-d4-digital-slr-photographed-on-a-white-background-news-photo/161617160
Now, both these images are freely available to download from the "Press Room" section of Nikon's website (http://www.nikon.co.uk/press_room/downloads/150631_high.jpg and http://www.nikon.co.uk/press_room/downloads/150728_high.jpg respectively); the files that N-Photo Magazine (part of Future Publishing Group) have as part of their uploads to Getty are identical.
Whilst I'd like to have thought that the inclusion of press release images which cannot be the copyright property of N-Photo Magazine / Future Publishing Ltd. was merely an oversight, it very raises serious questions about the checks and balances that are in place with some contributors and at Getty as well... because moments later, I found this.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/detail-of-a-nikon-d7000-digital-slr-camera-taken-on-news-photo/136406764
Which is actually this shot
http://www.nikon.co.uk/press_room/downloads/105235_high.jpg
The pixel dimensions are exactly the same for both shots - 1600 x 1216 pixels. This time around, the contributor is listed as Digital Camera Magazine... again, part of Future Publishing Group.
Three different press release images, uploaded on two different dates by two different contributors - none of which they have the rights to upload, let alone Getty having the right to license what are hand-out images?!?!
I think this might be the tip of the iceberg... :-\
-
So, spell it out DvG. Are you taking this where I think you are taking it?
-
Truthfully, I don't have a dog in this fight - but I do find it deeply troubling at the very least. I'm going to dig around and see what I can turn up to ascertain whether these occurrences were isolated incidents of if there's more of a pattern going on here.
I'm hoping for the former but, honestly, I suspect the latter :-\
-
Like most people on this forum, I didn't have a dog in this fight either.
But that all changed, when I got the letter . . . . .
-
Like most people on this forum, I didn't have a dog in this fight either. But that all changed, when I got the letter . . . . .
Well, we are approaching the issue of copyright enforcement from different ends of the spectrum, aren't we? ;)
What I meant by "not having a dog in this fight" is that I don't own the rights to any of the images that Getty are mistakenly offering for licensing.
I'm saying mistakenly because, unless I find a pattern of similar images being offered for licensing, it points to an error somewhere along the line as opposed to something more nefarious. That's my hope.
Still, I'm also unsettled that this has happened in the first place as it leaves me with a series of questions as to how these images have wound up, quite wrongly, on Getty's site for RM licensing... because that means that someone might have paid a fee to use this image when there was no need or, worse still, Getty might attempt to enforce copyrights on images to which they quite plainly have no claim to.
Simply put: someone in the chain has f'd up. I'm going to try to find out to what extent they f'd up, because, well, morally it's the right thing to do. What action I take will be determined by what I find.
-
Imagine that Getty Images collecting on images they don't even own! amazing!! I'm out of town, but when I return, I will be posting a court complaint where Getty images is the defendant, and yup for copyright infringement! and this is not the only case.. Getty images doesn't care if what they license is theirs, they don't care if the images you use are theirs or not, it's all about money, and innocents giving it to them. Not to mention the fact that getty has also been busted red handed, moving "royalty free" images into the "rights managed" catalog, without telling the contributors and also then sending out extortion letters for these so called "rights managed" images and jacking up the demand amounts.....Doucebags the whole lot of them including Seattle copyright attorney Timothy B McCormack, and that other disgusting troll Carolyn Wright aka "photoattorney" along with Leslie Burns, who are known around these parts as sending out the highest demand letters we have ever seen...
-
I think this is the one you are talking about Robert.
Note: You may need to copy and paste for some reason the entire link is not being picked up.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/photo-attorney-carolyn-e-wright-$35k-settlement-demand-letter/
-
DvG, I think you will find this is just one case in a long history of Getty "mistakes".
-
Yup, that's the one, old Cindy Hsu didn't last long in the trolling business, I think it was about 2 weeks after we posted and reported on this, that she apparently closed her office severed ties with the Queen of trolling Carolyn Wright and headed off to China...
Lets also not forget the case of the scented trees, where Getty was sued for Trademark infringement, perhaps Nikon will follow suit.
-
DvG, I sure hope you get that team of lawyers of yours cracking on this.
-
I'm saying mistakenly because, unless I find a pattern of similar images being offered for licensing, it points to an error somewhere along the line as opposed to something more nefarious. That's my hope.
Still, I'm also unsettled that this has happened in the first place as it leaves me with a series of questions as to how these images have wound up, quite wrongly, on Getty's site for RM licensing... because that means that someone might have paid a fee to use this image when there was no need or, worse still, Getty might attempt to enforce copyrights on images to which they quite plainly have no claim to.
These sorts of images are precisely why people who receive letters from Getty are advised to request contract and copyright information from Getty. Just because the images is listed by Getty and priced by Getty does not mean that Getty has a valid claim.
I think the difficulty is in Getty's system.
-
Given the number of people who roll over for copyright trolls seeking audacious damages for what is most likely innocent as well as de minimus usage in most case, I think Getty would argue that their system is working just fine.
-
Which is why they like to send out notices over public domain images, those who don't know or research pay when brought to their attention then it's the "Our mistake we are closing this claim". How many didn't question it and paid Getty 850.00 or more for a public domain image or one of their other "Mistakes".
-
These sorts of images are precisely why people who receive letters from Getty are advised to request contract and copyright information from Getty. Just because the images is listed by Getty and priced by Getty does not mean that Getty has a valid claim.
Exactly. Lucia totally nailed my thoughts. I am certainly tagging this with the #gettyflubs tag so people will discover this in the future.
And DvG you do realize that Getty has sent extortion claim letters regarding images in the public domain. This shouldn't be all too surprising.
That said, I guess this is what could have happened; Future publishing shot the products for Nikon's press release. Nikon had the rights to release the images for press releases. Then Future decided to make a little extra cash and allowed the images to be represented by Getty. Once again, its going to come down to being one of those legal grey areas.