Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible loophole in Getty and Masterfile Copyright Registrations?

« on: September 07, 2011, 06:10:02 PM »

I think that comparing the music and movie industries to infringements of images on the Internet is like comparing apples to oranges.

Not really, its the same laws.
As Ive said before its perfectly easy to register an image in the US that isnt yours. Particularly with a bulk submission and only supplying thumbnails. If it was proof of copyright Id just download everything I can from flickr, register it and go on a suing spree. It doesnt work like that.
You cant have it both ways though, you cant in other threads go on about copyright owners only being able to sue and then on the other hand saying registration is enough to sue.

There's lobbying going on in the states right now including the desire to make music piracy a felony for example.

Indeed. And as it is in relationship to copyright laws it would also make movie, art and photography infringment a felony. Movie studios are lobbying for the same thing.

But, I'm sure that we can both agree that different countries/regions have different laws and what is true in one region is not necessarily true in another.

Which is why (as a taxpayer on 3 continents) I have to be familiar with laws in all of them that I do business with. As mentioned before certain infringment in germany is a criminal offence and so the lobbyists in the US say 'if it works in Germany, why cant it work here'.
Infringments in certain far east countries are dealt with in a more draconian fashion.

One of the issues you touch on and we are all agreed on is that in no matter what the country and no matter what the registration status the costs awarded are generally the market value and that isnt decided by you saying they are in the 10-300 price bracket. If an image is from Tony Stone say and has never been licensed for less than 2k then 2k min is the market value. Most countries will add a multiplication factor of between 3-10x depending on many factors.
Thats not to say of course that all the images are worth that which is why its a case by case basis and you cant say they are all worth 10-300 just as I cant (and wouldnt) they are all worth in excess of 5k etc. Its all meaningless unless all the facts are known and presented.

Regardless of that as Oscar has pointed out the advice is to not ignore the letters and to negotiate. But then again any attorney will tell you to do that.
In my experience (which is a lot) I always try to settle as they say in certain parts of the world, walk softly and carry a big stick.
That big stick in the US is registration of the images and why since day one with Getty (and Ive been with them 8 years) they have always advised registration of images in the US regardless of the country of origin.

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty

« on: September 07, 2011, 11:20:15 AM »

THEN, find similar royalty free stock images. These are often prices at around $10 to $50. Document a bunch for your records.

I dont disagree with all your points apart from the one above. You have to compare apples with apples. You cant get a price from a microstock site and compare it to a Tony Stone collection image.

Its like comparing walmart underwear with calvin klein. Yes they are both underwear but have different market values and price points.

Of course if the same image (not similar, the same) is for sale at microstock prices then you have them over a barrel.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: whats the deal with Royalty Free images??

« on: September 07, 2011, 11:18:00 AM »

There has been a question of whether GI & MF, among other ever have the same images in their library.. I stumbled upon this today...exact same images in both catalogs.. are royalty free images different?? I would guess not, If I purchased said image from getty, whats to stop MF from coming after me with a threatening letter??

i'd post screen shots, but don't want my hand slapped today, if your curios visit both sites and search chakra.

Sometimes (as in this case) other agencies use Getty and MF to subdistribute images. Getty and MF represent the agency but the images arent part of any Getty particular collection. Getty and MF have their own 'house' collections and these are the ones they chase.
Its up to subagents to do their own chasing as they will be the ones who track all the licenses of a particular image.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible loophole in Getty and Masterfile Copyright Registrations?

« on: September 07, 2011, 11:05:57 AM »

I think that your argument implies that artists/photogs needn't register their images to prove copyright in the US/Canada.

umm, again, no.

My argument is that registration doesnt necessarily imply copyright. Far be it for me to help anyone here out but it would stop the chancers who can register images but not actually own them. A lot of the failed cases quoted here have hinged on the registration not being valid - ie the registration exists but that doesnt include copyright.
Checking to see that someone has copyright is a fundamental in every case worldwide regardless of jurisdiction or registration.
As you yourself have mentioned numerous times only the copyright holder or their agent can sue, regardless of whether an image is registered or not. Registration just adds an extra dimensions to the amount in the US.

As for getting nothing for unregistered images, I guess nothing is a relative term. It costs 350 to lodge proceedings and if it involves stripping of ownership data you are talking a min of slightly over 3k for the whole thing. So thats probably a clear 1.5k which is hardly trivial and being fleeced.

Why you should keep abreast of the EU/UK and elsewhere in the world is that where the music/video industry push the changes through elsewhere they can be rolled out in the US. The music industry has pushed for years for fast track low cost EU copyright courts (along the lines of the small claims court in the UK).
The UK has agreed to this and is implementing it. That means for cases less than 5k GBP it costs 80 GBP to lodge a case, no lawyer required, and will be reviewed by a judge in a short space of time. That is a massive step forward against copyright infringment.
In Germany in certain circumstances copyright infringment is a criminal not civil issue.

The music and movie industry are lobbying for the same in the US. It might explain why a lot of the cases are being held off.

This isnt scaremongering at all, just google it.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible loophole in Getty and Masterfile Copyright Registrations?

« on: August 30, 2011, 06:02:05 AM »

As 'photographer' mentioned, "In all cases you should be looking for proof of copyright, not proof of registration.".  That's a UK concept.
In the US/Canada, the registration is the most important thing and without it, a litigant doesn't have much to go on.

Nope. Its a Berne concept, copyright resides with the original artist. The US added the proviso for the registration to protect its interests.
Correct that even those of us outside the US have to register our works with the US copyright office if we want to go for statutory damages in the US.
However despite saying many court cases dont need to prove registration, you do need to prove you own copyright. As you yourself have mentioned multiple times only the original copyright holder can sue in court, (or their agent) but at some point along the line you will be asked to show the original image.

After all if it was that easy just license some non-US images, register them in the US and then sue like mad. This is the issue with some of the failed cases, someone with a registration document for copyright they dont own. Just because they registered the image, doesnt mean to say they had the right to.

Under the law, (proper) registration in the US and Canada proves copyright.

No it proves you registered the copyright. I think where your misunderstanding comes in is in the use of the word (proper). By proper registration you mean that the original copyright owner has registered the image. How do you know its a (proper) registration, by showing proof of copyright of course. That defeats your own points as how does the judge decide what is a proper registration and what is not? By seeing the originals and proving copyright.

Register your works promptly; problem solved.

Within 3 months of publication for unpublished or anytime for published material.

I want to close by stating what a poor job the stock image industry has done in protecting its content.
Especially given the zeal with which they chase infringements.  It's rather baffling.
The same holds true for many photographers.

Id be interested in the thinking behind this. After all every image has its ownership information embedded as soon as you press the shutter. All stock agencies will embed the required information in the image they license. They are required to under Berne. If this information is stripped out it is covered by separate damages in excess of the copyright infringment in many jurisdictions and claims for this do not require registration in the US. This is why a lot of cases are taken on on contingency by US lawyers without registration. Its covered by separate rules in addition to the copyright infringment damages and something no-one here has really touched on. Without registration its a min of 2.5k damages under US law.

Where the issue has been in the past is that previously it was only possible to find images with that ownership information attached. The infringers knew this so stripped it out. Then tools came along that could recognise the content of the image, then the infringers simply flipped the image, put it in black and white or cropped it heavily. In the last 2-3 years the software has matured to a stage it can recognise all of this and even fractions of images or images based on the original images. Ive even used it to find one of my images used in a corporate video.
The beta google images search incorporates all this and has been a revelation in the last month or two to many of us, just to see how much our images have been ripped off.
In the last month Ive had emails from at least 4 lawfirms who now work on a contingency basis and one agent who will proactively police this (not picscout) and Im sure more will follow. After all if they only go after stripped out images in the US, theres 2.5k min right there. 40% of that is worth filing the court costs alone.

Also the music and video industries are pushing the legislation to such an extent that most EU governments are introducing fast track copyright to the small claims courts at low cost. Anything under 5k GBP is just 85GBP to file and doesnt require a lawyer.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 28, 2011, 01:42:43 PM »

However, to receive a big lump-sum payout for a photograph (which is a large part of what we're discussing here) the artist would likely have to sell the photo to a client outright.

And I am saying its not. In editorial perhaps, in creative no. Both my 10k sales werent even exclusive.
For one years exclusive I quoted a client 25k for 3 years exclusive 45k.
If someone sold their image for 20k outright, you can be damn sure whoever they sold it to would get at least 5 to 10 times that. As I said earlier Ive a couple of photos that have exceeded that or are approaching that and thats only in license fees, I still own the photos and will be sold continually.

One of the problems with seeking high punitive damages in court for a photo that has "exclusive rights" is as follows.

No. The main problem is exactly that the photo isnt available for sale. No amount of money could license it as it breaks an agreement.
The court wont and cant issue damages for what would be a 'normal' price because that photo isnt available for sale. You cant put a price on anything that isnt for sale.
This is where punitive damages can be crippling. As reputations and professionalism, track record of the image, damage to reputation with the client and future sales impact and all that come into the equation.
A straightforward copyright infringment is relatively easy to quantify and the manner in which it is infringed is also easy to quantify. You cant quantify something that has no price and is unavailable.
Always remember this is not a proof beyond reasonable doubt exercise but a balance of probabilities.
Infringing an exclusive image brings a whole different world of hurt including reputation etc etc.

In addition, some photographers transfer so many of their rights in their exclusive license that the photographer has lost standing to litigate.

Really? Thats a huge misunderstanding. Exclusive licenses do not transfer any rights at all. I can license an image to be used exclusively in the US only, or exclusively to one particular media or one particular industry. No rights are transferred. I can of course license an image worldwide, all media, for any particular period but that sort of license is telephone number proportions.
Dont confuse licensing issues with copyright and with rights issues, they are hugely separate things and largely mutually exclusive.

But, this example pretty much destroys the myth that having a prize winning photo always equates to riches.

Indeed. There are a lot of starving artists out there which is why you should never really equate the aesthetic value of an image with its potential monetary value. Its a lesson all aspiring professional photographers need to learn to become successful. Beautiful looking chocolate box landscapes may look good but will never really sell, that photo of your grandads medal of honor, purple heart or victoria cross sitting in the cupboard will sell many many times over.

It is funny to read some of the comments about infringing crap images. Well if they were that crap, then why steal them? Go over to flickr and get some free or creative commons stuff! If you felt it was good enough to take it and use it for your business then obviously it has value to you. You may not think its worth paying for but then you will be questioned about why you thought if an image was crap that you were using it to advertise your business? Surely thats counter intuitive?

I think you will find that a lot of photographers think that some of the numbers that are being reported to have been quoted are ridiculous but we dont have all the facts, we dont really know the circumstances and for everyone demanding 9k for a blog image there are those of us quoting a grand for an image we know we would get 3 for when we go to court but want to be reasonable.

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 28, 2011, 05:14:47 AM »

Also, let's not confuse what a stock image company would pay a photographer for exclusive rights to a unique photo with what it would cost a customer to purchase a license to use it.
A photographer might get thousands on a good photo, but it can be licensed for use for much, much less.

Thats a basic misunderstanding of how licensing works right there. Should you really be giving any advice if you have so many basic misunderstandings of the workings of the industry?

A stock image company doesnt pay a photographer for exclusive rights, there is no payment up front for images. They act as our agent. Why do you have such difficulty with understanding what an agent is?

A client will pay the agent for exclusivity then the agent takes their cut and passes the rest on for the license. Thats the way it works. They dont pay us per image then license on, they can do in some circumstances but its very rare.

As for high end being reserved for one of a kind news images. Well those days are well gone, the high end prices are associated with advertising usage and exclusive usage regardless of genre. News images do have a short tail whereas advertising/creative images can have a long tail, particularly for exclusivity and the prospect of relicensing when the original term is up.

As for prices coming down for photographic work, it depends. It also depends on the photographer and the photographs. My prices have gone up in the last couple of years.

I have mentioned a few times on this forum the range of prices I have sold for. Thats a range of prices. I have sold images for 50 dollars I have sold images in excess of 10k. So I have a fair idea of the market value of an image so add on the 2.5k min for wilful infringment (in the US and if it applies) and you have a good idea of what a court case will bring. Its usual to settle for less than that.

As you point out a $500 dollar license is a $500 dollar license regardless and any background research will find this out. Depending on the jurisdiction damages are usually assigned in the 3x-10x the original license depending on the type of infringment and how the dialogue has been conducted, but nowhere near 20k. Again quoting 20k is just picking numbers out of the air and perhaps quoting some of the more unique (or just plain ridiculous) demands.

It also depends a lot on the photographer and their experience and the evidence they show. I am a full time professional photographer and I regularly license my images myself as well as through agents so I can show a range of prices for a range of usages. If someone else only sells photos for 50 dollars max or microstock prices then it will be improbable for them to claim more than this. As Ive mentioned numerous times, its on a case by case basis and research is required but any decent lawyer/solicitor will tell you that. Get an independent valuation and go from there.
Saying Ive negotiated a 3 year buyout for 45k is meaningless as is someone saying they can buy a photo from istock for a dollar. Without context the prices and figures are meaningless.

mcfilms, I dont know the images you are talking about and the figures demanded so I cant comment. Prices are based entirely on usage, not content. You might think that the images I have licensed through Getty that gross 10k per year might be mediocre, others might be willing to pay 10k as it fits their needs exactly. It all depends on context and usage and if the images have an exclusive license in effect at time of infringment. 2 months ago I quoted a company 1k GBP for 3 years web usage for an image that met their needs exactly. They said that price was ridiculous and that they were told they could get an image for 50 quid. I said they should go ahead. Guess what 2 months later the money is in my bank account. That means that image was worth the 1k to them in the end after 6 weeks of unsuccessfully searching for the image. The image is fairly repeatable and there are a lot of similar images out there but there are none that match their needs exactly. Thats the difference.

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible loophole in Getty and Masterfile Copyright Registrations?

« on: August 27, 2011, 03:38:35 PM »

Possible loophole in Getty and Masterfile Copyright Registrations?

But, aside from that, I think that we can all agree that many images are copyrighted by the artist, but also in a bulk form by the stock image company (Getty or Masterfile).

Where I think righthaven fell down is that when the agencies bulk register copyrights, they are registering the copyright to their compilations, not the individual images (they cant unless they own the images). So what they are doing is registering the CD, distribution file, whatever. It is their right.

The analogy is a compilation CD such as have I got music 34 or whatever. They can register the copyright for their choice of songs and how they put it together (including artwork) but they cant register the copyright of the individual songs as it is not theirs.

My understanding of some of the failed arguments is that they were trying to prove that the copyright for the complilation was infringed, not the individual images, which of course is up to the photographer (or their agent) to chase.

The individual photographer will always have the right to chase the infringements, unless of course the agency fully owns the copyright which is a different matter entirely. As Ive mentioned before I have getty contracts which allow me to work for hire which give Getty the copyright.

If Getty ever tried to register the copyright of my images they would get very short shrift indeed.

As Ive mentioned before registering the copyright doesnt prove copyright ownership, it just proves it was registered in the US (no other country requires registration). Berne requires that the artist can prove ownership, which was holding the negative or owning the RAW file/unaltered jpeg. This is the only proof of copyright and one that is required in court. Registration is only a US thing and a bit of a red herring as it doesnt prove copyright, just proves the image has been registered.

Any demand should show a verified version of the original (in my demands I send this along with the letter/email). This will prove copyright ownership. In Gettys case I supply them with the same information to say I own the copyright and they can act on my behalf.

Again registration is only a US thing and in reality proves nothing. I could go on and register thousands of images that arent my own and noone would be any the wiser (electronic registration only requires thumbnail images, not the real thing so I could just scour flickr and do it). Its not until I have to show the original RAW or finalised jpeg file (which Getty will have as part of their storage anyway) that I can prove copyright.

In all cases you should be looking for proof of copyright, not proof of registration. As I said I supply this with the initial contact there is no case for argument.

9

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 27, 2011, 03:23:04 PM »

As mentioned, it entirely depends on usage.
I license at least one photo per year for 10k USD or more and these are for advertising use and not exclusive.

If you want exclusivity for a license it is a minimum of 25k USD and again depending on length of time.

So whilst I agree coming after someone for 5k or 3k for a single web use image does appear ridiculous it depends if that image has been licensed or not exclusively or if the infringment has stopped exclusive licenses being sold. Whilst this may be rare this is the main reason I chase infringements. Infringements of exclusively licensed images.

On friday I licensed images from 75 dollars (single one off use small in a printed newspaper) to 710 dollars (print front cover).
For website use it varies for me from 50 dollars to over 3500, again depending on usage etc.

As for who buys rights managed images, well loads of people, otherwise I wouldnt be in business. The current trend for high value images is to move away from the generic RF stock as everyone has them and they are known to be 'cheap', so companies will either go for more exclusivity with the likes of Getty or will commission someone like me to produce bespoke images for them.

Its these bespoke images that I am being infringed for the most, purely because they are unique to an industry and people have sat down over a period of time and crafted.

If you are really 'unlucky' then you will infringe an image which is no longer for sale or which has an exclusive license applied. There is no 'market value' for this as the image isnt for sale.
If thats not the case then just get a variety of responses from a number of photographers or agencies and see what the market value is. I am sometimes called on to provide what I would consider the market value for commissioned photographs or a wedding package as a result of a legal dispute so for stock photos its easier.

Just as an aside, my highest grossing ever image (over 20k) was one I took walking back to the car, didnt even consider uploading to an agency as I couldnt see the value in it and only uploaded it because I took it and it was part of a batch. No-one was more surprised than me when I saw the first sale for over 10k.
On the other hand my 2nd highest grossing image (approx 20k) was one Id waited a month on the right atmospheric conditions, hired models, hired a venue, got model and property releases for and spent about a day in post production. I knew it would get me a lot of money, but sat for 2 years without a single sale before coming good.

The old saying, dont judge a book by its cover, look up the price guides, go to a few auctions and see what it is being sold for....

10

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 24, 2011, 05:10:45 AM »

Thanks for bringing it back to civilised - I'll go through your points to make sure Im not misrepresented

I get the points that you're making in your last posting.  If I may:
"Hurry up and pay out.  It takes time to do fact-finding plus research, and you may accrue interest while you're doing that.  So pay up fast, don't negotiate."

Nope, thats not what I said and contrary to the views Ive posted. It does take time to do fact finding and research and a month or two isnt going to make much difference to the interest. In my posts where I have mentioned what I have done I have always mentioned negotiating. What isnt worth doing is ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Some sort of conclusion must be reached.

"Don't ask questions of the demand letter sender, because you'll get charged for every phone call and email that it takes for them to convince you to pay."

Nope, again I didnt say this. You have to ask questions of the demand letter sender, they could be trying it on. They have to provide you with details of the infringment and evidence of how they came up with their figure. They also have to give you enough time to contact your lawyer (see point below), present them with the evidence, see what they say and then get back to them with your figure and then negotiate. In every single case Ive ever had it has always been advised to enter into negotiations. After all a judge/jury will look to see if the process has negotiated to see if an amicable settlement has been reached. What bearing they put on this is up to them but its worth remembering.

"Lawyers are 'bad' because they make a living defending people from Righthaven, Riddick/Imageline, MF and Getty Images."

Good lawyers also make a living helping me recover damages from infringers. In fact I would go so far as to say some of the same lawyers are doing it for both parties. Where people have to draw the distinction is when the lawyer(s) offer bad advice, take things off the internet or are just stringing things out. Most settlements can be sorted out within 2-3 weeks if its done correctly and there is no dragging of heels by either party or the solicitors. I have had one case drag out 8 years (not copyright) and whilst the payout was substantial, the legal fees dwarfed this.

"Furthermore, lawyers cost a lot of money, so it's much cheaper to just pay those who send demand letters. It's too expensive to fight them."

Not if you have union representation or use your company insurance policy and legal protection line....

"The lowly photographer gets screwed in the end, regardless."

Ive been screwed as much by Getty as infringers, dont worry about that one.

Thanks for your opinions.  I don't entirely agree with you, but perhaps I've helped to clarify where you stand?

No, Ive done that myself. My opinions are based on my experience, not through quoting stuff other people have said or misinterpreted on the internet. I go through dozens of these infringments per year, which range from takedown notices to filing court papers, on various continents. You only have my word on that and can disregard it if you want but it is my experience and no amount of quoting wikipedia entries or someone elses assumptions and misinterpretations of other peoples postings will change that. I am in possession of all the facts about all of my cases. I also quote from actual people and actual circumstances I know.
e.g. the government quotes - here in the UK local government (councils) are responsible for ensuring PRS licenses are intact, they can fine and can collect on behalf of the PRS and take a cut which finances their end. This is only for hard standing offices, the web isnt in the legislation.
Every time you go after an internet infringer it is where the offence took place which is their registered web address. This is not taken care of under current EU legislation so there are debates about extending it to include web (in the UK every business website must include their proper office address).
Its all included in the copyright debates as the movie and music industries are pushing it to be so, photography is part of that legislation so a central register and licensing database is proposed which unlike the US system is proactive not reactive.

One other point about the US system is that it doesnt prove copyright, it proves you have registered copyright. Those are two different things. There are also scams where people have registered other peoples images (the US system doesnt check content) which again is why the likes of google with image recognition ability are better for this type of registration. Every time you file court papers you need to prove you own copyright and this isnt showing US registration (which isnt recognised anywhere else and the US is the only country to do it). Hence why Getty need an affadavit from its photographers. You need to show a lawyer the raw file (or unedited out of camera jpeg - and there are forensic tools to prove this) and the edited file. It is easier with professional cameras as all the information including the specific camera details are embedded and insurance companies also have the camera registrations to back this up even if you sell the camera later.
None of this information is new, even when entering photo competitions ownership of the original image needs to be proven like this. Its a very straightforward simple process.

Thanks once again for calling me "Charming", Helpi.

"Nice S.G. Very charming."

S.G.

So let me get this straight, someone else, in a different part of the world says similar things to you and you dont think, hold on a minute two different people telling me the same thing doesnt mean perhaps they are right or have a different view, they must be the same person?
Hmmm...
Glad you arent advising me on all this stuff.

As you say though, you have given your opinions, they are different to my experiences so I'll go with my experiences.

11

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 24, 2011, 04:44:37 AM »

thoughts, feedback, IDEAS

You cant stop them searching your ISPs proxies and caches though.

Who cares? The idea wouldn't be to stop them from looking. The idea would be to make it burdensome for Getty to spider a site.

They dont need to spider your site. They can spider the proxy of whoever visits your site. Google takes caches of sites it searches and stores them. These are spiderable.
Depending on your isp setup, every time you access a site it can take mirrors of it on their proxies, gateways etc.

I dont mean the actual proxies on your own computer, the ones the ISPs, search engine, wayback machines etc use. If they find something in the ISP caches they just go to the site, take a screenshot and done.

12

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 23, 2011, 07:44:09 PM »

Run out of arguments?

Charming.

Its a pity though, you did seem to rationalise the early arguments well, I just thought you didnt understand the concept of an agent and where this might be leading people down a blind alley.
There are loads of different ways to tackle this and get reasonable outcomes but dont give people wrong ideas or false impressions. That will only end up costing them.

In most jurisdictions the courts will allow interest from the date of the infringment so its not in whoevers interest to settle early. In the UK its 8% although people have successfully argued rpi +8% which is tearing the ass out of it. Add in all the fees for responding to queries, emails etc and all in all the lawyers seem to profit from this very well indeed.
Im sure Gettys lawyers make a lot more out of this than Getty does and certainly a lot more than the photographer does.

13

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 23, 2011, 07:39:23 PM »

thoughts, feedback, IDEAS

You cant stop them searching your ISPs proxies and caches though.

14

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 23, 2011, 07:37:34 PM »

Anyone elese notice that 'photographer' aka 'helpi' is "off" on Tuesdays?
Also, inb4 "libel".  Come at me, bro.

S.G

Glad to see I made such an impression on you. Besides which its wednesday.
Good to see that the reasoned argument has gone out the window and you are comparing me to someone Ive never heard of on a different continent.

Keep up the good work, or whatever it is work you do.

I still know nothing about masterfile though.

15

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 22, 2011, 10:01:00 PM »

A lot is has been said in this thread, but I don't see much in the way of links to sources on the web that would confirm many of the opinions.
So, for what it's worth, thanks for your opinions.

There are many links, have a look at sites like the Getty UK solicitors, Carolyn Wrights site, Stop43, copyrightinfo etc etc. But they are just internet sites and Im sure there are as many wikipedia entries one way as the other.

'photographer' says that, "the Getty photographer agreement is an exclusive one and that also includes extending them the rights in the first instance to pursue all infringements", but this statement is directly contradictory to the Righthaven case which shows that it's unacceptable to transfer only the "right to sue".

Again this is a very basic misunderstanding about what an agencies function is. Righthaven were claiming a different function which ultimately failed and wouldnt stand up in court in any jurisdiction.

My argument is tested in court, I can provide evidence of this.  Business agreements will never override the rule of law or legal precedent; Getty doesn't have that kind of power.

Totally agree with you, Ive never disputed this, Im just trying to explain what an Agent is. I cant sue anyone in a court of law because Im not a lawyer, I need a lawyer to act as my agent and work on my behalf. Thats the difference, Getty are an Agent, Righthaven were trying to be something else.
I dont think I can explain this any more than I already have, if you choose to ignore it then fine, we will agree to disagree.

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary posted here, just opinions from people who make money from posting misleading information.

I hope you arent referring to me as someone who makes money from posting misleading information. That is libel after all and I could sue ;-)

Or, stating absurdities such as the "government" is going to go after infringers and fine them.  Are you 12-years old, or something?
It simply serves to illustrate how the scheme of misinformation operates in order to entice people to pay with doing their homework.

Nope I not 12 years old but my 12 year old nephew could probably read the white papers and come to his own conclusions... which is all I am asking people to do. Dont be led by the nose by anyone here (myself included) do your own research, if you have been issued with any claim then consult a qualified IP attorney/lawyer and dont listen to hearsay.

'photographer' sounds like a 'sockpuppet' for HELPI who left here because his "cover" was blown.

There you go with the libel again.

The whole, "we don't need to own the copyright because we have an exclusive agreement" argument is becoming tiresome.
Copyright your photos properly, and you'll be fine.  That's the only way that you can have some control in the world of infringements.

Again you are missing the point, I do have total control, all my images are copyright, I just choose to instruct Getty to sort out the images I have with them. If I didnt like it I wouldnt have signed the agreement. I do use other agents (lawyers, attorneys, solicitors, barristers) to do exactly the same result. I own the copyright, its down to me.

But, I'd be very, very interested to see a copyright infringement challenge in court for tens of thousands of dollars wherein the plaintiff arrives with a complaint, but no paperwork from the copyright office as proof of ownership.

Would anyone be that stupid? Would any self respecting law firm let it get that far without any cast iron proof? It would be laughed out of court and be incredibly expensive in costs and probably perjury/whatever.

If whilst reading this you take anything away is that dont listen to anything you read on the net, consult the relevant legal team in your jurisdiction. And no Im not related to anyone touting IP services on the net either (although my cousin is a barrister and an ex-girlfriend (yes another one) is a solicitor) oh and Ive had lunch with music IP attorneys.

I am a photographer and I dont rely at all on infringements for my livelihood (or part of it).

Of course there is the simple fact that if noone infringed IP in the first place, we wouldnt need this discussion.
Now theres a thought..