Messages

1096

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Registered images?

« on: February 17, 2009, 02:50:15 PM »

Ok, good question. "Registered image" is an image that was filed for copyright protection with the US Copyright Office. Understand that the second you take photograph, you own the copyright to that image.  You don't need to register it, you don't need to watermark it, you  don't need to attach a (c) next to it. Its yours from the moment of creation. If you choose, however, you can file that image  with the US Copyright Office.  That makes it a registered image. Here are the benefits of registering an image: (1) Clear proof of ownership and date of ownership (2) You cannot sue in Federal Court without first registering the image (3) You don't get legal fees and costs as part of your damages unless the image is registered.

1097

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Why dont they go after Google?

« on: February 17, 2009, 02:44:23 PM »

Let me answer some of your questions:
(1) They don't go after Google because of the newly enacted Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA protects sites (ISPs, etc) that allow users to post content (YouTube, Google, Yahoo, etc) It states that sites like these are not responsible for copyright infringement done by the posters. The DMCA requires copyright holders to inform these sites that an infringement occurred and asking them to cease and desist.  The ISP then sends that notice to the poster and removes the offending material. So in short - there's no money in it.
(2) Getty does use the Wayback Machine (www.archives.org) to prove what the site had as its content. Sometimes they also take a screenshot at the time of the infringement and have that as evidence.
(3) I agree that this is a clear example of a large corporation pushing small businesses around. Its why I love being a lawyer that I can help people fight back a bit. I have said this over and ove again, we do not approve of copyright infringement and we don't begrudge anyone's right to protect one's intellectual property - its just the manner and mechanism and exorbitant demand that make this troublesome.

1098

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bad Credit Report Impact If Not Paid

« on: February 02, 2009, 10:57:49 AM »

Be aware that they may not want to deal with you and insist that the "end-user" be the one in the discussion.  The lowest I have heard them go is $550 per image. Certainly by your corresponding to them and talking with them, you may expose yourself to liability as the web developer, but your client would be likely to sue you if they got sued and lost anyway. I highly doubt Getty will sue over three images, but many folks cannot stand the pressure and just want to pay it off.  I suggest you read the summary and other relevant posts to familiarize yourself with the talking points on the issue. Good luck and keep us posted.

1099

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Retroactive Use"

« on: January 23, 2009, 05:00:10 PM »

I cannot help you in Canada, just recall that under UK Copyright law (as is applied in Canada) if you can prove innocent infringement then the copyright holder would not be entitled to damages. With that many images on the line, you shol dconsult an IP lawyer in your area ASAP.

1100

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images demanding $1000 for image not on the live site

« on: January 23, 2009, 04:58:04 PM »

I can't advise you to ignore it even though it is highly unlikely that they will sue you. I don't believe Getty will sue over one image and many people with one image have decided to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.  Others have opted for the letter from this site so that they have some peace of mind and Getty cannot contact them directly.  Its really up to you, both decisions are supportable in this case.

1101

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: hypothetical infringement

« on: January 17, 2009, 10:37:44 PM »

All right, I will answer the three questions for you:

1) What if a million people who ordered a Ford with a particular trim option, and it turned out that Chevrolet had the copyright on the particular trim design. Could Chevrolet demand that the million Ford owners remove the trim and pay damages?

If there was a valid copyright to the trim design, then yes, they could be sued for copyright violation and then the million people would have a suit against Ford.  Of course, in your example, Chevy would just go right against Ford as it is a deep pocket. Getty doesn't go after the website developer because they are hard to track down, may be in India or Pakistan and normally can just shut down the business and re-open as something else.  The end users cannot do this.

2) What about a thousand people who bought and displayed a bumper sticker whose manufacturer had stolen the design?

Ditto.

3) Or how about ten thousand people who brought a Christmas display (from manufacturer who had stolen the design) and displayed it on their lawn?

Ditto

1102

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Retroactive Use"

« on: January 17, 2009, 10:33:00 PM »

OK Masterfile is different than Getty for a few reasons - first they normally DO register their images and if you ask them for proof of registration they will send it to you. Second - they do sue, They have filed several lawsuits and retained lawyers across the country to represent them without suit.  All the suits I have found have been settled apparently. Third, they can be reasoned with. The invoice is irrelevant, they would likely have to sue you in the federal court in your district and this is what they are doing across the country. We are currently dealing with a handful of Masterfile claims (all of them with registered images). I would not tell them to buzz off.  I would engage them and try to offer something reasonable. Copying a screenshot of your site to prove to you that you infringed is not itself copyright infringement  - it would be considered a proper and fair use provided they did have the copyright to the image.  With a correct approach you may get them down significantly

1103

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The famous letter and some questions about liability

« on: January 17, 2009, 10:19:47 PM »

Dear Atch:

(1) You have a plausible defense that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act applies to you because you are not posting items but allowing others to upload content. While your site is not the type of site that the DMCA had in mind, frankly there has been so little litigation under the DMCA that there are still a lot of open questions. Wikipedia actually has a prettty good page on DMCA if you want a quick summary. I think it is a position worth taking because under the DMCA they would have had to send you a cease and desist notice first.

(2) Getty does take a different posture with true not-for-profits. Its one of the only areas where they show flexibility.  If you are a registered 501(c)(3) not for profit then they may listen to reason.  Even if you are not registered, but can show that the site is not a  true commercial site, they may drop the value they seek. But with so many images, it could still be a fair chunk of change.

Contact me if you would like us to write the letter for you or if you want to first discuss the issue. my email is xxx

1104

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: banner exchange, but still liable?

« on: January 13, 2009, 08:39:48 PM »

That's great!  Did they say why? and who placed the call or email?

1105

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images demanding $1000 for image not on the live site

« on: January 13, 2009, 08:38:39 PM »

Generally no, that's why one incorporates in the first place. However, if the person who actually downloaded the image and placed it on the website may be personally liable as well in some circumstances, but it would be impossible to prove who did that so I would not worry about it.

1106

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bad Credit Report Impact If Not Paid

« on: January 13, 2009, 08:29:52 PM »

Brad:

No one has ever been sued under this program - not since Getty started doing this in 2005,not in any country around the world!
So it is highly unlikely that your client with 4 images will be the first target. This is simply "legalized extortion" in my opinion. Getty tests the resolve of the letter recipients by increasing the pressure on them and by sending them legal letters that sound ominous.  I keep expecting the shape to drop any day now but it hasn't yet.  You have to ask yourself: if Getty's legal position was so strong why hasn't anyone ever been sued?

1107

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Extortion Letter in China

« on: January 10, 2009, 11:58:35 PM »

I agree

1108

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images demanding $1000 for image not on the live site

« on: January 10, 2009, 11:58:05 PM »

Getty is even sending out letters for sites that are only on the Wayback Machine (archives.org) For purposes of copyright law you should be aware that it would not matter if the site was live or not,it would still be an infringement. You don't need to make any money off the "work" to infringe on  a copyright. The main issue is that it is worth closer to $6.50 than $650.

1109

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bad Credit Report Impact If Not Paid

« on: January 10, 2009, 11:55:01 PM »

Dear Brad:
As mappenzellar says, take a look at the post "on being sent to collections"  In summary, this issue cannot affect a credit report as it is not a debt but merely a claim. When NCS recovery calls or emails, tell them immediately that you dispute it and will not deal with them and they will leave it alone and refer back to the getty compliance team.

1110

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Corporation

« on: January 07, 2009, 05:15:56 PM »

Because they registered the images before your use, this amount is fair; not great, but fair. If they sought statutory damages you should be aware that the Copyright Act of 1976 lets a federal judge reduce all damages to $200 per infringement. Also please be aware that when Masterfile says they registered the images, they mean they registered them in bulk,not individually.  They take a couple of hundred or thousand images and register them as "compilations."  What that means is that the compilation becomes the "Work" and not the individual image.  What that means is that if you then take forty images from the compilation, you have infringed precisely ONE time. Keep that in mind and check to see if the five images all came from one compilation, then you have only one infringement not five.