Messages

1096

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile, Getty and others act like a dumb farmer. US courts too dumb to see.

« on: August 18, 2011, 12:59:39 AM »

Technically, it's not really 'stealing'.
More accurately, it's referred to as "piracy".
'Stealing' assumes that the actual, original article has been taken; it's gone.
'Piracy' implies that a copy has been made, while the original article still exists, intact in the same place.

Also, getting a 'share' in a small company might not be as good as it seems.
A small business could simply close, and you'd be out of luck.  You'd have a hard time proving that they closed to get rid of you.
Then, they'd just start again under some other name.

Now, if you could get actual 'stock', say in a bigger company, that might be worth something.

S.G.

1097

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty sends DCMA notice to google

« on: August 17, 2011, 04:13:03 PM »

Thanks for your response, buddhapi.

As a hosting provider, you're protected by the DMCA.  No question.
You provide storage, bandwidth, etc.  The end user is ultimately responsible for the content.

Much the same thing applies for ISPs who provide Internet access.
They're not liable for what people upload/download.

That's a big relief for businesses in that they don't have to "police" what their customers do.

Thanks again for your posts.

S.G.

1098

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty sends DCMA notice to google

« on: August 17, 2011, 03:35:17 PM »

Thanks to buddhapi for posting the link.  Great research as always!!

I would guess that this wouldn't be much different than most other alleged infringement situations.
Each alleged Internet infringer has several things in common.  Firstly, a website exists wherein the infringing content was published. An ISP of some sort is needed to host the site on (in this case it's Google/Picasa), and also a web content owner/publisher (the end user) in this case it's the owner of the Picasa account.
In all cases, the ISP hosting a site is protected by the DMCA, whether it's Google, or GoDaddy.
I surmise that the DMCA takedown notice was sent to Google because the user of the Picasa account was unresponsive, or they couldn't reach him/her.

It might be difficult to show that the images infringed upon were used for commercial purposes; the Picasa account doesn't appear to sell anything.
So, it could be difficult for Getty to prove that significant damages were caused.

One thing that's not in question is that the Picasa account holder is a huge fan of rock-hard abs.

If Getty comes after him, I'd be very wary of "Roid-Rage".

S.G.

1099

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Unfavorable Court Rulings ?? Getty ??

« on: August 16, 2011, 11:24:00 PM »

I get the feeling that Ryan has the same weak copyright registrations as the other trolls.
His lawyer created that elaborate demand letter, but added no copyright info.
So, it just screams "weak registration".

S.G.

1100

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Alaska Stock Images Settlement Demand Letter

« on: August 16, 2011, 11:12:00 PM »

Interesting.  Now we may be reaching the point wherein the letter recipients would be willing to go to court over this.
Until now, most demands were low enough that a court fight wasn't usually cost-effective.

S.G.

1101

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Unfavorable Court Rulings ?? Getty ??

« on: August 16, 2011, 08:14:52 PM »

Thanks for the support, MikeD.

Here's a little cartoon which I think sums up some people's experiences with the stock photo business and rogue photogs:



S.G.

1102

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Unfavorable Court Rulings ?? Getty ??

« on: August 16, 2011, 11:46:31 AM »

Anyone else here getting the feeling that they're glad that they didn't become a photographer?

S.G.

Actually just the opposite, I no longer have to rely on stock image companies. I also highly dount anyone would want to grab my images, being the hack that I am... : )

You made a great point, buddhapi.  You're right.

My point is that if I was a photographer, I wouldn't have an interest in sending out demand letters to anons on the web.
Certainly, we all must make a living, however the aspect having a "creative" pursuit, but then having to strong-arm people to make a living off of it would be quite a turn-off for me.
Even if you've been infringed upon, you still have to threaten many people, you may become paranoid when a strange car parks in front of your house, you have to pay thousands up-front for a lawyer just to take your case, and you may never even collect a single cent.
Those are just my personal feelings.

Much of this is a symptom of an industry changing.  The high-end "boutique" stock image industry is dying out in favor of cheaper non-rights managed content.
The "boutique" companies are fighting back with the attitude of "you wouldn't buy our expensive shite, so we're taking your money anyway".
That's been working for a while.  But it can't last forever.  Just look at the photos that teenagers take with cheap point-and-shoot cameras.
Let's face it; not every image infringed upon is an original "Ansel Adams" original, no matter how threatening the letters are and how high the demand is.

There will always be a good market for news-worthy photos.  But even that's shrinking.
Many news-worthy photos are taken by anons with cell-phones.

S.G.

1103

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Unfavorable Court Rulings ?? Getty ??

« on: August 15, 2011, 10:20:53 AM »

Anyone else here getting the feeling that they're glad that they didn't become a photographer?

S.G.

1104

Getty Images Letter Forum / Is MF's John MacDougall on vacation? It's been a bit quiet here...

« on: August 09, 2011, 11:53:02 PM »

Is MF's John MacDougall on vacation?  It's been a bit quiet here lately...

S.G.

1105

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Alaska Stock Images Settlement Demand Letter

« on: August 08, 2011, 06:58:56 PM »

Is Alaska Stock new to the settlement demand letter game?
If so, I wonder if they're trying different approaches to see which pays off faster/better?

S.G.

1106

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Profile sniffers

« on: August 07, 2011, 11:45:01 AM »

There's probably a setting that's used to hide profiles.

However, you can hide most bits of information on your own profile if you wish.

It's doubtful that many people could get much personal info from the profiles listing in any case.

But, yeah it would be nice to see who's looking...

S.G.

1107

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm

« on: August 05, 2011, 08:21:56 PM »

Thanks again for taking time out of your busy day to respond, Oscar.
This "bulk registration" issue is pretty interesting.
If the stock image companies (and others) abandon this method of registration, it'll be tough to fight them.

S.G.

1108

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is is smart to contact the photographer about letters?

« on: August 05, 2011, 08:19:18 PM »

Thanks for the clarification, Oscar!!

Sounds like I missed a good post, tho...?

S.G.

1109

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Some weekend food for thought.....

« on: August 05, 2011, 08:16:53 PM »

Great research by buddhapi!!

I think that part of Getty's "weaponry" is that it's difficult to be sure of the status of the vast majority of images out there.
That makes it difficult to fight back.

Common sense makes the average person expect the that the party claiming damages would send conclusive evidence with the demands.
But, demand letter victims are often made to feel that they must prove their "innocence" in the face of evidence that is often withheld, or very difficult to track down.

S.G.

1110

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Does Anybody Know of a Truly Free Clip Art Site?

« on: August 05, 2011, 07:59:25 PM »

Some good points made here by all.

Look at where we've ended up.
Many of us need the products, and we're certainly willing to pay for them.
But, I can see that we're all very leery of purchasing images these days.

As buddhapi says, people would feel more confident if they could decipher the EULA.
Sometimes, one would have to really know their stuff to be sure that no infringement is ever made.

The price of making one mistake (even a small one) can be pretty high.

I firmly believe that the demand letter programs are hurting the stock image business.
One needn't even receive a demand letter to be scared off.  Existing customers and prospects everywhere are hearing about this.

S.G.