Messages

16

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

« on: August 18, 2011, 12:26:50 AM »

Apparently, you can't read, either. I also stated that I am a small business, as well AND that I had to close a business I purchased a year after buying it.
As for this other infringement, I also stated that I liked their idea and really didn't want to put it out of business, so rather than suing, I'd offer to take a small share in the company. It is a start up, so that offer may just fly. I at least I've got the balls to try a different tactic, and I don't just go out and take other people's work, assuming it's "free' because it is on the internet.
I do have a right to be paid for my work, even if you think it should be free.

I dare you to go to a store, shoplift a $49 item, get caught and then try to explain to the judge why you should only have to pay the $49, but no other costs.
The problem is people are more inclined to steal something they view as having "less value". A candy bar versus a Ferrari, for instance. That attitude spills over into the world of intellectual property, as well, which is very, very different than petit theft or grand larceny.
That $1 special photo you lifted because you viewed it as having "less value" than the $350 photo could cost you a whole hell of a lot more than the $350 because of copyright law. It's called a deterrent, it's meant to help keep dishonest people/organizations from stealing other's work. other

17

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

« on: August 17, 2011, 11:34:34 PM »

According to Ryan's profile page, all of his work is registered, he doesn't give anything away for free and if you don't have much to spend, go somewhere else.
He's pretty well up front with everything. Watermarks are not required by law. I don't use them very often, I hate them, I want people to actually view my image, not some artsy fartsy copyright notice. If you aren't bright enough to read the copyright notice on the page, the popup or in the exif, that's not my problem.

18

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GR/PPH/CON Form

« on: August 17, 2011, 11:25:22 PM »

The online form asks if the items have been published or unpublished.
I believe Buddhapi is correct about the 3 month window, in fact my politician infringer took a photo two months after publication, but before registration. I registered it and statutory damages applied. For three separate infringements, two on the web, one in print.
While the courts haven't been exactly clear on the subject, putting one's photos on the web doesn't neccesarily mean they've been published.

19

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class Action Lawsuit Against Masterfile.

« on: August 17, 2011, 11:16:00 PM »

If I recall correctly, the UK doesn't require copyright registration, either. So basically they give up the ability to go after "innocent" infringers in return for not having to go through the hassle and cost of filing.

20

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GR/PPH/CON Form

« on: August 17, 2011, 01:30:41 AM »

First, why use a paper form for registration when eCo is $15 cheaper?
VA is the form to use if none of the images have been published.
GR/PPH/Con is used when registering a group of images that have been published in a calendar year. For instance, a newspaper/magazine/website might use it to register the images it published during the year. Up to 750 images are allowed to be registered at one time, so if more were published, another registration would be required.

~NOTE~ I am NOT an attorney. The above statement is from my personal experience/understanding of the regulations. Your experience/needs may be very different than mine.

21

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

« on: August 17, 2011, 12:32:27 AM »

I don't think you'll be seeing the mass registrations in the future. The Copyright Office has begun requesting that registrants issue a title of each work with collective submissions. I've got a feeling that it will become a rule in the not too distant future.
My largest collection was about 500 images, all submitted online, and took me several hours to complete. Adding a title to each image, and then adding the title into the collection titles will add quite a bit more work to the process. For me, it means that I'll probably keep my collective works submissions to somewhere between 200-300 images.
On the plus side, it'll take away any doubt about whether an image is registered or not and may cut down on frivolous litigation.

As for being worried that I'll anger a nutcase, not really. I don't send letters to "John/Jane Doe", I research the site/owner/ceo before I commence any action.

22

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

« on: August 15, 2011, 04:55:33 PM »

@ Bekka: Only one of my photographs that have been infringed on could be construed to be "generic".
I ran a search on the one the design company stole. Getty had nothing similar, neither did iStock nor Corbis. A google search brought up nothing similar either. In fact, almost every one of the images I've had infringed could be called extremely rare, at the least, or even one of a kind. I really don't deal in generic.

@S.G. yeah, I didn't realize a law degree was highly recommended in this profession. Good thing I worked in my step-grandfather's law office while in college. He offered to pay my way through law school. I declined, there are enough attorneys in the family already

23

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

« on: August 15, 2011, 03:12:58 AM »

@ mcfilms: The Getty contracts specifically states it will pay the photographer royalties on any settlements it receives through its claims department.
None of my infringement cases have gone to trial, and one settled in the five figure range. There is one current case, which has been filed, and I have solid evidence that the infringement was willful, and the company at fault has received a offer to settle for six figures. No counter offer has yet been received.

@MikeD: On Google images when you click on an image: "This image may be subject to copyright".  Fair warning right there. If you wind upon my page, right clicking brings up a copyright notice and every page has a copyright notice AND the image's exif information contains a copyright notice (For my more "recent" photos after I switched from PhotoPaint to Photoshop. PP stripped exif info for some reason.)
I'm fully and painfully aware of the state of the economy, I purchased a business in 2009, the economy tanked a few months later and I closed the doors a year after I bought it. Lost my a$$, basically everything but my house, and put seven people, not including myself, out of work. Where my photography was a large part of my business before, it is my only income now. So, yeah, I'm going to be a hellion when it comes to commercial infringers.

To be honest, I have never copied a CD, DVD, used Napster or any other file sharing service. I'm not much of a music or movie guy, I prefer visual works. I have recorded VCR tapes (remember those?) and dvr'd shows/movies. All perfectly legal. I have berated my own mother for copying a photo.

As of today, I've found yet another infringement thanks to a contact who sent me a link. It's a start up, but I really like the idea behind the business. A lawsuit would probably kill them, so I'm probably going to offer to take a small percentage in the company instead of a cash settlement.

24

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

« on: August 13, 2011, 11:32:23 PM »

To answer your question, of course there is the chance of someone "double dipping". It would be foolish on the photographer's part to do so considering that a company like Getty can afford the best image tracking/recognition software. Chances are, the shooter would get nailed and face a breach of contract suit.
In my own experience, I had a company take an image, place it on their site and basically say "Here, take it, share it, use it." That image appeared on at least 14 other websites, including ones in Asia and eastern Europe. For all intents and purposes, I've lost all control of that image.
I think part of the issue is people have this perception of "innocent until proven guilty", which is a criminal law concept. What we are talking about here is generally a civil matter, which pertains to liability, not guilt or innocence.
Burden of proof is the key, the burden is much lower in civil matters, not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal cases. If there's a copy of the webpage with the infringing content, there's proof. If the image was registered, there's proof of ownership. Now it's up to the infringing party to prove that the infringement was innocent since the law places that burden upon the defendant. If it is a BS argument, a judge or jury will probably see right through it. In this day and age, with all of the information out there about copyright infringement, there really isn't an excuse anymore. I've heard a lot of them, "I got it off of Google and thought it was free", Google has a notice that material may be copyrighted, BTW. My personal favorite, and the one that I've heard the most, "Our intern did it." Yeah, and every high school and college in the country has an internet policy that explains copyright infringement. My second fave is "It's fair use." On a business website? Really?
This is how it goes for me: I find an infringement, I send out a DMCA notice with a cease and desist clause. Then I send out a letter of demand/offer to settle. Usually, there is a bit of negotiating about the amount, which I usually lower a little as a good faith gesture.
If the other party refuses to negotiate, I ramp things up and, if need be, spend the $350 to file a complaint in federal court.
If I have to file suit, the amount goes up sharply. The other party had a chance to settle for a fairly low sum and refused. Now I want statutory damages and what could have been settled for four figures will now probably cost the infringer five figures, plus costs.

25

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

« on: August 13, 2011, 06:35:35 PM »

To clarify, it's my understanding that the photographer gets their standard percentage of whatever Getty settles for. So, if it's a $900 settlement, and the shooter gets 30%, then it's $300 to the shooter.
I do have a contract with Getty for stock images, however my style/type of shooting isn't all that condusive for the type of images that are needed/wanted, so I have a very, very limited number of images selling through them. I make enough to take my wife to dinner a couple of times a year, no big deal.
It's not just offshore companies that infringe, I'm in the midst of an infringement suit with a US design company, one that purported to license images through a microstock company. Innocent infringement my butt on that one, they couldn't find what they needed/wanted on microstock so trolled the web to find something and grabbed one of my shots. I've also had to deal with an author, an ad agency, an international travel company, a politician, a couple of major online publishers and a major multinational financial institution. Only three infringers have been individuals, of them two were teenage girls and one was a college student. They got a lesson in copyright and how to ask permission, nothing more.
The law is a double edged sword, sure big companies can use it to intimidate the "little guy", at the same time, it gives a "little guy" like me some very sharp legal teeth against the "big guys". Weaken the law, and you'll see more big companies willing to infringe because they know the damages will be small and worth the risk.

26

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

« on: August 13, 2011, 04:27:56 PM »

The Getty contract bars photographers from selling, or giving away, images or similars on other websites. The only exception is the contract allows photographers to sell limited edition prints that are signed and/or numbered.
My guess is the other sites are probably infringing, as well. If the site is in Asia or a former eastern bloc country, ce la vie, good luck trying to stop or collect on it. (I have a number of images that are now located in countries where I can't enforce my copyrights. I can still enforce my rights if you grab one and use it here though.)
When Getty settles a claim, the photographer receives his/her standard percentage. The contract also states that Getty may pursue an infringement on the photographer's behalf.
If Getty declines to pursue an infringement, the copyright owner has the right to do so. You might be off the hook with Getty, but not with the photographer. On the other hand, most photographers have no idea how to proceed with a claim.
When you refuse to pay, you are screwing the artist, too. but, hey, that's the name of the game in today's world, isn't it? "I got mine, so fxxk you."

27

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

« on: August 13, 2011, 04:48:33 AM »

See Corbis v Starr (Ohio 2009)
A: Website owners have the duty to double check that no infringing material is used.
B:Get everything from designers in writing, including a contract stating they will be responsible for any infringing material they place on a site. It may help you recover any losses incurred due to an infringement.
C: Get copies of any licenses.
D: Get IP insurance.

Just some suggestions from a guy who has sent out more than a couple "extortion letters". I register my work. I defend my work. I can, will and have sued over it.
Just remember, I'm a small business, too, one that has spent thousands on equipment. You should be able to spend a little time or a little cash to make sure your business is "clean". If you can't afford to do either, perhaps you should rethink your business plan.