Messages

151

Legal Controversies Forum / Canada supports The Pirate Bay!

« on: October 02, 2012, 11:20:05 AM »

Canada supports The Pirate Bay!

http://torrentfreak.com/canadian-government-sponsored-the-pirate-bay-120929/



S.G.

152

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: October 02, 2012, 12:46:41 AM »

The Getty drones probably don't care to explain it why the "country" selection is there.
The management surely does know, even if it's only used for marketing intelligence purposes.

Yes, royalty-free is the way to go.
Rights managed images are overpriced for most normal applications.

S.G.

153

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: October 01, 2012, 11:22:50 PM »

There's a lot of speculation going here recently.
But, it's just that; speculation.

S.G.

154

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: October 01, 2012, 05:59:32 PM »

I don't think that there's any law that states that only one person can have exclusive rights for something that's on the Internet.

I went for a soak in the bathtub... now I'm back...
The best way to explain everything is as follows.

Assume that I'm making a website in Canada.  So, I license some images from a retailer has the right to sell to me in Canada.
Anyone, anywhere in the world can look at my webpage without infringing.
That includes me as the author of the webpage, and the person viewing the webpage in their web browser.
That's because, it's all "fair use". It's not an infringement for the servers to cache and transmit the web page.
Also, it's not an infringement for the end user's computer to cache the web page (including all images), and present it on-screen.

No infringement occurs at all.

S.G.

155

Legal Controversies Forum / Japan: Up to 10 years in prison for uploading; 2 years for just downloading

« on: October 01, 2012, 04:44:13 PM »

Japan: Up to 10 years in prison for uploading; 2 years for just downloading

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-downloading-law-hits-japan-up-to-2-years-in-prison-from-today-121001/

S.G.

156

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: copyright troll Hawaiian Art Network v. The Scott LLC update

« on: October 01, 2012, 02:23:06 PM »

This is one of those situations wherein it seems that it was certainly worthwhile to "lay low".

S.G.

157

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: October 01, 2012, 02:21:50 PM »

I think that international copyright litigation is a bit beyond the scope of ELI, but that's just my personal opinion.

But, I'll give an example.  I have a Canadian company with a website.  I need some images.
I'll license some images from a retailer that owns the rights to sell to Canadian customers.
So long as the images were licensed to my company, I can use those on my website.
It doesn't matter if somebody in the USA or Poland can see the images on my website.
That's not an infringement.

Now, any disputes about pricing and territories are the sole concerns of the retailer(s), and rights-owner(s).
It doesn't have anything to do with the end user.  Any disputes would be a breach of contract situation between the retailer(s), and rights-owner(s).

Again, we shouldn't confuse a type of "media" with a "territory".

There will never be "world copyright law", just as there will never be "world government".

Like I said, all this is quite beyond the scope of ELI.

S.G.

158

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: October 01, 2012, 11:05:44 AM »

I believe that the territories are based on where the rights owner can sell the image in question.
The concept of "infringement" is not necessarily based on where a person can "see" the image.

S.G.

159

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Alaska Stock - Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

« on: September 30, 2012, 06:38:03 PM »

Wonder if he blames "infringers" for his misfortune?



S.G.

160

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 30, 2012, 03:45:17 PM »

Yeah... they're not even filing suit as a scare tactic anymore.
Must have really thrown off their game.



S.G.

161

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 30, 2012, 12:32:08 AM »

Thanks to Oscar for his input, and the reminder!!

"Actual damages" refer to the actual retail price of the image; what Getty would license the image for.
The price would reflect where, when, and how long the image was used, as if you actually licensed it from Getty.
It's important to remember that while Getty makes large demands in its letters, the actual pricing is usually much less than this.

"Statutory damages" refer to costs above and beyond the actual price of the image.
This is of major concern, as it may include legal fees incurred by the plaintiff, loss of profits, and other costs.
These damages can really add up, as anyone who's needed the services of a lawyer can attest to.

In the US, one may only seek statutory damages if the image has been properly registered with the Copyright Office.  Otherwise, the plaintiff may only seek actual damages.
In Canada, one may seek either statutory damages, or actual damages.  The choice is not dependent on registration with the Canadian Copyright Office, although that would help the plaintiff's case greatly.

It's easy to see why Getty doesn't give any information about the status of the content that it sells.
They wish to give the impression that all of their images are registered with the copyright office, in order to make the spectre of statutory damages loom over the alleged infringer.
Also, a proper registration is an essential part of proving a case in the event of a dispute.

What Oscar is saying is that if the defendant successfully pleads "innocent infringement", the penalty could be as low as $200 in the US.
But, if Getty felt that the alleged infringer could do this, their strategy may be to sue for actual damages if those amounted to an excess of $200.

In US law, "innocent infringement" is defined as "In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
It's up to the court to decide the validity of the defendant's defense of "innocent infringement".  But, such things would likely include situations such yours wherein something was offered for free use, and you acted in good faith and belief.

Having said all that, the major stock image companies have been largely unsuccessful in their court endeavors.
All this talk of court and lawsuits isn't intended to scare anyone.  Lawsuits are quite rare.
Getty's never sued over a small number of images.  Masterfile has in the past, but they seem to be on hiatus for now.

S.G.

162

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: September 29, 2012, 06:38:48 PM »

I get the point that you're making...
Why would Getty ask about what country that an image will be used in, yet the audience that could see the pic would be "worldwide" if used on the Internet...
...It's a good point.

I hope that Getty's just asking this because they have to know which country/region that they're licensing into.

S.G.

163

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: September 29, 2012, 12:18:14 PM »

I think that things are getting more complicated as everybody in the business seems to be getting more and more litigious.
In such an environment, the contracts get much more complicated as companies and people seek to protect themselves.
I'm sure that all this adds to the overhead costs of doing business.

All the more reason to buy royalty-free images and bypass all this.

S.G.

164

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: September 29, 2012, 11:35:07 AM »

Great posting, Scraggy!!

However, the Internet is not a "territory".  It's not a geographical place.
The Internet, is in fact a "medium", much like television or radio.

You'll notice that demand letters and lawsuits are always between actual entities with physical addresses.
It's always "plaintiff of city/state/country" versus "defendant of city state country".
Legal procedures and thus decisions are then governed by the laws of each city/state/country, and the contracts/conventions between them.

The concept of actual territories is actually quite easy to understand, even if the actual content is broadcast on the Internet.
Assume for a moment that I'm a German national.  I can register my photograph with the Canadian copyright office.
My photo is now protected in Canada, and I'll do business there.
Next, I'll register it in the United States, then transfer all rights to a person named "John Smith".
Now, I control rights in the Canadian territory, and "John Smith" controls all rights in the American territory.

As an aside, one may write up a contract that says something to the effect of "I grant the rights for "John Smith" to stream my video on the Internet".
But, the Internet is still a medium of transmission.  In any dispute, the laws that apply correspond to those of the city/states/countries having to do with the residence of the deal-makers, and the city/states/countries wherein an infringement occurred.

More succinctly, the Internet is fact a network infrastructure, with the World Wide Web being a protocol to handle and route traffic.

As for Getty not selling images in some countries, it may be simply that they do not have the right to retail certain images in those places.
A different company may selling those images in such countries.  In any case, there's no onus on Getty to sell their images in every market.

S.G.

165

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 28, 2012, 11:48:39 PM »

I think that it's "understood" that an image must be registered with the copyright office first, to assert the rights afforded by law.
After that, said rights may be transferred.  A "transfer of rights" doesn't create a registration with the copyright office, you see.
Anyway, here's some verbiage from 205(c) 1- 2-

(c) Recordation as Constructive Notice. — Recordation of a document in the Copyright Office gives all persons constructive notice of the facts stated in the recorded document, but only if —

(1) the document, or material attached to it, specifically identifies the work to which it pertains so that, after the document is indexed by the Register of Copyrights, it would be revealed by a reasonable search under the title or registration number of the work; and

(2) registration has been made for the work.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

---

Scraggy had mentioned "I don't see how it's possible to divide the Internet territorially."

The concept of whether the Internet can or cannot be divided up into territories is of no use here.
That's because each territory (country) has its own copyright laws.  There's no "world copyright law" and no "world copyright office" even if the Internet is assumed to be "freely accessible worldwide".
Therefore, we are left only with regional systems, and regional laws.  Each country or union has its own set of laws.
It may surprise some that copyright laws in the US do not make any special provisions for infringements on the Internet (in the subject matter of images that we discuss on ELI).
I should reiterate that if I register something in Canada, I have no standing in the United States, for example.
This pretty much blows the concept of "worldwide" out of the water, regardless of the perceived reach of the Internet.
Nothing changes just because it's on the web.

For example, imagine that I registered one of my photographs in Canada, and a US citizen "infringes" by using it on his web page residing in the US.
I couldn't go to a US court and make this person pay damages, by using Canadian laws and Canadian registration data.
In addition, I couldn't bring the person to a Canadian court, and make him/her pay damages based on an infringement made in the US, by a US citizen.
The argument that the "Internet is worldwide" would fail, because systems of law are not "worldwide".  They differ.

The quote from David R. Johnson and David G. Post is really great, and I wish that it was as they say.
But, none of what they say is anywhere close to being law, and any country could black out Internet service if they really wanted to.
It has in fact already happened.  Try using Facebook in China, or Gmail in Iran...

S.G.