Messages

196

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $4,050 for 5 pics on Site that went months ago...

« on: November 23, 2010, 05:38:24 AM »

I don't believe a CS2 license included redistribution rights to photos from Adobe Stock Photos. As far as I know, y u still had to pay extra for any images you used. If your web site designer used images from Adobe Stock Photos, he should have made sure you had the appropriate licenses in place.  If your web guy can actually provide receipts for license purchases from Adobe Stock Photos made on your behalf, I would think that would be enough to get Getty off your back.

197

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: No enforceable copyright and acquiescence

« on: November 19, 2010, 12:18:52 PM »

stcrim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my opinion, the issue here is how they are
> getting the pictures into the hands of their
> unsuspecting copyright infringers!!!
>
> There has to be a problem with freely distributing
> images to places they know will spread them
> around, then pouncing on the people who use them,
> I would think.
>
> All of my thoughts on this issue are simply my
> opinion since I'm not a lawyer.  Can anyone
> verify?
>
> -s-

I have always suspected something similar to this.  
1) Are they purposefully creating widescale pilfered content so that they can send out more demand letters?
2) Did they accidentally create widescale infringement with sloppy copyright protection, and then decide to keep being sloppy when they saw how much unauthorized use had been generated and realized how much revenue could be generated with demand letters?
2) Why aren't their images watermarked?
3) Why were non-watermarked Getty images distributed with Microsoft Vista in a folder called "Public\Public Pictures\Sample Pictures"?  How many Vista users would assume they could use these pictures as they wished?
4) If they really wanted to attack the problem then why aren't they educating nonwillfull infringers (e.g. a one time warning to victims of unscrupulous web site developers) and focusing on suing willfull infringers (unscrupulous web site developers)?

It would thrill me to see Getty in court answering these types of questions under oath.

The whole thing has disgusted me so much that Ill never buy another image again from any company.  Canon now has all the money that I would have spent with Getty Images.

198

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: No enforceable copyright and acquiescence

« on: November 18, 2010, 11:26:49 AM »

My understanding after lots of reading. I'm no lawyer, this is just my layman understanding:

None of these things make copyright unenforceable (though some substantially lower HOW MUCH you can be successfuly sued for):

-prior registration,
-the fact that you got the image from a third party,
-lack of copyright markings,
-lack of cease and desist warnings.
-ignorance of the fact that image was violating someone's copyright

Very few of Getty images are registered.  That doesn't mean that they cannot enforce the copyright and sue you for damages.  All they have to do is register the image before they bring a suit.  Whether or not it was registered before unauthorized use makes no difference in whether they can sue.

Photogaphers grant Getty the right to pursue claims to their copyright.  This apparently works as Masterfile does this frequently. Getty has done this too, just not as often as Masterfile.

If the image isnt registered before the violation occured, then only "actual damages" can be awarded.  "Actual damages" is typically the market price for use of the image(s) in question (assuming you weren't reselling the image(s)).  This is very good news as attorney fees and statutory damages arent awarded in this case. Note that Getty seems to disagree with this as they ask for much more than the market price for licensing of their infringed images.

Even in the case of previously registered images, the judge can substantially lower statutory damages if the infringement wasn't willful (meaning you didnt know you were infringing and can prove it).

Bottom line, in my opinion, is to not worry about whether Getty can sue you (they absolutely can) ... but try to determine how much they could really recover from you if they did.  

Hope I got all that right.  Someone please correct me if not.

199

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got my letter need advice

« on: October 22, 2010, 10:10:59 AM »

Funny.  Of course they didn't mention that "anyone" could also send you a bill for photos on your website claiming to be the owner.  

buddhapi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also got tangled up with this thru a third
> party, and have the license, Getty claimed
> "anybody could have created this license"
> naturally the 3rd party in question has long since
> gone away, these were images/templates that were
> purchased over 10 years ago, so i have no invoice
> either. Long story short Getty would not relent,
> but would only agree to lowering the "invoice
> amount"...Hence I hired Mr. M, money well spent,
> as I have not heard a thing and no news is good
> news in my opionion..

200

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Muench Case Under Attack!

« on: October 06, 2010, 12:12:27 PM »

Actually copyright law needs a complete overhaul in my opinion ... both to protect real creations and to protect innocent infringers who are victims of unscrupulous service providers.  It is bad that some photographers are getting their work stolen and can't find a way to get compensation.  Worse, though, is the way the digital warehouses are preying on innocent infringers who were victims of unscrupulous web site developers, or even innocent non-infringers who bought image rights before Getty owned them and lost their receipt.

201

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: interesting read

« on: October 02, 2010, 04:46:20 AM »

good info ... thanks!  Another interesting article on the same story:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/blog-post/1651170/agence-france-presse-slap-photographers

I hope photographers wise up and come to understand that Getty et al are ruining their livelyhood.  I too have bought a high end camera and will never purchase content again.

202

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Muench Case Under Attack!

« on: September 25, 2010, 04:40:30 PM »

Thanks for keepin us posted on that Oscar.  Isn't the court in Bernia vs Riddick taking the same position as Judge Preska?  They didn't cite Judge Preska that I could see but they did say:

"They have provided information that says that they have had searches made and that the only searches -- the only items that came up in the searches are these compilations; and if that's so, that does not entitle you to claim ownership in the -- in the items within the compilations, but just the compilations.  That's how copyright law works."

-August 9 transcript
http://extortionletterinfo.com/imagelinecase/imageline-081810-15-1.pdf

Is it too late to file amicus curiae supporting Judge Preska's original decision?

203

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photo Databases Duplicates?

« on: August 27, 2010, 10:25:03 AM »

Hi SoylentGreen,

Just to clarify, to my understanding:
It is true that an image must be formally registered before a lawsuit can be brought.  However, it is permissible to register the images after the infringment is found, and then sue for all infringement throughout the statute of limitation period (usually the latest 3 years of infringment I think).  So if they find their image on your site, the can easily register the image and sue you.  The only difference is that if the image wasnt registered before the infringement, then they cant recover attorney fees nor can they recover statutory damages.  They can only recover actual damages (probably just the normal licensing fee associated with the image in question).

This is why Masterfile's position is stronger than Getty's.  Masterfile registers beforehand far more than Getty does.

Hopefully Oscar will straighten me out if Im wrong.

204

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: More images found, more letters?

« on: August 12, 2010, 03:16:19 PM »

It is my understanding that they also search stored web history at www.archive.org .  If your web history is stored there, the do have "removal" procedures.

205

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Thanks to Oscar and Matthew

« on: August 10, 2010, 10:28:36 AM »

SoylentGreen Wrote:
. . . The AP will also sell you a “license” to quote
> words it didn’t write and doesn’t own. . . .



Bizarre.  Apparently the AP wants to freely quote others, but want bloggers to pay to quote AP (even brief quotes):
http://boingboing.net/2010/07/06/w00t-sends-associate.html
http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/associated-press-exp.html

Happily, I believe that the digital age copyright fiasco has gotten so bizarre and unmanageable that a change in legislation in the near future is inevitable. Sadly, those creating the fiasco have powerful lobbies to steer the direction of future legislation. Thanks to all the sites (present company at the top of the list) who make the public outrage at this mess heard loud and clear.  Let's hope that the public voice is loud enough to give us some measure of normalcy in the future.

206

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: August 09, 2010, 10:30:49 PM »

This is great.  Nail on the head in my opinion:

"15. The majority of the images over which Imageline claims ownership are rudimentary depictions of commonplace things (such as balls, everyday objects, and exact likenesses of public figures and national landmarks) that cannot be distinguished from other works in their class and, therefore, are not sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright protection."

207

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recent Masterfile Federal Case Vindicates Our Position! A MUST READ

« on: June 17, 2010, 07:24:46 PM »

Hi Oscar,

Would love to hear about the new case you mentioned above.

Thanks!

208

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Famous letter in.... the Netherlands!

« on: February 17, 2010, 04:58:46 PM »

I dont speak German, but I think this is a case where Getty sued in Germany and lost (because the defendant actually had a license I think):
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,547234,00.html

And I think this is be a German forum discussing Getty demands in Germany:
http://www.abmahnwelle.info/

209

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Corbis v Starr

« on: February 16, 2010, 09:30:09 AM »

Thanks Oscar.  You are the greatest!

Its nice to have a source of complete and accurate information like yours.  I have been surprised by the quality of other information on this subject from various attorneys on the internet which is at best incomplete/misleading and at worst just outright wrong.  I saw where one atty giving his conclusions on Corbis v Starr say that "Claiming ignorance of the source of materials used on a website you own, designed or host won't help you."  It seems to me that "Claiming ignorance of the source of materials" very much helped both the owner and the designer in that case.

Attorneys know that we laypeople tend to cringe at the dreaded word "LIABLE" so why aren't the attorneys out there who are commenting on this issue (present company excluded of course) giving the rest of the story, which is low damages in cases of innocent infringement, and even greater limitations on what a prevailing plaintiff can recover if the material wasnt registered before infringement?

210

Getty Images Letter Forum / Corbis v Starr

« on: February 15, 2010, 03:37:02 PM »

Regarding Corbis v Starr  http://oh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFDCT%5CNOH%5C2009%5C20090902_0000790.NOH.htm/qx

This case seems a lot like the typical case here, except that the images were probably registered, making things a bit more complicated for the defendants (compared to cases where images aren't registered).

The way I read it the court found the website owner vicariously liable and the website designer directly liable. No big surprise to anyone who has read over the material here on Mathew's site. No big deal as I think the the more important issues are damages and attorney fees.

It appears that the court didnt rule on the issue of willfullness and damgages (including atty fees), pending a resolution of "issues".  One of the "issues" , it appears to me, is that willfullness on the part of the website owner cannot be established (because it clearly wasnt willfull, in my opinion).  To complicate matters for Corbis, it even looks as if they may even be having trouble showing willfullness on the part of the web site designer.  


Anyway, I was wondering if you had been following this case, Oscar, and if you know when a ruling on willfullness and damages is expected.