257
« on: January 16, 2013, 10:43:27 PM »
That is Interesting but I was annoyed when I read this part of his post:
I know that there is a lot of discourse on the internet about "getty extortion letters" , whereby Getty finds someone who they have no record of having obtained a Getty image legally, stealing an image, and, for a nominal fee of $750, Getty offers to give these infringers essentially a retroactive license.
I am sure that the lawyers behind this, trolling for their own clients to object to Getty, may also be trying to create some form of class action situation down the line. However, companies should be ecstatic that they can get out from under a Federal lawsuit for copyright infringement for that small of an amount. The retainer for a copyright lawyer to defend themselves will be $5k-$10k, if not more - to start. I would find it interesting if there were contributors who took Getty to court for failing to file suit, or, by photographers who had been precluded from filing their own lawsuit by Getty's contract, due to Getty's acceptance of the $750[/size][/size]
We are not trolling for our own clients because if we were the last thing we would do is provide so much FREE information. I could easily build a site where I provide limited information, scare folks into thinking they are likely to be sued imminently and charge much more money for my letter defense. He also surmises that we are trying to troll for class action lawsuits when every chance I get I have posted that I don't see a class action lawsuit in this mess. So while I am glad he linked to our site, I wish he would have been more informed before he posted his erroneous analysis of it.
Show Posts
