Show Posts
256
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter, now what???
« on: August 16, 2012, 05:39:34 PM »
Fewer's not really in the "legal defense" business.
His comments are quite general, and not "meaty" enough.
Additionally, some of his stuff relates to older issues, and things have changed.
So, here are some interesting tidbits from me:
---
There have been about 60 Masterfile lawsuits in Canada, and only two Getty lawsuits that occurred several years ago.
In almost every case, these actions have been settled out of court, abandoned by the plaintiff, or a judgement was made against a defendant that defaulted.
I can only think of two cases that actually went before a judge; both were Masterfile cases.
One was a win for Masterfile, with MF awarded "a multiple of the license fee".
The other was a big loss also by Masterfile. Search for Masterfile vs World Internet.
So, there's not a lot to go on as far as example cases go.
I have also heard that Getty does employ some lawyers in Canada to send out threatening letters as well.
Much as in the US, the Achilles heel of these cases turn out be who actually owns (and therefore who has the right to collect damages) in cases of infringement.
Getty has done a terrible job in this regard, and would be quite easy to defeat if they do not own the rights to the work in question.
So, that's where to start should you feel the need to fight.
---
Getty images doesn't have a single thing registered in Canada, last I checked.
That's a problem for Getty.
"Registration, while not necessary, provides certain presumptions that are useful if the copyright is litigated and prevents any person from relying on the defence of “innocent infringement” (i.e., where the infringer did not know and had no reason to suspect that copyright existed in the work). If there is no registration, an infringer who successfully proves the defence of innocent infringement could be prohibited from further copying but would not be liable for damages."
from page 66:
http://www.osler.com/uploadedFiles/News_and_Resources/Publications/Guides/Doing_Business_in_Canada_-_2011/DBIC-Chapter13.pdf
Even if this went to court (and it won't by the way), you could claim "innocent infringement", and not even have to pay the retail value of the image, probably nothing at all.
ProTip: I think that Masterfile has retained Osler (the source of the above quote) in the past for litigation...
S.G.
His comments are quite general, and not "meaty" enough.
Additionally, some of his stuff relates to older issues, and things have changed.
So, here are some interesting tidbits from me:
---
There have been about 60 Masterfile lawsuits in Canada, and only two Getty lawsuits that occurred several years ago.
In almost every case, these actions have been settled out of court, abandoned by the plaintiff, or a judgement was made against a defendant that defaulted.
I can only think of two cases that actually went before a judge; both were Masterfile cases.
One was a win for Masterfile, with MF awarded "a multiple of the license fee".
The other was a big loss also by Masterfile. Search for Masterfile vs World Internet.
So, there's not a lot to go on as far as example cases go.
I have also heard that Getty does employ some lawyers in Canada to send out threatening letters as well.
Much as in the US, the Achilles heel of these cases turn out be who actually owns (and therefore who has the right to collect damages) in cases of infringement.
Getty has done a terrible job in this regard, and would be quite easy to defeat if they do not own the rights to the work in question.
So, that's where to start should you feel the need to fight.
---
Getty images doesn't have a single thing registered in Canada, last I checked.
That's a problem for Getty.
"Registration, while not necessary, provides certain presumptions that are useful if the copyright is litigated and prevents any person from relying on the defence of “innocent infringement” (i.e., where the infringer did not know and had no reason to suspect that copyright existed in the work). If there is no registration, an infringer who successfully proves the defence of innocent infringement could be prohibited from further copying but would not be liable for damages."
from page 66:
http://www.osler.com/uploadedFiles/News_and_Resources/Publications/Guides/Doing_Business_in_Canada_-_2011/DBIC-Chapter13.pdf
Even if this went to court (and it won't by the way), you could claim "innocent infringement", and not even have to pay the retail value of the image, probably nothing at all.
ProTip: I think that Masterfile has retained Osler (the source of the above quote) in the past for litigation...
S.G.
