Messages

286

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: August 06, 2012, 11:05:44 AM »

Scraggy,

I already posted a precedent showing how one can sue while only having a non-exclusive agreement.
Silvers vs Sony is a precedent as you say, however later precent Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co. showed that the non-exclusive license holder could sue if certain conditions were met.
Oscar has stated what he thinks; I doubt that it would be productive for him to repeat himself, and then be told that he's "wrong".



S.G.

287

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are Screenshots from the Wayback Machine useful as evidence?

« on: August 03, 2012, 05:24:23 PM »

Thanks for your research and the link.
The link didn't work for me; perhaps you could repost it?

I also agree that decisions do vary...


S.G.

288

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Why do people HATE Getty Image?

« on: August 03, 2012, 02:15:31 PM »

Good posting.  Yup, those are some disgruntled folks.

As I mentioned in another thread, since neither they or the artist signs their contracts, who knows what they could do with the artist's content?
A dispute would have to be settled in court... and they have lots of money for a court fight.

Also, I've been been looking around recently, and I'm impressed by the affordable royalty-free content now available.
There's some great alternatives to buying from Getty.

Alas, the consumer's gain means that the artists make less money.

S.G.

289

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are Screenshots from the Wayback Machine useful as evidence?

« on: August 03, 2012, 01:34:31 PM »

It's important to note that while what Moe says is true, at the actual trial, the Internet archival data was NOT in fact admissible as evidence.

"However, at the actual trial, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings, and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported webpage printouts themselves were not self-authenticating."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine

As this was part of the final determination, this is the actual precedent.
It's also especially relevant in that even if such archival evidence is accepted, we have this court case that shows that the evidence might be unreliable.

Furthermore, even if later cases haven't challenged the veracity of "archival" evidence, this does not dilute the value of this case as a precedent.
That may only mean that past defendants chose not to use this case in their arguments, or weren’t aware of it.

---

I still think that the weak contractual agreements between artists and the retailers will be the primary defence against trolls in the forseeable future.
However, it's nice to have the above defense as a back-up.

Another startling fact is that since it appears that many agreements made between Getty and their artists aren't signed, it leaves both the artist and Getty on questionable legal grounds.
Imagine if an artist and Getty had a dispute.  Picture a "breach of contract" dispute wherein nobody has actually signed a contract.
What a mess that would be.

S.G.

290

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are Screenshots from the Wayback Machine useful as evidence?

« on: August 02, 2012, 11:07:44 PM »

Lucia makes a great point.

Even if Picscout found an "infringement" on a person's site, they will not be able to prove with certainty how long it was on there.
This might be a viable defense in many cases...

S.G.

291

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GETTY IMAGES CONTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT

« on: August 02, 2012, 02:34:33 PM »

I guess that at this point, we can all agree that payment is "optional".
They ask for too much in their settlements, so less people are taking that above "option", though.

S.G.

292

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GETTY IMAGES CONTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT

« on: August 02, 2012, 11:12:10 AM »

Much Getty butthurt detected.
I don't see what the point is of taking it down.
But, whatever makes them feel better.

S.G.

293

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are Screenshots from the Wayback Machine useful as evidence?

« on: August 01, 2012, 01:29:25 PM »

Wow... who knew?
Here's my face right now:



S.G.

294

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are Screenshots from the Wayback Machine useful as evidence?

« on: August 01, 2012, 01:22:18 PM »

U so funny, MC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telewizja_Polska

ahh... I guess that you mean "Echostar Satellite"?



If so, then what a great precident.  Perhaps, one of the greatest finds EVER?

S.G.

295

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are Screenshots from the Wayback Machine useful as evidence?

« on: July 31, 2012, 11:42:04 PM »

Good point, Greg.
It would be quite funny if Getty had to bring in a laptop to the court, and call up the actual website to prove their assertions.
By then, any alleged infringement would be gone of course.
lol.

S.G.

296

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are Screenshots from the Wayback Machine useful as evidence?

« on: July 31, 2012, 02:21:11 PM »

This is a great posting, MC. Thanks.  The case is from Poland, right?
Too bad that this wouldn't be a solid precedent for folks residing in the US.
I guess that this really shows that it sometimes pays to just try an idea.
I would have assumed that the archive would have been pretty solid evidence.
One just never knows.

S.G.

297

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GETTY IMAGES CONTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT

« on: July 30, 2012, 07:49:10 PM »

I think that it's a given that you should send what you have to Buddhapi, Scraggy!!
That would be great!!

S.G.

298

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Do I have to prove innocence? Interesting spot with Getty.

« on: July 30, 2012, 06:25:42 PM »

To answer the question "nutinsider" asked... you should always wear a condom, and not "nut inside her".
But seriously, whether or not you ran an actual hedge fund has no bearing on whether or not you "infringed on a copyright".
So, just forget about that part.

Listen to Buddhapi, though.  They never send anybody proof of their claims...  and they have very little hope in court.
If you infringed on a pile of images, and their paperwork was in order, things might be different.

S.G.

299

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GETTY IMAGES CONTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT

« on: July 30, 2012, 02:25:24 PM »

It would be nice to see "Exhibit 4" from the Getty vs Advernet case.
That contains the redacted copies of contributor agreements related to the case.

S.G.

300

Getty Images Letter Forum / "Stone Collection" images part of Getty vs Advernet loss

« on: July 30, 2012, 02:07:59 PM »

Sorry if this had been mentioned before, but I think that this is of interest.

We've talked about the "(Tony) Stone Collection" many times on the forum.
It's believed that this group of images constitutes one of Getty's stronger suits in regard to legal standing.
Additionally, it's been stated by more than one person that this collection was sold as royalty free, but was then moved into rights managed territory.

If one refers to the Getty vs Advernet complaint at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81920643/Getty-Images-vs-Advernet-Complaint



One can see that several "Stone Collection" images were part of the complaint.
Since this case was a loss for Getty, I think that we can say with some confidence that the "stone Collection" never had much legal weight at all.

Things could change in the future, of course.
However, I thought that I'd point this out in case anyone missed it.

S.G.