Messages

421

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How can you tell if you have Getty Images on your site?

« on: June 14, 2012, 11:33:56 AM »

hmmm... I activated the add on and used it at getty images. On many pages I get nothing.

My idea that you could find GettyImages images using the tool seems sub-optimal. I'm sure you can find some-- but clearly not all or even most!

422

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How can you tell if you have Getty Images on your site?

« on: June 14, 2012, 09:45:25 AM »

I think the question is: How can you tell without self reporting to Getty.

One way that's likely to help you discover many (if not all) getty images is to install Picscout (Getty's) image exchange. http://picscout.com/imageexchange/home If you download this free add on, you can browse every page of your site it will load your images and compares images on your site to the ones in picscout customers catalogs.  When operating properly, the add on opens a sidebar and loads the image in the sidbar. It's a little slow-- but you can step through your site this way.

I don't know if every or even most of the images in Getty's catalog are detectable using this agent, but you can at least find the ones that can be detected by the Picscout agent. Then you can take them down.

The obvious flaw with this method is that if you do it, we don't know whether Getty will then send a human out to look at your site.  The other obvious flaw is that you don't know what happens if a getty image is detected but it's not participating in getty's 'imageshare' program. Maybe Getty records that but doesn't show it in your sidebar.

(BTW: some of the false positives are hilarious!)   

I would advise that if you use this too, you do it at a time when you can very quickly remove any true positives from your site and remove them right away.  By right away, I mean: if you find on on "page X", remove it before checking "page X+1". Also, block access to the wayback before you do this. 

This is a bit paranoid, but we don't know what Picscout/Getty is going to do with information.

After you check your site, and remove any suspicious images you find, I advise de-activating the add on. No point in helping Picscout/Getty find more violations at other people's site.  Well... I guess unless there is no point unless someone is a  super-mega enemy you hope to have Getty pester; but even then surfing through their site isn't guaranteed to get Getty after them. And it's not very nice. (Also, having the tool active makes surfing slower. So, it's silly to keep it on when you aren't actively using it.)

By the way, I'd be happy to provide people with images that result in hilarious false positives.

423

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty From Start To Finish

« on: June 11, 2012, 07:21:54 PM »

Ahh! Well, if the domain is in the LLC's name and the LLC has no money, that fact is useful to you.  I think someone here said in this circumstance do not dissolve the LLC.  Let it exist until the statute of limitations runs out (3 years).    On the one hand, if they sue you need to hire an attorney to defend. On the other hand, if there is no money.... there is no money. 

424

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got my letter few days ago

« on: June 11, 2012, 03:27:12 PM »

hmmm I didn't read the penalties stuff:

http://www.iprotect.ph/intellectual-property-code-copyright-10.htm
Those do read draconian!   

425

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got my letter few days ago

« on: June 11, 2012, 03:12:48 PM »

More phillipines stuff:

This seems to describe the potential penalties:
http://www.iprotect.ph/intellectual-property-code-copyright-09.htm

To an injunction restraining such infringement. The court may also order the defendant to desist from an infringement, among others, to prevent the entry into the channels of commerce of imported goods that involve an infringement, immediately after customs clearance of such goods.

All this seems to say is you can be required to stop using the copyright work.  You've probably already done that.

Pay to the copyright proprietor or his assigns or heirs such actual damages, including legal costs and other expenses, as he may have incurred due to the infringement as well as the profits the infringer may have made due to such infringement, and in proving profits the plaintiff shall be required to prove sales only and the defendant shall be required to prove every element of cost which he claims, or, in lieu of actual damages and profits, such damages which to the court shall appear to be just and shall not be regarded as penalty.

The first bit seems to indicate that your penalties will be based on actual damages and that the amount of those actual damages must be related to actual sales-- not the value the plaintiff (getty or the photographer) wishes he could sell for.

The last bit seems to say the court might apply a penalty they think "just". (I don't know about the Phillipines, but I find it difficult to believe they would consider it "just" to apply a huge fine for posting a picture of a dog in a blog post. You need to do some research to find out what happens in the Phillipines.)
"c" and "d" look irrelevant to you.

Such other terms and conditions, including the payment of moral and exemplary damages, which the court may deem proper, wise and equitable and the destruction of infringing copies of the work even in the event of acquittal in a criminal case. SECTION 216.1

You could be ordered to destroy the image file (you probably have.) YOu could be fined for "moral" damages-- but from the other bit, that might not be something getty can ask. (Of course, the photographer could join in the suit-- them maybe they could get that.)  Then it seems the court could fine you to make an example of you. To figure out if that's likely, you need to find out what has happened in Phillipino courts.

There is nothing here mentioning the pie-in-the sky numbers in US copyright statutes. 

426

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got my letter few days ago

« on: June 11, 2012, 02:15:03 PM »

Do they have any free legal services in the Philipines? You need to spend a few days doing research before you send that letter. For example, I can find this:

TERM OF MORAL RIGHTS. The rights of an author under this chapter (MORAL RIGHTS) shall last during the lifetime of the author and for fifty (50) years after his death and shall not be assignable or subject to license. The person or persons to be charged with the posthumous enforcement of these rights shall be named in writing to be filed with the National Library. In default of such person or persons, such enforcement shall devolve upon either the author's heirs, and in default of the heirs, the Director of the National Library. (SECTION 198.1)

I'm not sure what the means, but for all we know it's possible that in the Phillipines, "not be assignable or subject to license" may mean getty can't go after you for anything other than the actual damages! 

http://www.iprotect.ph/intellectual-property-code-copyright-08.htm

So, for now, you want to:
1) Find out how the images is registered.
2) Find out if how it's licensed.
3) Find out if anyone other than the author can sue you for "moral" rights.
4) Figure out where they would sue you. The US? The phillipines?

Out of curiosity, did the Getty letter get sent from the US? The Phillipines?  What claims does it make?

427

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a letter, stressed

« on: June 11, 2012, 11:31:35 AM »

doggycase--
Also, bear in mind that's the statute of limitations in the US. I think you said you were in the Phillipines; if so, you need to check law in the Phillipines.

428

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got my letter few days ago

« on: June 11, 2012, 08:06:38 AM »

Phillipines? You're going to have to get uptodate on laws in the Phillipines!  I found the wikipedia page (for whatever that is worth).

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

429

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty From Start To Finish

« on: June 10, 2012, 09:29:35 PM »

g-mareng
Contacting the university professor might help you-- or not. It's worth a shot. (Maybe find out from students if he's an ogre first.)

Also: I think exclusive rights are weird. One person can have the exclusive right to put on t-shirts and coffee mugs, another to print the image in a book and another to distribute on the web. So don't assume the fact that the image is in a book means Getty doesn't have the appropriate sort of 'exclusive' right. They may have the appropriate right for web distribution.

One of the difficulties you are going to have is that because this image is in a book, it almost certainly is registered. You should check-- but unlike many other Getty images, I'd guess this one is very likely registered.

You haven't given details of how this image is used. On a business site? Decorating a blog post? And so on.  I'm not sure you ought to because given the whole "copied from a book" thing,  and you have reached the 'letter from McCormick" state, I think you might do better to hire Oscar and explain the details to him.  (I assume McCormick has figured out who you are? These letters must be going to some address where you receive them-- right?)

I've been dealing with Getty myself. But my situation is different from yours. Based on what I know about your situation, I'd be hiring Oscar and hope he can negotiate down. ( BTW: You are the first person I've told that I would hire Oscar if I were in your shoes.)

430

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Unplanned ELI Video Update: Linda's Lyrics/Dash Poem Copyright Extortion

« on: June 07, 2012, 08:27:35 PM »

My gosh this is all over the web. Is there a blog that didn't post it. (Ok... I never posted it. But really. It's just all over the place! )

431

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Unplanned ELI Video Update: Linda's Lyrics/Dash Poem Copyright Extortion

« on: June 07, 2012, 07:48:51 PM »

It's all over Tumblr
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/linda-ellis

432

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 07, 2012, 03:58:15 PM »

Glen,

The "ELI Attorney Warning System."  What that would be is when you see a "new" attorney whose letter appears extreme or is working for a stock photo agency, that you contact them (or me who would be happy to follow up them) and have a "ELI" (Extreme Lawyer Intervention) to warn them about what they are doing and how if you see another letter from them in the future that it will be posted on Scribe and ELI.  It seems harsh to potentially damage the career of an new attorney (for life on Google) because they sent out a letter you feel is inappropriate.   Wouldn't a "one strike" rule be appropriate for them?  They should at least have the choice of continuing to work for the agency and pay ELI's consequences, or to stop doing this work knowing that ELI will be watching and taking action if they continue.

My first reaction is agreeing to would not be fair to letter recipients.   One of the difficulties for recipients is that until they recieve a letter, recipients are operating in a total information vaccuum.  If they recieve an outrageous letter, they have no way of knowing whether others have recieved similar letters, how the letter they recieved stacks up relative to other letters, or what sorts of outcomes to expect for different sorts of responses.  Posting letters fills the knowledge gap for these people, inform them they are not the only ones to recieve these.  If all the outrageous ones are kept off the web, letter recipients will have little way learning about the issue.

Another difficulty is you when you request "ELI" contact you, you are actually asking some ELI person to perform an uncompensated service to benefit for you and your attorney. 

A third difficulty is that we all strongly suspect that for every letter posted at ELI, numerous other letters are never sent to Matt. So, it's quite possible that the 'first time' offender has sent out several other similar letters. None of use participating at ELI have anyway of knowing.

The fourth difficulty is: This won't work. The reason it won't work is that even if ELI promisses not to post these things, there is nothing to prevent the letter recipients themselves from posting them.  After that, people will link saying "look what I posted".

It's true that it may seem harsh to damage the career or a new attorney for life. But these letters are often harsh and can damage the lives and relationships of letter recipients.

I think a better way to protect the newbie attorneys is for clients like you who hire them  to take two steps:

1) Inform them of the dangers of sending out letters that are too harsh. Show them examples that went overboard and

2) to review the letters to determine whether the monetary demand is clealry overboard, whether the language is too extreme and so forth.   Some letters are sent out on your behalf, and if you are worried about the career of the young attorney who has entered into a business relationship with you, you are the one who needs to take steps to review the letter and make sure that it is not outrageous. 

Asking ELI to take on the burden of doing this task for you seems inappropriate.

433

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest

« on: June 07, 2012, 03:21:48 PM »

McFilms

For true rights managed images with the paperwork in order, I actually think a reasonable fee would make sense. Buddhapi has said as much too.

This is also my position.   I think one of the great difficulties for stock photo companies is that the reasonable fee to display some very beautiful photos on the web is generally much lower than photographers might consider reasonable.    So we end up with gaps where as far as I can tell, someone is asking for $10,000 when the market value for perpetual display on that image on the web might be $50 tops.

As for the phone issue: If the phone calls were to a business, explained information, provided documentation and requested $50 I wouldn't have a big problem with CSI/HAN/Whoever using the phone.  Likely, in this case, the business owner would respond by saying "let me look into that" and also explain that because their site is operated by their IT people, they might not be able to determine the facts of the case in less than 5 days.   

Of course if the purpose of the phone call is to present the exact same sort of unreasonable $10K demand for an image worth $50, switching to from letter to phone isn't going to make people think any better of a stock photo company.

434

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest

« on: June 07, 2012, 02:28:06 PM »

Glen can ask. What he gets is a different thing. Everyone gets to respond (or not) in their own way.

Matt--

I am a bit lost to why my name is brought up. I don't think I disparaged you or anyone for answering Glen.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. In response to a quote by me you wrote:

Glen can ask. What he gets is a different thing. Everyone gets to respond (or not) in their own way.

My position is pretty much exactly the same as yours. 

I posted because I don't want anyone to misunderstand my defending my decision to answer Glen and somehow implying you or anyone else must do the same.    I may be mistaken but I sense some others (not you) may have gotten the impression I think others must do as I do-- and I don't think that. Sorry if this wasn't clear.

435

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest

« on: June 07, 2012, 01:31:44 PM »

Code: [Select]

I won't be happy until they start providing proof of their claim and reasonable assessments. That means copyright registration if available, the "confidential" agreement in which the photographer supposedly granted them exclusive rights, and legitimate sales data.
I told Glen the same thing when he asked what companies can do differently.  I think this information should be provided up front, and anyone asked to enter into negotiations ought to have  access to this information before entering any negotiations about what to do about any alleged (or real) infraction.  Moreover, no matter what the method of communication (phone, letter, email, instant message chat what have you) the photographer and agents should permit people time to review this information before any negotiations of a mutually agreeable resolution begin. 

Code: [Select]

Is Glen doing a little "cover your ass" routine? Probably.I sure don't disagree with this!