Messages

61

Getty Images Letter Forum / Make Your Voice Heard!

« on: September 28, 2011, 08:42:51 PM »

This will be my last appeal to the people on this board.  Most of you come here seeking information because you have been on the receiving end of a "demand letter."  This forum contains lots of information for those that come here in shock and disbelief.  While the letters you received are perfectly legal under the current US laws, that doesn't mean that it is ethical or right that the law is being abused by the stock photo industry to make a very profitable stream of income at the little guy's expense, especially in our current economic climate.  While I believe that the photographer is entitled to compensation for his/her work, there should be exceptions for "innocent infringers," even if it means a reasonable flat fee along with a "cease and desist" letter.  However, the amounts demanded in these claim letters are outrageous and this is the issue at hand that needs to be addressed.

We may not have the money or the access to our congressional leaders like the lobbyists do, but that doesn't mean that there is not strength and power in numbers.  The mainstream media will not take on this issue, so the only way to get attention is to make this issue public.  We have a chance to do that on the White House's own website.  Once publicly displayed there, other people affected or not by this issue will have access to this information and can protect themselves and jump on our bandwagon to demand change.  I am not so naive to believe that this one petition or any recognition from it will make a change immediately, but it will bring it to the public's attention and the political leaders will be made aware of it as well.  It will only take 150 signatures to get it on public display, so even if we don't get the 5000 signatures needed to guarantee a fair look at the issue and a response, at least it will be a known issue.

So don't be afraid to stand up and be counted. I have an open case going on right now and I am not afraid to put my name out there or tell the stock photo company in question how I feel.  So stand up and be counted.  Sign it today.  Then have your friends and family sign it as well.  Remember, if we do nothing, then nothing will happen, but if we take action then there will be a reaction.

Here is the link:
 
http://wh.gov/gJu

Thanks,
Bekka

62

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I need advice on this Masterfile claim please

« on: September 28, 2011, 12:35:38 PM »

Well it certainly makes one wonder doesn't it?  I have filed a petition on this issue expecting the numerous US followers of this forum to sign and support it and so far only two people here besides myself have registered and signed.  

As far as Masterfile goes, who really knows what do to, since most of the issues here involve Getty.  I have a Masterfile case pending as well and have written them a letter asking for their proof and denied all liability. So far they have responded by email both times and have reduced the original amount for one photo down to about half.  It is still far more than I can afford to pay or even willing to pay.  However, my best non-lawyer advice is to make them an offer so if it does come to court (Masterfile files more court cases than Getty), at least the judge will know that you did not ignore the issue and tried to settle reasonably.

Good luck!
Bekka

63

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators

« on: September 26, 2011, 04:35:51 PM »

OOPS!  Not email addresses.....website addresses, must be real tired thinking about all this mess.

64

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators

« on: September 26, 2011, 03:08:34 PM »

Thanks guys!  I hope we make it.  The administration promises to look into the matter and respond if you have 5000 signatures in 30 days.  I don't know if we will get there or not.  I wish I had known you could put email addresses in those petitions, because I definitely would have listed this one. 

65

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators

« on: September 24, 2011, 11:57:55 AM »

Ok.  I created a petition.  However, it will not show up on the White House petition list until it has 150 signatures.  So guys and gals let's get busy.  Here is the link to sign.  Send it to everyone you know that believes changes are needed.

http://wh.gov/gJu

66

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: URGENT!! White House petition to stop abuse of the DMCA and Getty type penalties

« on: September 23, 2011, 01:09:05 PM »

Link doesn't work.

67

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators

« on: September 22, 2011, 03:58:19 PM »

Maybe we could utilize the White House's "new petition" site.  If we could get one started and get enough signatures, maybe we could have a voice in this matter too.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions?utm_source=wethepeopleearly&utm_medium=bottom&utm_campaign=wethepeople

68

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators

« on: September 21, 2011, 11:28:47 AM »

Contacting your representatives is like talking to a brick wall.  They are either in bed with the industry seeking protections or just don't care.  I finally received responses back from our two Senators representing NC.  One co-sponsered pending legislation to make copyright infringment a "felony" and does not sympathize with any infringer regardless of the circumstances.  Needless to say, I won't be voting for her again.  The other one had an aide call me and I just hung up the phone from a lengthy but fruitless conversation.  While he is believes the laws involving infringement should be addressed, it is not an issue that is near and dear to their hearts.  They are definitely on the side of the copyright holder regardless of the way they choose to make money.  I won't be voting for him either.....  BTW, I contacted these people months ago, but I will give them credit for responding.  Better late than never!

69

Getty Images Letter Forum / Copyright laws and the Constitution

« on: September 12, 2011, 04:05:36 PM »

I would be very curious if the "end user" part of the copyright law is actually constitutional.  How can the law justify making someone pay for another persons mistake or crime?  I am not naive and know that there are many innocent people in prison today, because the justice system failed them.  What was Congress thinking when they put this provision in the copyright law?  If I hire someone to cut my grass and he blows grass in my neighbor's driveway and they argue, the lawn mower guy kills him, runs off to another country never to be heard from again, am I responsible?  I know that this is an outrageous analogy, but would this concept begin to spill over into other aspects of doing business? I think it sets a very bad precedence and one could argue that it would begin break down the business model in America and possibly on a global scale. If more and more people and businesses are being held responsible for the actions of the businesses and people they hire to do work for them, then commerce will soon come to grinding halt.

Just my thoughts on the matter!

70

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: collections

« on: September 09, 2011, 02:28:17 PM »

That's US law of course.  This disclaimer would keep your negotiations out of any potential future court processes.

Well then, I am confused.  I thought the whole reason for contacting MF or Getty, etc. was to make sure you had an offer on the table in case they wanted to sue.  So, are you saying that if you went to court you could not say you offered to pay x number of dollars as a settlement?

71

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Just saw this and felt the need to share as I find it amusing

« on: September 01, 2011, 10:05:51 AM »

Come on S.G., truth up....I bet you got an extortion letter for your avatar!  How much did they want?  Under $100,000? LOL!

72

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 31, 2011, 02:33:45 PM »

or if Arius3D does not provide funds to enable Masterfile to repay approximately $3 million of debt held by two lenders of Masterfile

.
I find this most fascinating.  How is this even relevant?  Masterfile gets $750,000 if to pay on existing debts....what a deal!

73

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 27, 2011, 01:55:02 AM »

I think you missed the point I was trying to make about the moon pictures.  Strap on a cheap or an expensive camera do your chest.  Then take pictures.  If you can't aim at your target, except to turn in the general direction and you can't get professional lighting, not to mention the radiation exposure to the film going through the Van Allen Belt and you are still able to turn out flawless pictures, then I suggest anyone can.  I really wasn't referring to the price of the camera, but the way the pictures had to be taken. 

If "us" engineering types can't deviate from the "box," then how do you explain your fancy megapixel cameras, or your Zeiss lenses, or better yet the very spaceship that went to the moon?

I am with S.G. on this one, I would love to see an infringed picture that someone has valued at $10,000.  The very generic one my web guy used came close....$5,520 and it was a brunette woman with a headset on with a notepad in her hand.  She was no beauty, there was nothing in that picture that was unique, so I am assuming that once the photographer took the picture it became art on the scale of a mini "Mona Lisa" in his mind and therefore justifying the high value that Masterfile has placed on it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge photographers from making a living and there are many people out there who really do enjoy the art they see in still images.  I also do not believe in taking others people's work without compensating them, but I do object to being harrassed and asked to pay huge sums of money for a picture that I was not responsible for using in the first place.  A reasonable amount and a nice cease and desist should be sufficient without all the threats.  It really leaves such a bad taste in one's mouth and makes them want to boycott the stock photo houses and because of this it piggybacks straight to the photographers who condone this type of activity.

74

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 26, 2011, 11:01:03 AM »

Well, I can see your point, but also keep in mind that if you buy/lease an image from Getty, it will not be unique just for your website, because they can still sell that picture to others as long as it is in their catalogue.  Another point, most magazines & newspapers have their own in house photographers.  I know that we used to run a local newspaper for the airport community here and we had ads from Ford.  They furnished their own photos, whether from stock or hired photography, I don't know.  Some were artist's renderings of cars, etc. We also took our own pictures.  With advertising dollars spread thin in this economy, I would suspect more and more companies will start to reign in or eliminate those kinds of costs that can be controlled.

I never really truly understood the concept of "rights managed" photos and I suppose I never will.  It seems rather extravagant to pay for a photo for use "several times," when you could just take your own picture or purchase a "royalty free" image and use it.

75

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 26, 2011, 09:58:04 AM »

LOL!  $10,000 for one picture....it better be a "real" dinosaur that has ben extinct for millions of years and then suddenly appear in NYC.  I can't think of any photo worth $10,000, heck I don't see how some oil paintings sell for what they do. 

As far as equipment, have you ever seen the pictures from the moon expedition?  They were taken by a box camera strapped to the chest of an astronaut.  The astronaut could not pick it up and aim it, nor adjust any settings, nor have any special lighting and guess what, they were flawless.  Too funny!  The 16mm and 35mm cameras, projectors and even film have gone by the wayside.  Everything is digital and can be manipulated, smoothed out, etc via computer programs.  I have seen some pictures taken by a polaroid disposable camera look better than studio pictures, so there is no way to justify that kind of money for a photograph.

One more thing, a photograph on a website just sits there.  If I have a process, procedure, etc. that I want demonstrated or representated it would be much more plausible to get a 3D model that can show the smallest detail and be animated in a way to describe what I am offering, whereas a still image can not do that.  The only photos for websites would be "contact us" or very generic photos of items such as cars, birds, cats, etc. 

Now if someone hired you to go to Afghanistan and take a picture, then you could charge for travel, protection, and time expenses which you would in incur, and maybe get $10,000 from the person that commissioned you.  But even so, the picture itself would not be worth $10,000.

I don't mean to sound ugly, but I just can't see someone spending that kind of money for one photo unless they have more money than sense.