Messages

676

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and the Stone Collection

« on: March 16, 2012, 05:53:20 PM »

Hi Khan, I hope that I have interpreted your statement correctly.

However, "Copyright Ownership" isn't based on the "type" of photos or "subject matter" in the photos.
It's based on the contract that you have with your photographer.

Again, if the photographer simply works as a consultant, he'd own the copyrights.
If he's on your payroll as an "employee", your company would own the copyright.
But, you may choose to write up any contract that you choose; this would supercede the above.

"Trademark Infringement" may come into play with some photos, but that's something different.

S.G.

677

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and the Stone Collection

« on: March 16, 2012, 04:04:34 PM »

Good discussion here...
I agree with Innocent Infringer's assertions about the pricing.

If the photographer "works for hire", then the hiring company (or hiring person would own copyright of the photos).
If the terms are not "work for hire", then the photographer would retain copyright.
Anyway, most photographers aren't worth anywhere near $900 dollars a day in my opinion.

Here's an article about the economics of photography and the stock image industry that's surely of interest:

http://penumbraproject.com/2011/10/20/surviving-as-a-photographer-in-the-new-economy-2/

The butthurt is palpable.

S.G.

678

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and the Stone Collection

« on: March 15, 2012, 11:58:23 PM »

Good question.
What you describe is something like what Hawaiian Art Network (featuring Glen Carner, and Vincent K. Tylor) are doing now.

Their images are seeded everywhere and offered for free (even for online use).
They have demanded large sums of money from alleged infringers, and some people have been sued already.

That's as far as something like this has gone to date, as far as I know.

In any case, Getty doesn't register its images, and its contracts with the artists are shoddy in most cases.
So, I don't consider Getty to be a serious threat at this time.

S.G.

679

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: “Bachelor” Producers Extortion Lawsuit Against “Reality Steve”

« on: March 14, 2012, 12:01:16 AM »

I just wanted to mention that I also enjoyed Matt's post.  It's especially educational for anyone who blogs or intends to blog.
Also, Oscar's legal details enhanced the posting even more.

I don't want to sound "alarmist" or anything.  However, for me personally, I'd want to set up a corporation to protect my assets if I was to blog.
Inevitably, one might say something that offends somebody, sometimes corporations/people make claim to things that they don't even own, etc.
It's not even that one's actions actually might damage a person or corporation with online activities; it's that these entities often try to find anything to make money.
In Canada, for example, there's no analogy for the DMCA of the US.  That means that if somebody posts something libellous on your blog, you could end up in court over another person's actions.
This has actually happened by the way.

Again, this is just me and I'm sure that my approach is not for everyone.
But, I personally don't need the bother of worrying about the trolls.

S.G.

680

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: a nice little plug for ELI

« on: March 13, 2012, 03:47:32 PM »

Hilarious and well-done, Peeved!!
We'll have to give the contract to Pfizer, and send crates of it to Getty Images!!

Lol!!   

S.G.!!

681

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NCS Recovery using the name NCS IP Solutions?

« on: March 13, 2012, 03:44:57 PM »

If you were to "settle", keep in mind that 1000 dollars is an insane amount of money for a "royalty free" image.

S.G.

682

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Looking to other extortion industries

« on: March 13, 2012, 01:45:35 PM »

Interesting posting here.  I've heard of the parking trolling in other places too.

Here's one...  a Canadian lawn care franchise makes calls to homeowners with a sales pitch, and an offer to stop by for a lawn inspection and quote.
Even if the homeowner declines, they show up a few days later and work on the lawn (spraying chemicals, aerating, etc.).
When the homeowner gets invoiced, and they don't pay, the company sends it to a collection agency.

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2012/snakeinthegrass/

It's a franchise, so it's also been reported that not all of the franchisees operate in this manner (just to be fair).
But, you can see that there's no end to the scams these days.
Also, note how the tv show got positive results for the people who were scammed.

S.G.

683

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image on Getty is no longer available

« on: March 13, 2012, 01:38:32 PM »

The swiftness of Getty's reaction surprised me a bit.
Matt should get this forum on RSS, so that Getty can have the butthurt served to them directly.

Seriously, though... Getty's just sending letters to anyone and anybody.
It's almost like phishing.

S.G.

684

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image on Getty is no longer available

« on: March 12, 2012, 11:35:29 PM »

Does the immediate removal of the image from commercial availability confirm that Getty et al wish to obscure what the image is actually worth?

S.G.

685

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image on Getty is no longer available

« on: March 12, 2012, 06:54:40 PM »

the image is gone from the russian page, I think...
...that was fast..!
 
S.G.

686

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image on Getty is no longer available

« on: March 12, 2012, 06:05:06 PM »

Guys, is the image now gone from the Russian page that MC referenced?

S.G.

687

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 08, 2012, 06:58:54 PM »

Good questions by Nodge.

Nick was saying "we" and "us" at first, but I see that he's backed off that a bit.

I found a posting wherein Nick said that he worked on Liz Ward's website.
I'm not sure if he volunteered, traded, or bartered, though.

"This time when I scoured the web I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk and contacted them as a solicitor was involved. I then went to meet them and got involved with the fight by working on their website and we have now produced a short video by the solicitor Liz Ward who is a specialist in the field."
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm

Sounds to me as if he's been criticized on the UK forum previously.
But, Matt's offering him some "safe haven" here so to speak... so we'll see how all this affects ELI going forward.

At this point, I'm convinced that Nick is Liz Ward's "marketing guy".
Paid, or unpaid, it doesn't really matter.

S.G.

688

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Resolution of Getty v. Advernet (A blow to Getty & Stock photo companies)

« on: March 08, 2012, 06:37:50 PM »

Sorry to hijack the thread... was the Advernet case about the "Stone Collection"?

S.G.

689

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)

« on: March 08, 2012, 06:36:25 PM »

You're welcome.

Just so that you know, they'll probably keep after you for a while.
You know, harass you in order to make you pay.

But, they couldn't make any successful efforts to actually enforce payment, as the statute of limitations has expired.

S.G.

690

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)

« on: March 08, 2012, 02:16:16 PM »

You're quite correct.

Just be completely business-like in your correspondence.
You know, "thanks for the heads-up", mention that "in any case, the legal limitation has run out".
But, don't admit anything directly or apoligize.

Once you've explained your position, I wouldn't respond further.
There's no hope of them gaining any traction on this one.

S.G.