Messages

736

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My letter Experience

« on: February 23, 2012, 11:14:03 AM »

I'm under the impression that many of these conversations get fairly heated.  It's not really unusual.
Also, their attitude stems from talking to people all day who basically figure that their negotiating skills will convince Getty (or whoever) to take zero dollars.
I haven't heard of a single person who has those kind of skills.

Personally, I feel that contacting them is mainly a waste of time and not really in one's best interest.
If you need clarification, Getty won't provide any.  You might get them to lower the demand a little bit. But, what's the point of that if you'll never pay them?
I think that sending them a letter *might* be useful if you're sure that they'll escalate the situation and you've got them where you want them;
ie it's not your domain, it's a DMCA issue, the statute of limitations has expired, etc.
Even then, they'll still bother you.  But, it might save everyone the effort of an escalation.

Otherwise, just save your breath.

S.G.

737

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can you copyright an image after it has been placed in the public domain?

« on: February 21, 2012, 02:12:54 PM »

I think that you're right about this, Buddhapi.
As we already know....
Some have even been sent letters about billboards or other advertising that accidentally appear in personal snapshots.
Graphic artists have been sent letters for images that appear in portfolios of their work, even though the client has paid and the stock image house made money.
...it does work both ways.

Naturally, if I could show that a `third party` posted it, and I had a `registered DMCA` agent, I`d have some protection...
...but that`s been discussed quite a bit previously, I guess.

It never hurts to have an answer for everything, though.  lol.

S.G.

738

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can you copyright an image after it has been placed in the public domain?

« on: February 21, 2012, 12:43:10 PM »

You're quite welcome.

This brought something to mind that I'd like to discuss here also, as I think that we'll be hearing about in the near future regardless.
Sorry if it's already happened.

People license "rights-managed" images by paying by the length of use (often yearly), the resolution, and the intended use.
Now imagine that purchased a license to use an image one year ago for the period of one year, for example.
Maybe I'm making a "flyer" that I'll print and mail out.  Also, I'll display my flyer online in .pdf format.
Also, assume that I stopped using the image when the license expired (today for the sake of argument).

Now, that flyer might still reside on the Internet within other sites or archives not owned/controlled by myself after the license has expired.
That's not an infringement on my part.  I don't owe anyone a cent for the image license even if I make a sale just because somebody found a copy of the old flyer elsewhere.

I think that this example is a good case against the concept of a "continuing and ongoing" infringement, and why the "clock" should begin "running" at the time that something is "published".

S.G.

739

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can you copyright an image after it has been placed in the public domain?

« on: February 21, 2012, 11:19:59 AM »

The thing with "copyright" is that there's really no onus on the copyright owner to notify others of the copyright or even to protect the image from misuse.
A notice of copyright on something would reinforce the concept of "negligence" on the part of an infringer, however.

It's different story with "trademarks" wherein they absolutely must be in use and protected.
If you're old enough, you'll remember General Mill's "Boo Berry" cereal.
You can hardly find that cereal anywhere.  But, it's sold in limited quantities in some places and online.
They do that so that they don't lose the trademark; it's actively "in use" and "protected".

There's merit to the fact that the images weren't used since 2007.
For example, if Getty could find an infringement from that far back on an Internet archive (but the original is no longer on the web live) they'd be out of luck.
The law does provide that the copyright owner has to act within a time period that's referred to as the "discovery rule".
This states that the clock starts when the owner discovered, or should have discovered the infringement if the owner had been diligent.
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1040

Here's an article that discusses a case wherein the court went by the "injury rule".  I think that this a more rare determination.
However, I do find this part to be of great interest, and you should too:
"The Court also rejected that plaintiff's claim of a "continuing infringement.” This is the argument that an infringement of a given work, which commenced before the three- year period, ought to still be actionable if it is continuing and ongoing, as long as infringing activity occurred during the three-year look-back period as well. In other words, if the continuing acts occurred prior to and during the three-year period, then the infringement should be actionable, but only limited to damages during the current three years. The Court rejected this concept as not being the law."
http://www.photosource.com/psn_full.php?type=Headlines&id=350

Here's another quite an interesting tidbit that I found:
"As discussed in Wolk v. Olson, the discovery rule does not apply to mass-media publications such as newspapers and the Internet; the statute of limitations begins to run at the date of publication."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

In any case, Getty recently lost a court case over the infringement of 37 images.
The defendant didn't even show up for court, and still prevailed.
Look up Getty vs Advernet on here.  You can take some solace in that...

S.G.

740

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can you copyright an image after it has been placed in the public domain?

« on: February 20, 2012, 06:04:54 PM »

I don't recall what Getty's site was like in 2005.

I surmise that the site didn't speak of "license fees" because that term is more associated with "rights managed" images.
Additionally, I don't think that the ability to save an image from a web site would provide an "implied license".

Are you sure that the images were actually "free"?  I don't see the point of such a business model.
In any case you'd need an actual example or screen shot of the site, or some sort of expert testimony to employ this as a legal defense.
---

The good news is that Getty hasn't done a very good job at copyrighting much of its collection.
Also, the statute of limitations is only three years; they can't collect on anything prior to three years ago.
That is, if they came at you today and said, "you owe us five years of license fees", that's legally incorrect.
You'd only technically owe them for the prior three years.  Technically.
---

About "losing copyright".  Normally, the owner of an image cannot seek damages relating to infringements that occurred preceeding the first 90 days before actual registration of copyright.
That's US law.

Now, one could argue that an image that has become practically ubiquitous before being copyrighted is "public domain".
Take the "troll face" for example:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trollface-coolface-problem
It's likely much, much too late to copyright and try to monetize "trollface".
But, in an actual dispute, only a court could make that actual determination.
"Law" doesn't make a specific provision in cases like this as far as I know.

S.G.

741

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Criticism to Pre-Announcement of "Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter" Report

« on: February 20, 2012, 04:56:29 PM »

I blame the stock photo industry for how crappy their industry has become.
If photographers can't make money taking stock photos, blame the likes of Getty and their ilk.
They're mining Flickr for photos on the cheap that were taken by amateurs.

Sure infringements occur.  But, it's only a part of the bigger economic picture.
Just because some people have used photos for free doesn't imply that the market is healthy.
It's just healthy for cheap (or free) photos.

If their photos aren't selling, lower the prices.
Offer a product that people can afford and don't threaten to sue us if we've lost our receipt 5 years later.

I have no idea where these photographers get their sense of "entitlement".

S.G.

742

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Blogging and have questions. Contract with Blogger?

« on: February 19, 2012, 11:31:59 AM »

The ironic thing about all this is that there's no guarantee that any image that we use is "infringement free" even if we legitimately purchase it from a company.
We really have no way of knowing where the company got the image in the first place.

For example, Getty is being sued by Ron Raffaelli for reselling his Jimmy Hendrix photos.
Raffaelli could also go after any end users who purchased the photos from Getty.
In such a situation, the best outcome for the person who bought the photos is a judgement of "innocent infringement", and a payment of $200.
But, who knows?  Who wants to go to court even if they're in the right?

This is the sort of thing that's killing the stock photo industry.
Dealing with any of these companies is risky, as their business model is now based on monetizing infringements (alleged or otherwise).
There's no "goodwill", even for paying customers.

S.G.

743

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Blogging and have questions. Contract with Blogger?

« on: February 18, 2012, 06:50:30 PM »

Contracts like this can be a good idea.  It certainly keeps people on their toes when it comes to what's published online.

One downside is that the contract only gives you legal recourse against your blogger in the event of an infringement.
Companies such as Getty usually go after the "end user" (your HVAC company for example).
They're quite persistent, and your contract wouldn't likely induce them to pursue the blogger instead of your company.

Therefore, if you paid a settlement to Getty, or if a court decided in Getty's favor in the event of a dispute, you'd have to then collect from your blogger to recoup your losses.
In the event of a lawsuit, you may be able to bring the blogger into the suit as a "third party".  You'd have to check your local laws.

I'm sure that other folks here will comment as well.

S.G.

744

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Copyright Compliance Specialist Position

« on: February 16, 2012, 11:11:19 PM »

Why do they spell the word "unauthorized" in the British Colony form "unauthorised"?
Then they spell it in the Yankee form "unauthorized"?  Next, they spell it "unauthorised" again.

I'm quite disappointed.

S.G.

745

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Tell them: Cease All Communications - How to file a police report against Getty

« on: February 16, 2012, 11:05:41 AM »

There's something that might help in this regard in terms of Getty Images.
When they're asked for proof of their claims, they won't forward anything.
That really shows what a scam that they're pulling.

S.G.

746

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: They don't know who I am?

« on: February 15, 2012, 09:58:46 PM »

We're going to see many people (especially bloggers) going "underground" just to avoid any future extortion letters, and scams from Russia, etc.
People are using proxies more and more for everyday Internet tasks.
"Domain privacy" will be the norm.

S.G.

747

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Tell them: Cease All Communications - How to file a police report against Getty

« on: February 15, 2012, 02:01:17 PM »

This is quite interesting, and I'd like to hear more about it.
The only caveat that I can think of is that such an action might "force their hand" and cause a infringement dispute to be escalated.
That is, it could go from letters via regular mail to certified letters from a lawyer rather quickly.

S.G.

748

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: are there any special legal considerations for lucky Canadians receiving EL's?

« on: February 15, 2012, 01:56:40 PM »

You are correct that Canada doesn't have a "DMCA" as yet.

US issues are discussed quite a bit on here, and "statutory damages" often come up.
In the US, the plaintiff can only seek statutory damages if the image in question has been properly registered with the copyright office.
Otherwise, the plaintiff can only seek damages which amount to the purchase price of the image.

Canada doesn't have such a restriction.  The plaintiff may choose to seek "damages" or "statutory damages".
Statutory damages usually being higher because it includes losses above and beyond the purchase price.
It's basically whatever the plaintiff can think up to increase an award, or intimidate the defendant.

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.

I should also note that companies such as Masterfile have registered their actual printed catalogs with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.
These are catalogs that they used to mail out to companies as part of their marketing efforts, which also included CD-ROMS.
While the "book" may be copyrighted, do check into the actual contracts between the stock image company and the photographer/artist.
The "copyrighted" catalog doesn't necessarily mean that the stock image company has a right to collect damages on behalf of the artist.
Although, I will admit that Masterfile has made much greater efforts than Getty in securing proper contracts.

Good luck,

S.G.

749

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: They don't know who I am?

« on: February 15, 2012, 11:12:53 AM »

If it's not your house, they can't even confirm that it's actually your address (or still your address).
They don't even know your name. lol.  I think that this isn't going to go anywhere.
People running blogs should follow this example if possible.

S.G.

750

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Cease All Communication - How to file a police report against Getty

« on: February 14, 2012, 11:56:26 PM »

Interesting post.  This was addressed recently in the forum.

My understanding is that the police normally deal with things that would be considered criminal-level issues.
If Getty sends business communications, but doesn't threaten you with physical harm, or break other laws, I don't think that there's much that the police could do.
It wouldn't be "criminal harassment", or "uttering threats", etc.

I don't think that anyone could even get the police to do anything about Riddick/Imageline, who was the most threatening of all.

Just my opinion.

But, if somebody "phones the cops", and that works... post it here for the "lulz"...

S.G.