Messages

76

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: July 05, 2012, 07:53:41 AM »

TRY THIS LINK

www.cardozo.yu.edu/(S(3clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x))/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524

Ian

77

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: July 05, 2012, 12:53:38 AM »

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law has written a short piece on our lawsuit.

www.cardozo.yu.edu/(S(3clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x))/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524

It misses the important point that Marot Images owned no rights to sue at all , but it's still pertinent to the behavior of copyright trolls in the USA.

Professors Alex Stein and Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn Law School) wrote an article “The Relational Contingency of Rights” that will soon appear in the Virginia Law Review.  This article demonstrates that legal rights afford no meaningful protection against challengers who can litigate more cheaply than the rightholder and who can use this advantage to force the rightholder to give up her entitlement.

These challengers include large companies that acquired portfolios of copyrighted photos available on the Internet. Those companies retain attorneys at a sharply discounted fee, who aggressively sue unsuspecting fair users of those photos.  These un-meritorious suits virtually never go to trial because of the high cost of defense.  The companies offer lawful users of their photos an opportunity to avoid this cost by paying the company a lesser amount in a settlement.  To put an end to this extortionary practice, Parchomovsky and Stein have proposed a number of measures that include punitive damages.

This proposal has now been taken to court in Israel.  An individual who refused to surrender to a pressing settlement demand filed a class action for over $10M against an Israeli company associated with a multinational copyright giant, Getty Images.  If successful, this action might prompt similar suits against copyright trolls across the world.

The link to the article - “The Relational Contingency of Rights” is above.

78

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: June 29, 2012, 02:34:03 PM »

Our case got a mention on an American Law Professor's blog. I will copy the blog, and give links below. Please note the final quote -

Is America next?  A defendant class action bringing lawsuit harassment claims?

Collective Action Against Copyright Trolls

Not quite mass torts, but interesting from a complex litigation prespective anyway, so I hope our dear readers will forgive me.

This story concerns the use of the litigation system to intimidate small defendants into settling non-meritorious suits.  One of the areas where this has come up is copyright litigation.  Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn) and Alex Stein (Cardozo) recently wrote an article about this called the Relational Contingency of Rights (available on SSRN, forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review).   The basic observation is an important one: legal rights afford no meaningful protection against challengers who can
litigate more cheaply than the rightholder and who can use this advantage to  force the rightholder to give up her entitlement.

It turns out that some able litigants in Israel have taken their ideas and run with them.  Unfortunately, the only link I have describing the litigation is in hebrew (here).   Basically, an individual who refused to surrender to a pressing settlement demand filed a class action for over $10M against an Israeli company associated with a  multinational copyright giant, Getty Images. The claim for the Israeli suit, as far as I can tell, sounds in abuse of process.   Is America next?  A defendant class action bringing lawsuit harassment claims?

ADL


Link to blog
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/2012/06/collective-action-against-copyright-trolls.html

Link to article by Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn) and Alex Stein (Cardozo)
https://bspace.berkeley.edu/access/content/group/e675b947-6067-425e-adbf-10e8922547b9/03.%20Jan%2030_Alex%20Stein%20-%20The%20Relational%20Contingency%20of%20Rights/RCR_1_18_12.pdf


Link to news article ( in Hebrew )
http://www.themarker.com/law/1.1733718
and Google translated version
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themarker.com%2Flaw%2F1.1733718

79

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: June 14, 2012, 05:16:40 PM »

MAREK WYSTEPEK has been promoted to "Director, Getty Images International", based in Ireland, according to the most recent document in my possession.
I don't know anything about the relationship between the various Getty offices.

Hereby I confirm that the exclusive, worldwide right to license and distribute the aforementioned image (s) has / have been conferred on Getty Image (International, Dublin) by respective photographer. ....

If the above is true, this is exactly why a  totally separate company such as Marot Image could not possibly own the same exclusive license.

But Khan is asking if Getty USA is the same company as Getty International? If not, then it would not be possible for both companies to own the same exclusive license.

I guess it is quite reasonable to assume that they are the same company....but I am not 100% sure about this.

In any case, the "Getty Images Contributor Agreement" is with Getty USA, and not Getty International ( see http://www.aphotoeditor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-contributor-agreement-v.4.0-d-sample-english.pdf )

Ian

80

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: June 14, 2012, 04:05:20 PM »

I wish! You are referring to " pursuant to a written contract" . No one has yet to see a the contents of this contract.
Ian

81

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: June 13, 2012, 05:58:26 PM »

I believe that they had to file a certain number of lawsuits in order to create and strengthen the public impression that they owned the right to sue. The threat had to be real. I think they got carried away with their success, and exaggerated in the number of lawsuits they filed. But it’s paradoxical that Getty (who may own the exclusive license) rarely sues, and Marot Image (who has no right to sue at all) sues with such regularity. It’s almost as if the more they sued, the stronger their belief in their fictitious legal standing became!
Ian

82

Getty Images Letter Forum / Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: June 13, 2012, 04:12:13 PM »

Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

I have important news for ELI members. Today, I personally filed a 12 million dollar class action lawsuit in an Israeli court against “Marot Image”, Getty Image’s representative here in Israel, a “ Getty Images Master Delegate”. The court docket is number 23022-06-12.

Some of you may remember me from a while back here on ELI. My name is Ian Cohen, and I live in Israel. I was sued by Getty’s representative in Israel (Marot Image) in September 2011. They withdraw the case when I proved that they had no legal standing. I wrote my story on the Internet, and was contacted by around 100 other victims in the ensuing months. I collected all the evidence, and directly helped around 75 people in their struggle against Marot. I found a young outraged socially conscious lawyer ( Shahar Zamler ) to help these people for symbolic sums, thus giving people an economic alternative to simply paying up. There are several ongoing court cases, but we reached the conclusion that we had enough evidence to file a class action lawsuit against Marot for the illegal extortion of millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims who believed Marot’s central claim that they owned the right to sue for copyright infringement, when in fact, under Israeli law, they do not own such a right at all.

The payments were extracted under false pretenses, Whilst Getty has around a dozen official Getty Offices (that are listed on their licensing contracts), Marot Image is no such office. They are a completely separate entity listed as a company in Israel. As such, whilst they may suffer from delusions of grandeur, they are not in fact Getty Images, and they do have Getty’s rights. They are Getty’s sales representatives in Israel at best and no more than that. They probably do not own the exclusive license to even a single image in Getty’s image collection, and Getty cannot transfer the right to sue as a stand-alone right. Quite simply, with the explicit backing of Getty Images, Marot Images has been carrying out an extensive economic fraud in Israel for at least the last 4 years.

We claim in our lawsuit that Marot Image has fraudulently presented itself as the owner of the right to sue in cases of copyright infringement, and has illegally extorted vast sums of money from thousands of small businesses in Israel. Almost all these "businesses" were one man operations at best, operating out of home. Almost all were vulnerable targets. For example, there was a non proportionate number working in alternative medicine!

We have dedicated an entire section to Getty Images direct knowledge, involvement, and support (see below), and we have asked the court to add Getty Images as a defendant at a later stage (as allowed by the Israel class action law – clause 18B, 2010 ordinances). Whilst Getty may own an exclusive license, and therefore the right to sue here in Israel, they chose to run their “extortion scheme” by using a local company, whom they supported in every way possible. We claim that the proxy ( Marot Image ) had no right to sue , but deceived letter recipients into believing that they faced legal action if they did not pay up, and indeed filed dozens of lawsuits in Israeli courts.

The Israeli copyright act of 2007 is very similar to the American law. Here is a link to an unofficial English translation of the act - http://www.tau.ac.il/law/members/birnhack/IsraeliCopyrightAct2007.pdf

Clause 54 a states who may file a claim for copyright infringement:

54(a) A claim for the infringement of copyright may be
commenced by the owner of the copyright, and if an exclusive
license has been granted in respect of it as defined in section 37(d) –
such claim may also be commenced by the exclusive licensee.

In other words, only the owner of the copyright (the photographer himself with respect to most Getty Images) or the owner of the exclusive license (which, in theory would be Getty Images, although the Advernet verdict would certainly mean that this could not be taken for granted) could claim to own the right to sue, and indeed go ahead and sue.

Despite the above, Getty’s Israeli representative MAROT IMAGE (not an official Getty branch, but a totally independent local company) has claimed in thousands of “demand letters”, and in actual lawsuits, that it owns the right to sue. People believed this claim, and paid up to avoid the impending lawsuit and expected financial losses and high emotional price. Typically, Marot Images sold a retroactive license for the image used. They used all the scare tactics available to them, including intimidating phone calls, e-mails, draft lawsuits (with Getty as a plaintiff, although Getty was not added to the real lawsuits) and other forms of deception and pressure.

In many cases (including my own), Marot Images claimed to own the outright copyright! This was clearly absurd as even in Getty’s own contributor agreement, the photographer retains his copyright.

In other cases, Marot Images claimed ownership of the “exclusive license”.

Clause 37 of the law, states that the copyright holder can grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license, and that the transfer of an exclusive license has to be in writing.


37(a) Copyright may be assigned by contract or by operation of
law and the owner of a copyright may grant an exclusive license or
non-exclusive license with respect to the copyright.
(b) Assignment of the copyright or the grant of a license, as
stated in sub-section (a), may refer to the copyright in whole or in
part, and it can be limited to a certain territory, period of time, or to
specific acts with respect to the work.
(c) A contract for the assignment of copyright or the grant of an
exclusive license therein shall require a written document.
(d) In this section, "exclusive license" – means a license granting
its holder the exclusive right to do any acts as set forth in Section 11
specified by the license, and restricts the owner of the copyright
from doing those acts or from permitting others to perform those
acts.

In other words, only a direct agreement in which the photographer grants Marot Images an exclusive license would prove that Marot had the right to sue. No such document has ever been produced, but various other documents (provided by Getty Images) and other actions (initiated by Getty Images) have been used to create the false impression that Marot does indeed own an exclusive license. Marot typically claimed that Getty Images transferred its own exclusive license and/or the right to sue to Marot Images.

Marot also claims that they have received the right to sue (alone) from Getty Images.  They use a document signed by a Marek Wystepek, previously manager of Getty Ireland, and now “Director, Getty Images International” based in the Cayman Islands, to prove to Israelis that they have received this right. We claim that the stand-alone right to sue is not transferable under the new Israeli copyright law (2007). The law backs us up, as do important verdicts in the USA.

In 2011 alone, no less than seven law firms representing Marot Image sent hundreds, if not thousands of settlement demand letters threatening immediate legal action unless amounts of around $3000 were paid to Marot. The letters were worded in such a way that many recipients believed that they had received the letter directly from Getty Images. The letters are strikingly similar to those received in the USA, and include a copy of the infringement (courtesy of Picscout I guess), a mention of the maximum statutory damages that may be awarded by a court (around $12,500), and a tight deadline to pay up! We estimate that many people paid a compromise amount of around $1,300 per image. Those who chose not to pay were harassed by additional letters, draft lawsuits, phone calls, and ultimately real lawsuits were filed. We estimate that people paid up at various stages of the fraud. For economic reasons alone ( not to mention psychological reasons ), it always made more sense to pay Marot than to fight them in court!

Ultimately, people paid Marot because they faced an expensive legal threat, and untold mental anguish.

We claim that Marot never owned the right to sue under any circumstances, and their actions and claims constituted a sophisticated economic and legal fraud that caused unsuspecting small business and individuals, ignorant in the law, and under financial and emotional pressures, to part with millions of dollars.

What was Getty’s role in the fraud?

1.   Getty provided the details of the infringement to Marot Images.

2.   Getty provided Marot with the “ Getty Images contributor agreement” for each photographer.

3.   Getty provided the “Marek Wystepek” letter, which appointed Marot as their sole representative in Israel, and supposedly gave Marot the right to sue (and other far reaching powers concerning imprisonment, and the winding up of corporations following bankruptcy !)  , but only “in its own name”. According to clause 54B of the copyright law, all parties with the right to sue would in any case have to join an action to sue, so Getty’s agreement in fact contradicts the Israeli law. Furthermore, the law in Israel does not allow the stand alone transfer of the right to sue (similar to the Righthaven, and Sony v Silvers judgments in the USA).

54(b) A claimant filing a claim as stated in sub-section (a), shall join as a party any person entitled to commence a claim according to the provisions of that sub-section, however the court may, at the claimant's request, exempt from the aforesaid duty to join a party.


4.   Marot insinuated that the Marek Wystepek letter constituted the transfer of the exclusive license from Getty to Marot. The law (clause 37A) contradicts this claim (as only the copyright holder can transfer an exclusive license), and closer inspection of the document shows that Getty certainly did not transfer any exclusive license rights to Marot. Marot is at best an “exclusive representative” in Israel, and certainly not the owner of the “exclusive license”!

5.   A second letter with similar content was provided by a Jonathan Lockwood, (Vice president Corporate Counsel, Getty Images).

6.   The Getty legal team in London  (Irene Paricaud from Corporate Counsel, Getty Images) also wrote e-mails to letter recipients in Israel in order to persuade them to pay up!

7.   Getty Images adds a very peculiar question to its web site when purchasing a “rights managed” image for use on the Internet (for Web corporate and promotional sites). It asks, “ In which territories will the image appear? ” Clearly, any image displayed on the Internet will appear in Cyberspace, on the Internet, and therefore, be seen in all territories simultaneously. Yet, Israel (along with a large number of other very significant countries, such as China, Russia, Greece, South Africa, the Czech Republic, etc) is missing from the list. The site then says – “Missing territory? Please call for a quotation”, and clicking on the link leads to “Image Bank Israel”/ Marot Image ( or the local representative in your country ) In this way, anyone whose image is to  be displayed in Israel (aren’t all Internet images?) is forced to call Marot Image in Israel to pay for their Internet license.

8.   The lawyers representing Marot Images in Israel use the fact that Israel is missing from this list of countries in which an Internet image may appear, to claim that Getty has indeed given Marot an exclusive license that covers the territory of Israel. They claim that Israelis can only buy licenses (for display on the Internet in Israel!)  directly from Marot, and not from Getty.

9.   This is, of course, totally absurd. It would mean, for example, that all image licenses bought from Getty would in fact be violating the copyright of Marot Images, and also that of Getty representatives in all the missing countries. It would also mean that the Internet was divided into territories, in which images may or not appear. In theory, a site owner would have to buy dozens of licenses if he wanted his image to appear everywhere on the net!

10.   Marek Wystepek gave direct instructions to Marot Image who to sue, and when to withdraw cases. (The chairman of Marot Images was careless enough to forward some of the e-mails he received from Marek!)

11.   We offer evidence that in several cases (most particularly concerning the Dorling Kindersly and National Geographic collections, that even Getty Images itself did not have an exclusive license, but it still allowed Marot Images to initiate actual court proceedings.

12.   Getty contributed to the spread of its images by easily allowing the free download of images without a watermark from its website.



Other various economic and  psychological elements contributed to the deception. Marot Image pretended to be Getty. They used the Getty logo as a signature on their e-mails, their phone recordings thanked people for calling Getty Images and they used the domain getty.co.il.

The 7 law offices that represented Marot applied constant pressure on the letter recipients, repeating absurd threats such as claiming that the letter recipient will have to pay the full travel costs of the photographer’s visit to Israel! Draft lawsuits were sent to those that did not immediately pay up. The draft sometimes included Getty as a plaintiff, even though Getty had only given Marot permission to sue “in its own name” (Marot). Getty has not been a plaintiff in the real lawsuits that have been filed since the new copyright law came into being in 2007 .The lawyers threatened immediate legal action unless the victim paid up. Eventually, most caved in under the pressure, and were forced to purchase a retroactive license for the image used.

Different to Getty’s reported actions in the USA, Marot Image has sued with amazing frequency! All the more stunning, as they did not own the right to sue! The economic model worked in most cases. Quite simply, it made no economic sense to fight them in court when the cost of defending oneself was around 5 times the cost of settling. Even if one wins in court, judges never award real costs. Fighting them was a no win situation.

Whilst Marot is the local company that directly violated the law, they could not have accomplished such a feat without Getty as an active accomplice. For now, for practical and economic reasons, we did not add Getty as a defendant. Their role is however central to the fraud, and they can easily be added as a defendant at a later date, as can the many lawyers that represented Marot Image. In my humble opinion, they simply had to know what was going on!

We want to disseminate this information across the web. It way well be that Getty is acting in a similar way in other countries.

I apologize for having written such a long post. I have tried to summarize a 30-page lawsuit!

My name is Ian Cohen. My e-mail is [email protected]. I give permission to any news organizations to publish this story. Please send me a link if you choose to write a story. I will be glad to speak to any reporters from around the globe. Just send me e-mail. I am available on Skype.


Thanks to ELI for supporting me, even when you didn’t know I was here! I follow every post! I like to think of myself as the Israeli Matthew Chan!

I sincerely hope there will be repercussions the world over. Getty overstepped the line here, by running a scam by remote control, but their proxy did not operate according to the law. They simply did not have the right to sue!

I will keep ELI updated.

Ian Cohen

83

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI Letter and 30 day preview agreement

« on: May 18, 2012, 12:10:44 AM »

KWR is, in my opinion, incorrect about the $150 being charged if you don’t stop using the image after 30 days. Getty’s own terms state that they charge this $150 UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES! Read on!

Want an image with no watermark?

As far as I am aware, Getty’s “extortion” letters only refer to “Rights Managed” images, and never to “Royalty Free” images. “Rights Managed” images certainly have a higher market value. One would think therefore that Getty would do their utmost to protect their precious commodity, (whose market value could be adversely affected by rampant copying on the Internet).

One such protection is the “GETTY IMAGES” watermark that appears on every image on the Getty website. However, above every image appear the following words – “Want an image with no watermark? Please sign in or register.”

Yes please! Sure sounds like a friendly offer to me!!

Registration is a one-minute procedure, and no details (not even your e-mail address) are verified. Hey Presto! After registering, the image reappears without a watermark. With a right click of the mouse, the image can be saved to your computer. The image is large, of medium resolution, and without any Getty watermark.

One must surely wonder why Getty makes it so very easy to obtain an image without a watermark! How reasonable is it for Getty to sue/threaten for such high sums for copyright infringement, when they themselves do so little to protect their copyright, and almost actively encourage violation. Is this not tantamount to copyright abandonment?

Another option after signing in is to click on “Download preview image” in the pane on the right. A preview image sounds fair enough. For those who click on “view terms of use”  (most don’t), they will find that clause 1 is most reasonable, but clause 3 is absolutely incredible, and I wonder (if I have understood correctly) if it is even legal.

I quote these 2 clauses:

1.   Clause 1. Grant of Licence. Getty Images grants to you, for a period of thirty (30) days, a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable and non-assignable right to use the image and/or film preview file you have selected and any derivatives or copies (collectively, the "Licensed Material"), on your personal computer and, in the case of film, in any test, sample, comp or rough cut evaluation materials. The Licensed Material may only be used in materials for personal, noncommercial use and test or sample use, including comps and layouts.

(I still ask myself why the preview image is without the Getty watermark!)


2.   Clause 3. Rights-Managed Still Fee. For rights-managed still Licensed Material only, if at the end of 30 days you have not licensed the Licensed Material for end use in a final project, you will be invoiced a comp service fee in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150) USD or such other local currency amount as Getty Images may apply from time to time.


If I am not mistaken (and I may well be as the language in such contracts is not always easily understood), then with “rights managed “ still images, whilst you are encouraged to download your “preview” image doing so costs you a minimum $150 under all circumstances!

$150 is the minimum payment even if you don’t decide to use the image in any project!!

However, there is no screen shot warning you of the charge before you download the image. There is no “click here to finalize your purchase”. I don’t know if Getty has ever charged this $150. They could only do so only if someone had already provided their credit card details. What amazes me is that the potential charge is hidden in the “terms of use”, that most of us don’t bother to read.

84

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar Michelen Defends Chaga Against $6 Million Masterfile Lawsuit

« on: April 07, 2012, 01:23:35 PM »

In April 2010, the defendant actually paid Masterfile for his infringement of 22 images.
However, in May 2011, the same defendant was still displaying 20 of these exact same images on his websites!
There's simply no way that anyone in their right mind would have done this willfully! Not a chance! It was an unfortunate, unintended and unplanned human error.
To sue the same person again over the same images shows a total lack of good faith! Masterfile clearly thought that he was easy pickings, that he would roll over and pay again.
I cannot believe that a judge would be sympathetic to suing twice over the exact same images!

85

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Hypocrite of the Century!

« on: April 06, 2012, 12:41:00 AM »

Anyone with the most basic of Photoshop skills could easily get rid of the Getty watermark within minutes.

I have to make a correction to the quoted article here.

In order to remove the Getty watermark, you don't need Photoshop skills! You simply follow the instructions that appear above every image. I quote - "Want an image with no watermark? Please sign in or register." You can register as [email protected] ( the e-mail address is not verified ), and in seconds, a large ( 650 x 500 approx ), medium resolution ( over 80KB ) watermark free image can be freely downloaded to your computer!

The above is also true of " rights managed" images, whose use is supposedly closely monitored and controlled, and whose value is significantly higher than "royalty free" images. Getty themselves do nothing to protect the easy proliferation of its supposedly more valuable " rights managed" images.

Some might argue that this is tantamount to copyright abandonment.

86

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Stockfood.com or StockFood GmbH letter reaches Israel -סטוק פוד מכתב מגיע לישראל

« on: January 28, 2012, 03:53:36 PM »

By Mark F. Radcliffe and Diane Brinson 1 of DLA Piper LLP (US)
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html

A copyright license can be exclusive or nonexclusive. An exclusive license is a license that does not overlap another grant of rights.

The key word is "exclusive". Company A and company B cannot own overlapping rights. If Getty has a worldwide exclusive license to an image, no local company in any specific country can also have an exclusive license, as there would be overlap. The two companies would be sharing the same territory, hence no exclusivity, and therefore no right to sue.

87

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright + Licensing Agreement with other company

« on: January 27, 2012, 07:55:40 PM »

If I am not mistaken, in all cases, one can sue for copyright infringement if one owns either the copyright or the exclusive license. Assuming all the paperwork is correct (which it may not be – see Getty vs Advernet), then in most Getty cases on these forums, the photographer owns the copyright, and Getty owns an exclusive license. The license is exclusive because only Getty (and not even the photographer himself) can sell the image worldwide on the Internet.

Agents wouldn’t own the copyright, or the exclusive license, and wouldn’t have the right to sue. Adding their watermark to the image creates total confusion. A good example is http://www.visualphotos.com , that sell images from many stock photo companies, http://www.visualphotos.com/collections , including Masterfile and Corbis. This site adds its own watermark beneath each photo, but clearly, they don’t own either the copyright or the exclusive license, and they don’t sue or threaten anyone as far as I am aware. The image catalog numbers also match the numbers on the stock agencies website, but they strangely don’t give credit to the stock agency by each image!

I don’t know anything about company law, but perhaps Getty Ireland for example would be considered a bone fide long arm of Getty USA, and therefore different to an agent/affiliate. The lawsuit against me was dropped.

88

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright + Licensing Agreement with other company

« on: January 27, 2012, 02:20:01 PM »

I would like to add a real example of the same image being sold on two respectable websites.

I was actually sued by Getty’s so-called representative in Israel – Marot Image. They sued me for infringing their copyright of this image as it appears on Getty’s website.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/church-of-the-holy-sepulchre-old-city-high-res-stock-photography/57504480

The image copyright belongs to a Martin Gray, and the image is part of the “National Geographic” collection.

The exact same image still appears here, on the National Geographic site - http://www.nationalgeographicstock.com/comp/IR10/114/976105.jpg

The fact that NG continues to sell the image would suggest that NG has given Getty a non-exclusive license to sell their image collection, and therefore, even Getty does not have the right to sue.

I haven’t seen the agreement between NG and Getty, but in my specific case, the photographer himself informed me that no stock company, including NG, had an exclusive license!

The full story of what happened to me is in Hebrew, but Google translate will do the trick. Details can be found here – http://www.israel-tourist-information.com/marot.htm

Getty’s local “representative” withdrew their lawsuit against me. I would say that if the collection from which any image came, continues to sell the same image, then Getty would likely only have a non-exclusive license, and therefore no right to sue for copyright infringement.

89

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Aldrich Law Firm Letter

« on: January 22, 2012, 11:42:01 PM »

I have to chip in here. This is the second example of a German website threatening legal action in the USA. The second site is foodstock.com whose head office is located in Germany.


Here is the foodstock thread - http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/riddickimageline-letter-forum/stock-food-images-imua-legal-seattle/msg2070/#msg2070


Let’s assume that the German company has received an exclusive license from the photographer, and its contract with the photographer gives it maximum options for any future use of that license, including its future transfer. Maybe there is even a clause that allows Bokelberg ( or Foodstock or Getty ) to subdivide the license into geographical regions. In other words, Foodstock Germany appoints “Foodstock America” to exclusively license its images in North America. On the Getty site, for example, I can only purchase images from my local representative.

Does Foodstock America then have the legal right to sue in the USA? Can they claim that have an exclusive license, and therefore right to sue?

There is no doubt that you can transfer the exclusive right with the copyright owner’s contractual approval, and soon perhaps, even without - http://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/copyrights-sublicenses-by-exclusive-licensees-of-copyrights-copyright-clarification-may-change-the-law.html

The question is whether you can subdivide a worldwide right into geographical regions. i.e. separate countries.

If the answer the yes, then any stock image company the world over will be able to appoint a local representative to sue on their behalf, whilst claiming that that their right to sue is based on a genuine exclusive right – the right to sell exclusively in their own country.

Here in Israel, Getty has their local representative, who is causing much heartache to many small businesses. If the above scenario is legal, then Americans will soon have to deal with more and more European, Asian, etc stock photo companies. The number of settlement demand letters will multiply rapidly.

Can someone please destroy my scenario with a serious legal argument? It’s not quite Righthaven, as the local office does at least put some work in.

90

Getty Images Letter Forum / Stockfood.com or StockFood GmbH letter reaches Israel -סטוק פוד מכתב מגיע לישראל

« on: January 19, 2012, 04:58:06 PM »

Today, I received an example of a stockfood settlement letter here in Israel. A local Israeli lawyer claims to represent stockfood.com, or “StockFood GmbH”. (The same lawyer represented Marot/GettyImages in 2008!)

 “StockFood GmbH” is a German company whose head office is in Munich.

http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/stockfood-gmbh

I would guess that if this company has indeed received exclusive licenses from various photographers, then the license would have been transferred to the company’s head office.

However, in the stockfood settlement demand received in the USA:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73121453/Stock-Food-Settlement-Demand-Letter

it says “StockFood America is the exclusive licensor for the copyright holder”.

Who is stockfood America? If the German company owns the exclusive license, then isn’t the American branch/subsidiary/franchise/ (whatever they are). …only in receipt of the right to sue alone? 

Stockfood has branches/ representatives in many countries, including the USA. In Israel, they have an agent/affiliate (http://www.visualphotos.com/ )  that also sells Masterfile images. On this site, the catalog numbers are the same as on the Masterfile and stockfood.com sites. 

Do all the national branches/ representatives own exclusive licenses. or does ONLY the German head office own the exclusive license? If the latter is true, then the local offices have no right to sue. It’s Righthaven all over again.

Here in Israel, it’s the main German office that is threatening. Of course, they will have to be the main plaintiff, prove the transfer of the exclusive license, and add the copyright holder to the lawsuit.

Does anyone have any extra information about this company based in Germany, but sending out settlement letters in other countries?

And now, a few words in Hebrew if I may !

חברה בשם סטוקפוד ,סטוק פוד - stockfood (stockfood.com)
החלה לשלוח מכתבי אזהרה לאנשים כתוצאה של הפרת זכויות יוצרים - לכאורה
אני מציע לכם לקרוא פורומים אלו או לשלוח לי דואר אלקטרוני כדי להבין את משמעות האיומים
[email protected]
תודה ( thanks)