Good blog post by Oscar.
I really get the irony of Getty getting into hot water over this.
But, in the greater scheme of things, imagine how vulnerable everyone is over any photo that we take, or anything that we say or write.
In today's terrible economic conditions, there's an attitude that everything must be "monetized".
However, the laws don't clearly define where infringement begins and ends in terms of modern communications.
Therefore, practically anything is up for argument, which means "court". Court is expensive, and that's used to force settlements.
It's like putting a photo of me driving my car onto my website that sells oil changes.
Then, having to pay Ford a license fee, or go to court. You know, "you're driving our car brand", and "your site makes money".
Or, having to pay thousands to the likes of Getty even if the site makes no money, as in a family website.
A statement in Oscar's article jumped out at me:
"The judge went on to state that Getty could also be responsible for allowing others to infringe on the plaintiff’s trademark by licensing the image for others to use commercially. The case will now proceed onto discovery, where Getty will likely have to show how many times and for how much money it sold or licensed images with those little trees in it."
Is Getty going to go after the
end users that they licensed the images to if they haven't paid more for "legal protection" in their contract?
Refer to the link that Buddhapi posted recently:
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/blog/2010/05/17/getty-images-lauches-stockphotorights-com/A quote from the article:
"Almost half of the respondents (48%) said they did not fully understand legal protection or indemnification, (the form of warranty where the image supplier agrees to bear liability and assume certain legal costs if a claim around the image arises). Almost 45% of respondents were unaware that you can still face a legal claim relating to an image you used, even if you license it. A mere 18% reported paying for legal protection when licensing an image. Even among respondents who understood that certain image licenses include legal protection, 26% said they have considered themselves at risk by sourcing an image which doesn’t include it."
So, end users should get ready for the possibility of many threatening letters from Getty/Deodorizer manufacturer if they don't have legal protection in their contract.
Or, heaven forbid, lost their receipt from Getty.
S.G.
Show Posts