Topics

1

Legal Controversies Forum / Copyright Question

« on: July 15, 2014, 01:17:55 PM »

I was wondering if I took a still from a movie and hand painted it in oil on canvas say, would I be able to sell it or would copyright law forbid it? What about if I took the still image and ran it through some graphics software which made it look as though it were handpainted complete with brushstrokes etc.?
Thanks
John

2

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / This might be significant

« on: April 19, 2012, 09:16:18 AM »

http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/news/high-court-sets-precedent-after-four-years-of-speculative-invoicing-for-alleged-copyright-infringement
The above link details a high court ruling where a group of pornographic film producers requested O2 (a UK ISP and mobile phone provider) to disclose details of customers whose IP addresses had been linked with illegal file downloading, with a view to sending out speculative invoices. Although this was largely a privacy issue, the court did comment on the nature of speculative invoice letters ...
"The verdict also states that any claim letter sent by copyright-owners or their representatives must properly safeguard the legitimate interests of consumers, particularly those who are innocent of wrong-doing.2 This has big implications in restricting the ability of such companies to send out threatening ‘Pay now – or else letters’, as was also seen in the recent high profile case of ACS Law. The High Court will in a separate hearing impose conditions on the wording of the order and the letters"

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Checking for copyright

« on: March 20, 2012, 05:34:43 PM »

Is there an easy way to check if my particular Getty pic is actually copyrighted? On the Getty website under my image it says "The Image Bank" which I think is the name of the collection if that's relevant.

John

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Yet another letter recipient

« on: March 04, 2012, 07:19:16 PM »

I received my letter last week and thought I would share my experience to date. I have a home based typesetting business which is only just surviving so when I saw the demand for £1000 plus £230 VAT I felt physically ill. The paperwork showed the full image in question together with a screen print of the image in place on my website. I hadn't used the image as is, I had cropped a small section of it and incorporated it as part of a bigger image. I was completely baffled as to how they had made the step from the image on my website to the Getty image. I had produced the website myself with the aim of zero cost and also to teach myself something about website design. I have no record of how I acquired the image but as a typesetter I am aware of copyright issues and I'm sure I got the image either from a library on a magazine disc or from a free website. I didn't get any sleep that night and the next day I started researching on Google after first taking the image down from my site. A few days later and I think I must have read many hundreds of posts on the subject. At least I knew I wasn't alone but I was still unsure of how to proceed. There was the ignore them and they'll go away advocates. There were those who said that I was in the wrong and I should just pay up and there were those who said get a solicitor. I read all about Picscout and msut admit to being impressed with what it can do. After a week I thought I needed to stop researching and just step back and re-assess things.  I realised that after the initial shock I had started sleeping better and generally just felt better about things - more ready to take them on. My situation seems to be very typical and I had been hoping to find info on a recommended plan of action - maybe a letter template for a response, plus details of how cases had been resolved. I didn't really find anything much like this. So I need to form my own response.

I decided not to just ignore them (though I suspect this approach does have it's merits). The "ignore them" brigade were saying that if you reply they know you are taking them seriously and will pursue you even more. This may be true but I had also heard that you could ignore them and hear nothing for years and suddenly they will start chasing you again. I decided I wanted a definite end to the matter, even if I did have to pay something at the end of it. So I am planning the following course of action ..

1. Reply to Getty stating that it is my contention that the image was obtained legitimately and as such no fees were payable to Getty. As an act of good faith I had removed the image anyway and hoped that would be an end to the matter.

2. Getty will send a second letter, ignoring my response and repeating their demands for the full payment.

3. I will reply stating that any payment was out of the question. They would first need to provide proof of registration etc, (not just for now but for when I obtained the image) to support their claim of infringement.

4. Getty will reply that they have proof but will only provide it when the case goes to court.

5. At this point we could have a stalemate. I could refuse a settlement and Getty could send repeated demands and I could quote various acts and accuse them of harassment. However, I think I would prefer to cite their refusal to provide proof, together with other mitigating factors such as the very low hit count on my site plus the fact I had only used a small fraction of the original image as bargaining factors to try and get them to accept a greatly reduced figure in settlement.

So how does the above sound? Any feel for what the minimum percentage is they might settle on?

Finally just like to say thanks to Matthew and Oscar for all their work on this site. I've watched all the videos

Thanks.