Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome! Please Read the Rules Before You Post!

« on: November 18, 2008, 07:28:59 PM »

Matthew,

I would venture to say, most of us agree with Dave... You and Oscar have put your hearts and souls into this issue and have no doubt spent countless hours researching, responding, etc.. Perhaps at first it was a personal issue for you, but you have now so unselfishly shared your research, experiences and expertise with the rest of us by creating this Forum - which has most certainly become a virutal haven of support for all the "Getty Victims".  You both deserve more than a pat on the back for your continued efforts here! Hope to see a PayPal button soon (tu)

Strength in numbers - together we will prevail!

MP

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Australian Victim

« on: November 09, 2008, 11:24:24 AM »

Mark,

You are most welcome. And I would say that is good news that you didn't find anything registered there. Do keep the forum posted of any further findings. All information is helpful...

MP

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Australian Victim

« on: October 27, 2008, 09:02:59 AM »

Mark,

For US copyright registration you can check: http://www.copyright.gov/    Go to Search Copyright Records -> Registration and Documents. Then do a thorough search. You can search by photographer, Getty Images number, title or descritption of image, etc.

Beyond that - I'm not aware of any other way.

There is another post on this in this forum: "New Info on Getty".....  with someone's experience using the US Copyright site.

MP

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: how do i make sure i do not use copyrighted materials?

« on: October 23, 2008, 01:23:19 PM »

Oscar states:

"The only change I would suggest in US law (IMHO as the kids say) is to adopt a provision like they have in place in the UK that provides for no monetary damage for a one-time innocent infringement. Perhaps that's something we should start working for on this site - a petition to your congressman and senator to amend the Copyright Act of 1976 to help it catch up with the digital age. It's a thought. "

...AND perhaps require a simple "Cease and Desist" order be issued as part of the process, prior to taking any further legal action?

I think we have established here on this forum that probably 99.9% of the people WOULD and DO, "cease and desist" the MOMENT there is any disput as to the legality of an image on their website. And as previoulsy stated, that would be the end of the story and everyone's integrity is preserved.

Lets face it, I think most would agree that your average "Company David" is NOT maliciously and purposely infringing. The vast majority of these cases are truly innocent, for the many reasons cited throughout this forum. Lets let the punishment ft the crime. And let there be a fair "process" that must be followed.

MP

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Australian Victim

« on: October 23, 2008, 12:59:07 PM »

Hello All,

Oscar Michelen raises a very valid point when stating:

 "One of the issues we have raised with Getty here in the States is that how can Getty be so sure that its photographers have not licensed the use of the image elesewhere - such as on a CD. Getty makes no effort to ascertain this."

Just for fun.... I  visited istockphoto.com (which is owned by Getty as of 2006 - see their press and privacy section of the istockphoto website), dreamstime.com AND sxc.hu (Stock. XCHNG) and randomly selected an image - and guess what - the EXACT same image by the EXACT same photographer is avialable for download on all THREE sites. This supports EXACTLY what Oscar is questioning!

Now, I know istockphoto.com is a "Getty company", however Dreamstime and Stock.XCHNG "appear" to be "Getty free", or at least I saw no obvious mention of being a subsidiary/partner on either site. Bearing THAT in mind... could Getty's robot that scours the internet not detect a legitimately obtained image from say Dreamstime or Stock.XCHNG, yet Getty claim it is theirs because they are selling the same, identical image? If that would be the case then WHO has WHAT rights to WHAT?

MP

6

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has anyone been to court

« on: October 20, 2008, 08:25:44 PM »

Mr. Michelen,

Thank you so much for the clarification and thorough explanation. Sifting through all this legal-ese can be a challenge for those of us not well-versed on the legal process. Again - thanks so much for your continued support.

MP

7

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has anyone been to court

« on: October 19, 2008, 02:18:41 PM »

Dear Mr. Michelen,

First and foremost, my commedations go out to you for the service and support your providing here. You are truly an asset to your profession and a much welcomed and appreciated source of support among all of the "Company David's" here.

In reading the above post by you dated 7-13-08, I was wondering if you could either clarify or expound on something? You state:

"Getty is not only seeking the monetary damages of US$1,000 they are also lilkely to sue for "declaratory relief" That is, a judicial order establishing/declaring their right to the image and that the defendant infringed upon it. This would entitle them to file in Federal Court under the Copyright Act."

I have been following this forum closely and this is first I see  you mention "declaratory relief".  You provide a  "definition" for the term, but I was wondering if you could expound on what that implies or could mean for the defendant? For example.... you have mentioned that a suit for copyright infringement could likely result in max ruling of $500/image and a possible minimum ruling of $200/image  for an innocent infringement - based on current copyright laws. What would/could a suit for "declaratory relief" potentially result in for the defendant? I hope my question is clear enough...