Messages

61

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 11, 2013, 09:49:07 AM »

Just some clarifications.  An image HAS to be registered before the copyright holder can sue you in court.  But just to be clear, if you are infringing on an unregistered image, all the copyright holder has to do is register the image and file suite, but only for actual damages (see below *).  I think that generally they dont even bother registering them (if theyre not already registered) during the demand letter stage ... they only bother with that if and when they decide to go to court. 
*If it was registered before you started infringing, then he can get statutory damages and his legal fees.  The registration grace period, as I understand it, allows the photographer to register his image withing 3 months of publication and still have the same options as if it were registered since publication.  If its been 3 months or more since first publication (by the copyright holder) and the image isnt registered there is no way to recover statutory damages and legal fees .... only actual damages.

Its worth noting on registered images, if the infringment can be shown to be unwillfull then the judge is allowed (not required) to lower statutory damages to $200 per infringement.

I know ... clear as mud.

Copyright exists from the moment the picture is taken and belongs to the photographer.  The photog can come after you even if the image is not registered but only for actual damages.  Registering the image allows me to seek statutory damages the  up to 150,000 the demand letters like to quote per image.

I believe there is also a clause in there that says if I find you are infringing I have 3 months from the date I find the infringement to register the image and can then still get statutory damages.  The ones Getty are registering now are outside the 3 month window and Getty is only seeking actual damages on those pics.

I have a question that nobody may have thought about.  Since the majority of images that Getty claims to own or manage do not have a registered copyright, what would happen if a victim of the Getty Scam were to register the alleged infringement image themselves and then claim Getty is the infringer?  What a twist.

62

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 11, 2013, 06:02:50 AM »

I have a question that nobody may have thought about.  Since the majority of images that Getty claims to own or manage do not have a registered copyright, what would happen if a victim of the Getty Scam were to register the alleged infringement image themselves and then claim Getty is the infringer?  What a twist.

Anyone attempting such would almost certainly find themselves in a very bad position I think.  The registration is a formality that allows addtional damages.  Actual copyright ownership is created when the image is created. 

Lets say you ignored all of that and registered their image using their redistributable jpeg file before they get around to it.  Then the photographer produces a raw file from his camera of the image, and of course you cannot.  How do you explain yourself?  You would then be in violation of the Criminal Copyright statutes (False Representation) and all the associated fines and consequences and who knows what else (Fraud? Perjury? . . .)

Don't do it is my advice.

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

63

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 10, 2013, 07:01:52 PM »

If this is what it appears to be ... Getty going after flagrantly infringing web site designers (and not thier innocent customers) then I think it is to be applauded.  If stopgettyimages.com is indeed a smear campaign by said infringers, I think ELI runs the risk of being "rolled up" with them in the eye of public opinion.

If the above pans out as true, I think ELI should put out a press release praising this action by Getty and distancing itself from stopgettyimages.com .

Also, I think the posts in this thread concerning this issue should be move into a thread of their own.

64

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved Letter from getty

« on: March 26, 2013, 04:43:01 PM »

Just to play devils advocate:  You aren't completely safe buying images from anyone.  If you read the contracts on those sites you have to agree to in order to purchase, I think you'll find that they don't take any responsibility for any copyright violation issues that might arise.  What's to keep a copyright troll from seeding on these sites?  What's to keep a thief from selling someone elses images on these sites?  Is anyone in the entire process verifying ownership? Is it feasible or even possible to verify ownership?  Too many questions for me.

65

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: OK...got a surprise letter

« on: March 22, 2013, 09:01:10 AM »

I agree with Robert.  In this particular case, in my humble opinion (for whatever that's worth), the right thing to do is pay up (maybe negotiate something a bit lower if you can).
Sounds to me like you knew you were doing wrong and got caught, but you're still going to break even dollar-wise.  So I actually see you as being lucky.
Count it as a cheap lesson.
I think you should also go back through your client list and clean up any additional offending situations before they become more problematic.

66

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from photographer over Getty image

« on: March 19, 2013, 07:17:38 PM »

After reading this, I wonder if you could make a good argument for "fair use" in this case.

Welcome to the forums popcorn1234.

This does not sound like a normal type of letter and I would be suspicious of it. The fact that they are referencing it is part of a Getty images collection sends a red flag to me as I believe the Getty images contributor contract requires the contributor to give full and exclusive rights including the rights to determine when and if compensation is required.

If this person's image is part of the Getty collection they may be trying to get a little something on the side or they just may be trying to use the Getty name and reputation to frighten you into paying.

Irregardless it is wise that you have taken the image down and if you are using images in the manner you have stated you may wish to contact the artists directly letting them know you wish to display a picture of their art with a link back to them for purchases. I think most artists would be happy and flattered you have done this in grant you permission. I would keep and hold onto any emails granting you permission for ever as if Getty should ever obtain rights the image and find an archive of your webpage they will come after you and you will want the email proof you had rights to display the image.

I would look into this whole situation a little bit more as this contact seem somewhat suspect to me.

67

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: ELI Response to the March 15, 2013 PDN Pulse Article

« on: March 17, 2013, 10:34:51 AM »

This may be a silly question, but if the author is so supportive of someone "trying to enforce her copyrights", did he ask permission to use the screenshot of your webcast in his article?  I wonder how he would feel if he got a settlement demand letter for thousands of dollars?

I know, I know ... "fair use" and all that ... but, still ... just sayin'

68

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a letter... No longer own the site

« on: March 15, 2013, 12:59:23 PM »

I think you're probably on the right track, PittMan.

As a purely academic issue I just wanted to throw out that I wouldn't be so sure you didn't technically own the site until the whois info got updated.  I can't answer that and would be interested in hearing an attorney's take on it.

I think its kind of like the old question "at what point do you own your car?  when you sign the bill of sale?  when you take possession?  when you transfer the title?"  I'm pretty sure that in Texas at least you can be held responsible for parking tickets on vehicles you've sold unless and until you've filled out and submitted the appropriate paperwork even after you signed the title and handed it to the buyer.
http://www.hagerty.com/classic-car-articles-resources/Resources/Additional-Resources/Registration-and-DMV/All-Articles/2005/07/05/When-Do-You-Really-Own-a-Vehicle

69

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Bruce Rosen (representing Julie Stewart) Sends Certified Letter to ELI

« on: January 14, 2013, 11:26:55 PM »

wow ... has it really been a year?  seems like yesterday.

70

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: just received an email

« on: January 03, 2013, 04:49:45 PM »

have you complied with all of the provisions under DMCA to have "safe harbor"?  If so I think all he can do is send you a take down notice ... which seems moot as youve already taken it down.

71

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: PDN Article Featuring "Kindly Uncle" Glen Carner

« on: January 02, 2013, 03:00:16 PM »

I sort of agree with Glen Carter's approach.  Where I disagree with him:

1) The Market value of the image should be used for the "demand" and be based on sales history.  Where no sales history exists, a market average for similar images could be used.

2) The above soft handed approach should not be required for blatant thieves of registered works.  For example, if someone is a repeat offender, or a self confessed theif ("screw you I'll steal any image I want"), then I think some of the more heavy handed approaches we've seen (e.g. Masterfile) might be in order.

72

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PDN Article on ELI, Copyright Extortionists, and my position on the matter

« on: January 01, 2013, 06:44:20 PM »

Wow.  I had to go back an re-read it.  Still seems unbalanced to me.  The author's statement:

"Not surprisingly, agencies are unwilling to let thieves set the terms."

unmistakenly betrays the bias.

I do think the article was "restrained".  My opinion is that the restraint was likely used to give the illusion of balance.

73

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: PDN Article Featuring "Kindly Uncle" Glen Carner

« on: December 28, 2012, 06:10:30 PM »

[sarcasm] gotta love pdn's hard hitting "in your face" investigative journalism [/sarcasm]

"PDN: It sounds like you're bending over backwards to be nice to people who are stealing images. Why is that?"

74

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PDN Article on ELI, Copyright Extortionists, and my position on the matter

« on: December 28, 2012, 11:13:23 AM »

I also saw the article as being far from "fair". It did appear to me to be a veiled attempt to appear "fair".  In fact, then entire article appeared to me to be an attempt to discredit ELI while trying to appear fair and balanced.

Some initial thoughts in that regard:

1) A quote that IMO betrays the bias of the article:

Not surprisingly, agencies are unwilling to let thieves set the terms

2) Another quote from the article where the author explicitly supports Getty.  The author implies (the way I read it) that not only was Matthew legally responsible for the infringement (true IMO), but he was also responsible for Getty's exhorbitant demands (NOT true IMO).

Getty dropped its demand to $800, then $500, informing Chan (correctly) that he was legally responsible for infringements on his website, regardless of how they happened

3) IMO, a balanced and well researched report would have mentioned near the following quote, that these types of multipliers aren't legally applicable in the case of unregistered images:

He also says the agency has a policy of charging infringers three times a normal licensing fee

75

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Corbis Infringement Claim on Images that Former Designer Never Paid For

« on: December 12, 2012, 07:38:03 AM »

I kind of have to respectfully disagree with some of the views expressed on blame in this case.  People hire these web designers because they have no idea how to get a website up and running.  I think the designer has the responsibility (at least ethically) to make sure that the customer is fully aware of any licensing issues associated with their product.

For example, I don't think we generally expect customers to retrace auto mechanic's work, verifying serial numbers of parts used to make sure they aren't stolen.  In my mind, there is little difference in principle.

Of course, that is only the morality and ethics view.  Legally, it seems that the customer is left on the hook in many of these cases.

Bottom line is that I would be looking at ways to try to place the responsibility for this mess squarely back on the web designer if I could.  I really doubt that anyone with a web design business like this would want these sorts of complaints about their company documented on review websites.