Retired Forums > Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum

A Clear Message

<< < (3/3)

BartPerry:
And, if you don't mind me asking..who is Getty?

Bart

Matthew Chan:
Getty Images.  The company whose letter tactics sparked the existence of this entire website.  Click "My Case" link shown at the top.

BartPerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, if you don't mind me asking..who is Getty?
>
> Bart

BartPerry:
WOW!

Now that was a very well written letter to Getty. I am impressed. My letter to Mr. Riddick was not so proffesional, or long. It was more of a "hmmmmm" letter. I had no idea about all of this. I got here from an email from another digitizer I asked today about Mr. Riddick. I was told she had received an email as well, and about the same items on her website she also purchased from a very well know clipart site.

I was informed to turn the email over to the local FBI on Monday morning as he is not able to send collection letters without being a licensed collection agency in the state of Oklahoma.

Bart

Lettered:
I agree with this.  I will take my own pictures.  A few shots to dress up a website hardly needs a professional photograper.  I probably would have continued purchasing online just for convenience, but I prefer to avoid the headaches.

Oh and as far as the image selling companies covering you if you get a letter or sued over the image ... read the language you agree to in order to purchase .... it looks to me like you have to promise to not hold them liable ... and if you get past that, it looks like liability for anything is limited to the price you pay for the image.  That's the way I read it, anyway.

riddickvictim2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From everything I read on this website, the
> message is quite clear.  Do not purchase
> professional graphics, photos or clipart.  Do not
> support “professional” artists of any kind in
> any way.  If you do, you will be sued.
>
> I have paid hard earned US dollars for every
> single image on my website.  And along comes the
> likes of Mr. Riddick.
> So again, the message that I get from Getty,
> MasterFile, Riddick, Jupiter and their ilk is very
> clear.  Buy professional works of any kind and you
> will be sued.  
>
> It is sad that the UAW has killed the auto
> industry.  It is equally sad that Getty,
> MasterFile, Jupiter, and Riddick are killing the
> image industry.  There will be thousands of
> unemployed auto workers and an equal number of
> unemployed artists.
>
> From this day forward, I will NEVER purchase a
> professional image of any kind from any source.
> Getting back to my website, it is loaded with
> images that I purchased legally.  This was before
> the revelation that purchasing professional images
> will get you sued.  The question that I pose is
> this.   How do I make my website Riddick-proof,
> Jupiter-proof, MasterFile-proof, and Getty-proof.
> I am fairly certain that removing all images would
> adversely affect sales.  Income from sales is what
> my family and these predators are counting on.  Do
> I just start replacing professional images with
> home made images?

Oscar Michelen:
There are growing concerns about securing rights for digital images when you are not even sure where the company you obtained the images from got  their images from. The problem is the US law does not sufficiently protect innocent infringers - all it does is allow a judge to lower statutory damages down to $200 per infraction; it does not address what happens when the person suing is looking for actual damages because the "work" was not registered at the time of the infringement.  It needs to model UK law which says in all cases that  a copyright holder is entitled to NO damages in cases of innocent infringement.  This recognizes that copyright is not some iron-clad right but is in many ways intended to be somewhat "porous"  as many Federal court decisions indicate.  While infringement is taken seriously, so is artistic expression and the need to build on earlier ideas. Like all law, copyright law seeks to strike a balance between two competing interests - the right of the creator of intellectual property to protect his work and the right of society to the free flow of ideas and artistic expression.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page