A Clear Message

[riddickvictim2]

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?

[digitizerof embroidery]

Has anyone even started to actually see if ANY of this is legal? I mean I was sent an email today from one of our competitors about this, TAKE A LOOKEY LOOK!!
 
http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=5319329&memlevel=A&a=a&q=4th%20of%20july&k_mode=all&s=1&e=28&show=&c=&cid=&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=&k_exc=&pubid=
 
This is almost the SAME (if not the same)  image on his site. Now, I know www.clipart.com states that IF you are sued, THEY will reimburse (from what I read, and understood) but who owns what?

http://www.imageline2.com/pages/ipics2_HOLIDAYSMemor.htm

[BartPerry]

That is VERY odd, I have the very same item digitized on MY site, and I am expecting an email myself. HOWEVER, I purchased a membership on clipart.com, downloaded the image, and turned it into a digitized work with my digitizing skills.

How can both of these two own the same clipart? how can WE be sued for what we purchased in good faith.

Bart

[Matthew Chan]

You can be sued by anyone, anytime, for any reason.  It does not mean they will win anything but it does cause aggravation for everyone.  Keep in mind, for someone to sue, it costs real money and time to do so and often requires paying an attorney to do so.


BartPerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is VERY odd, I have the very same item
> digitized on MY site, and I am expecting an email
> myself. HOWEVER, I purchased a membership on
> clipart.com, downloaded the image, and turned it
> into a digitized work with my digitizing skills.
>
> How can both of these two own the same clipart?
> how can WE be sued for what we purchased in good
> faith.
>
> Bart

[BartPerry]

OOPS, I spoke to soon, Riddick emailed me back while I was typing. He did NOT get my name correct, nor did he send the email to me correctly as I cannot even see what is in his email

Is this guy on medication? I mean, in my PERSONAL opinion (yea, cant sue me for my personal opinion..not fact, just opinion) this Mr. Riddick needs some meds for a disorder or something.

I wonder if it was for the flag as well.

Oh well, this guy will not get even one more minute of my time. We called our attorney and told him what was going on, he said if I got the clipart from claiprt.com not to worry about a thing. (I did, so.........)

Bart

Mr. Riddick, if you are reading, my name is BART, not bat, my last name is Perry, not parry.

[Matthew Chan]

I disagree with you.  I think if you take protective measures and document what you purchase, where you purchased, and how, most companies will be "reasonable" and you should be safe from any lawsuit.  Nevertheless, having gone what I have gone through, I prefer to hire someone to create my images and take my own photos nowadays.  Or I will go directly to a company to ask permission for their photos.  Obviously, Getty has not won any goodwill from me and so I will practically go anywhere except them to do business.

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?

[BartPerry]

Admin,

This guy, Mr. Riddick, is he for real? I mean its clear enough that the clipart in question was off of clipart.com, and I sent that to him..who can say who owns the copyright between riddick, or clipart.com?

Bart

[Matthew Chan]

If you would like to show me, submit the email to [email protected].  It can be added to the other stacks of outrageous emails he has sent to others.

Matthew

BartPerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OOPS, I spoke to soon, Riddick emailed me back
> while I was typing. He did NOT get my name
> correct, nor did he send the email to me correctly
> as I cannot even see what is in his email
>

[BartPerry]

I JUST sent you an email, I removed my name, company name etc.

Bart

[BartPerry]

I sent you another, but I don;t think you want to see the email I sent to him a moment ago. I was not so nice. I was told to send him an email stating to send all matters legally through the USPS certified mail, so we could turn it over to the local fbi.

If he thinks I am going to roll over, and play dead.........LOL, boy did he hit a roadblock with me. I have never been one to take anything when we KNOW what we purchased, we back up everything. all clipart site memberships, terms of use, cd's, all of it. Heck, I have emails from 6 years ago still on backup cd's.


Bart

[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.