"it was an honest mistake" says Getty Images

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Nice to see the tables turned on these douche-nozzles

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9AL16F20131122?irpc=932

[stinger]

It is nice to see that a judge is holding companies that should know better accountable for their actions.  I like the part about it being the top end of the spectrum for an award.

The only negative, I fear, is that these guys might appeal.  I hope if they lose the appeal they can stand to lose more than the $1.2M.  Does anyone know if that is possible?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

i'm sure Getty will appeal, on the grounds of "innocent infringement" or something along those lines. But just like Getty and Timothy B. McCormack constantly squack at letter recipients, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

[lucy]

This is so awesome... what goes around comes around, in a kind of warped justice. What would be perfectly perfect is if Getty got a letter that had been cut-and-pasted from the regular extortion stuff they themselves regularly send out... i.e. ignorance is no excuse and you will be pursued to the full extent of the law...
 

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

While I was pleased to see the verdict as well as the award in this case I do have mixed feelings about it. For the very reasons Robert has expressed I can see Getty using this to turn up the heat on letter recipients. When a recipient expresses innocent infringement Getty can now just say ignorance is no excuse look what happened to us and we got fined the maximum so pay us before we take you to court. I can see this being just another terror tactic Getty will use against letter recipients.

Of course I realize there is a world of difference in many factors between the average letter recipient and AFP and Getty Images which the average person will not know. I hope I am wrong about this but time will tell.

On the lighter side I can now refer to Getty Images as the company who has been convicted of willful infringement.

And let's not forget Mr. McCormack who I now can refer to as the copyright lawyer whose main client has been convicted of willful infringement. 

i'm sure Getty will appeal, on the grounds of "innocent infringement" or something along those lines. But just like Getty and Timothy B. McCormack constantly squack at letter recipients, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

The people on this board that are accused of infringement typically only display the images on their site. In this case, Getty Images actually took a photographer's work and sold it to many other outlets. What they did is more like printing up pirated DVDs and selling them as their own. It's nowhere near mistakenly posting an image on a web site. I hope Getty does appeal and the next award is even more than 1.2 million.

[perplexed]

Jerry is 100% correct. Getty can't and won't say "look, we got caught, we paid up and so should you." 

They CAN'T because that offensive tactic would not be relevant for the reason Jerry stated.

They WON'T because they would NEVER EVER EVER admit to any wrongdoing, especially to consumers, who could then go share their admission to the world so every photographer on the planet could see that Getty admits to STEALING images from photographers.

No need for mixed feelings. This is a WIN for consumers being terrorized by Getty.

[perplexed]

Also, what Getty did wasn't an "honest mistake"! Posting a 100px image you found on Google Images (that is also on a thousand other web sites) on your blog no one reads is an "honest mistake"; lifting images from a calamity victim's Twitter feed and PROFITING from it is CRIMINAL!

 How dare they exploit the word "honesty" to defend themselves. What a dirty, unethical, reprehensible den of thieves! BOYCOTT!

[stinger]

AMEN, Perplexed!

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

@Jerry
I would love to see them get more to but I think they got fined the max allowed which pleases me to no end 

@Perplexed
While I agree completely with what Jerry said about the differences between the two situations from what I have seen Getty will do most anything if they think it will bring them more money. 

They certainly don't seemed bothered by all the negativity around their current business model. 

They don't seem to mind sending out demand letters for public domain images. 

They don't seem to mid sending out letters for hot-linked images then telling letter recipients when they complain that it doesn't matter if the image was hot-linked or not pay us.

They often treat their contributors as poorly as they do their letter recipients.

The top officers didn't seem to mind backdating stock options to taking millions from the stockholders. (Still waiting on the SEC report on this for final outcome of the investigation)

While I understand what you are saying and agree with you I still can see Getty using this to club people and try to get more people to pay out of fear of a lawsuit.  In my opinion Getty just does't care what their image is and all they want is money. Again, in my opinion, I think that that is what the single image lawsuit was all about earlier in the year.  They picked a slamdunk case sued got a settlement before trial and can now say they do sue and win on single images.

[perplexed]

Can't argue with your assessment of them. They are the poster child for corporate avarice. Reprehensible corporate conduct.

[Oscar Michelen]

Getty would look foolish trying to compare Mr. Morel's one of kind photos to a stock picture of a cactus or a keyboard. Also, Getty trying to allege innocent infringement is ludicrous.