An Experiment Against Getty

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Yes, many of them are still in the process of being registered.  It appears as if Getty is trying to register them now and seek a retroactive license going back to the first known infringement.  I'm not sure how this will work or if they can still ask for the legal fees and the 150,000 per image stuff like this. 

I thought the law said you only had 3 months from finding an infringement to register if you were suing for the works but again I may be wrong here too.

Oscar, I need your help on this one as I am as confused by this as everyone else.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

In 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as follows, concerning "retro active copyrights": "The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that all retroactive copyright transfers and licenses are invalid. In Davis v. Blige,—F.3d—, 2007 WL 2893003, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1353 (2d Cir. 2007), the court found that 'retroactive transfers violate the basic principles of tort and contract law, and undermine the policies embodied by the Copyright Act.' Although the decision appears sound under the facts of the case, its broad conclusions could have far-reaching effects in the world of copyright licensing."

Source: http://www.stopgettyimages.com/getty_images_extortion_attempts.htm

[Mulligan]

Good link, Jerry. Thanks.

On the same site, the info on the link below is also worth reading and relevant to the current discussion:

http://www.stopgettyimages.com/attorney_scott_t_wilsdon.htm

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

The Getty-v-Virtual-Clinics is an interesting "get" Greg. It appears that Getty is targeting someone who is both going over the top with pirating images Getty claims to represent, as well as people with a previous criminal record. These individuals also host a few sites that are critical of Getty: http://www.stopgettyimages.com

Hard to know who to root for here. If Virtual Clinics is taking stock footage, adding some spots or re-touching it slightly, and then claiming they don't owe Getty for the image, that's a fight they won't win. But if they licensed the image elsewhere or can prove that it was offered for free elsewhere prior to Getty "exclusively" representing it, Virtual Clinics may prevail.

It seems pretty sneaky for Getty to try and register a copyright now. I don't think that will hold up. (See previous post.)

This will be interesting to watch. I think Getty did some calculations and decided that this one had a good chance of returning a default judgement and was worth pursuing. How did this end up in the Washington AG collection anyway?

[stinger]

So is there a changing of the guard going on here, or is the picture more like this?

McCormack IP Law is really a first line defense to scare people into paying troll fees, or stop them from using photos Getty thinks are theirs.  If they come across a particularly egregious case, it now gets promoted to the law firm of SCOTT T. WILSDON which is allowed to file suit.

I would personally like to see this case drag on for about two years and then be decided in favor the defendant - who may be the lesser criminal in the eyes of many.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

@Jerry, I'll be writing a nice little piece about this case...I've looked into virtual clinics about 1 year ago, and there is more to this story that is for sure... heres a tidbit for you

from stopgettyimages.com:
"After a small animal website provider, refused to pay Getty Images fake invoices, Mr. Wilsdon filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement against the owners, who are an elderly part-time retired couple, that provide budget websites for animal rescue, pet adoption organizations, and service dogs.  Getty Images had been utilizing their predatory scare tactics to frighten this older couple for years, however they refused to pay Getty's fake invoices for non-existent copyrights.  Scott Wilsdon filed a lawsuit against this elderly couple on April 5, 2013."

this paragraph is a blatant lie.
a. the "elderly couple" is bogus
b. the suit was filed on the date mentioned, BUT it is against virtual clinics, not an elderly couple.
c. the "elderly couple" develop website as a full time endeavour, they are NOT low cost budget sites, and they are for vet clinics, not non-profit rescues and what not..

look for more in the next couple of days, i'm busy sorting and gather more facts..

[Lettered]

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.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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.

I will be making a post along these lines on copyright-trolls.com, and furthering that by making a thread here, at which time I will move some of these comments... I suggested to Matt that he make a blog post about this on the front side of ELI, as I agree this will bolster our postition that we do indeed respect copyright, and that we do indeed believe that artists should be paid for their work.. It has ALWAYS been my position, that it is the way the troll conduct themselves that is not right.

[SoylentGreen]

Getty's registering the copyrights retroactively?  That's the lamest tactic that I've seen in ages.
Also, many thanks to Jerry for pointing out the recent changes in law in relation to this.
Even before these changes, there was only a narrow window of time wherein something could be "registered retroactively".
Some of you may recall how Getty in particular used to try to play the "registration game" on a regular basis in earlier days.
Oscar in particular made note of the practice.  He was a bit steamed about it.

Before we "side with Getty" on this one, let's be sure that we have all of the facts.
That way, we won't have egg on our face if it turns out that Getty's just as scummy as the alleged infringer(s).
Making copyright registrations after the fact makes me a bit less sympathetic to Getty.

S.G.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

No they are not, I went back and read it again (damn it's long) and what they are doing is on images that were already registered they are asking for statutory damages and on ones that are not they are registering them and asking for actual damages.  It looks like they have learned from Advernet and are doing this one right.

It will still be interesting to see what virtual clinics has to say, from the complaint it appears pretty willful but we have only heard one side.  If it was willful then I don't feel sorry for them.

Getty's registering the copyrights retroactively?  That's the lamest tactic that I've seen in ages.
Also, many thanks to Jerry for pointing out the recent changes in law in relation to this.
Even before these changes, there was only a narrow window of time wherein something could be "registered retroactively".
Some of you may recall how Getty in particular used to try to play the "registration game" on a regular basis in earlier days.
Oscar in particular made note of the practice.  He was a bit steamed about it.

Before we "side with Getty" on this one, let's be sure that we have all of the facts.
That way, we won't have egg on our face if it turns out that Getty's just as scummy as the alleged infringer(s).
Making copyright registrations after the fact makes me a bit less sympathetic to Getty.

S.G.

[PM]

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. 

[Lettered]

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.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

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.

[crazycatlady]

I'm still a bit confused, and the link to the Stop Getty site doesn't work for me this morning so I can't read the primary source material.  If Getty goes after actual damages, what amount would they seek? The actual license cost? What about business related sites; would they seek other actual damages because an image was used on a business' websites??

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm still a bit confused, and the link to the Stop Getty site doesn't work for me this morning so I can't read the primary source material.  If Getty goes after actual damages, what amount would they seek? The actual license cost? What about business related sites; would they seek other actual damages because an image was used on a business' websites??

yeah the site is down again...Getty will seek the maximum allowed amounts 150k per infringement for the registered images, and actual damages for the images that were not registered...this case involve 18 ( i think) images, so it will be a large amount. If the defendant doesn't show Getty will win by default, and you can bet your ass that Getty and McCormack will shout out about a big win, even though it would be a default judgement.