I would like to add something too my previous statement.
I think I (maybe) found another case why they may do not have much luck taking legal action against me.
The images were on an embed flash movie.
They have no prove that the images where stored on my computer, they were not full size and only visible for seconds.
This is what a court decided in a Perfect 10 v. Google Inc. case (Source:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/sam-bayard/embedded-video-and-copyright-infringement )
"The court wrote:
Google does not, however, display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user's computer screen. Because Google's computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed . . . and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated" and thus cannot communicate a copy.The court went on to conclude that HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on a user's computer screen because the HTML instructions merely convey an address to the user's browser, which itself must then interact with the server that stores the infringing image. Accordingly, the mere provision of HTML instructions, in the view of the 9th Circuit, does not create a basis for direct copyright infringement liability."
I know, there is a difference between google and me, since I put it on there and google uses a robot.
However, I have all these points on my side.
I think that should make the actual damages (if it would have to be decided in court) way lower than what getty wants!?
Here are all my points:-had a legal license from swish to use this flash movie by a reputable company (Swish)
-Swish had stored the video on their website since 2006, which led me to believe that after 3 years they would have taken it down if it was infringement
-Getty found the video on my no traffic website, but never send a complaint to the very high traffic website swish.com in (proven) 3 years!!
That would conclude that they may intentionally left it there, bc they knew that swish can
a) Fight back
b) Hundreds of people will use the movie and Getty can make more money this way by leaving it there and to sue private persons/ small companies
-did only added HTML line, not actual images
-because they where in a flash movie and not stored on my computer, the picture could not have been copied, reproduced etc.
-I had at no time access to the images, nor did I ever actually copied them
-I did not infringed their copyright intentionally (and can prove it- swish license)
-the images where only visible like 0.5sec
-the website did not receive traffic/ visitors
-i am an individual, not a company
-I never made any profit using this images or sold them etc.
Is that enough that I can stop Getty from threatening me!?!?