Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

[SoylentGreen]

Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

Many of us here are well aware of the tactics of Masterfile, Getty, Righthaven, etc.

Many arguments have been made about "standing".  But, no matter how you slice it, only the exclusive copyright holder has any hope of recovering any significant damages in court.
The prospect of court is often the only thing that convinces some people to pay out, even if a court date isn't even a remote possibility.

So, what of those who are threatened repeatedly with litigation, or those who are sued needlessly just to make them settle out-of-court for a large amount of money?
Some are sent threatening letters by lawyers representing these stock image companies; what can be done?
What about those who are threatened by collections agencies even though no debt is owed?

I believe that such groundless acts may fall under the concept in law called "barratry".
I came across this when I realized that a person is suing Righthaven for "barratry", and I feel that this could apply to other copyright trolls and their actions in many, many cases.

The following is an explanation of "barratry", and details of the Righthaven lawsuit that I mentioned.


In the United States:
 
Several jurisdictions in the US have declared barratry (in the sense of a frivolous or harassing litigant) to be a crime as part of their tort reform efforts. For example, in the U.S. states of California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, barratry is a misdemeanor;[5] in Texas, a felony.[6]

• California Penal Code Section 158: "Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000)."

• California Penal Code Section 159: "No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy."

• Revised Code of Washington 9.12.010: "Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry


One defendant in South Carolina hopes that it adds up to barratry. Dana Eiser, sued by Righthaven for copying an article from the Denver Post, has sued Righthaven back, claiming that Righthaven's business practices are a form of barratry and thus an unfair trade practice. In South Carolina (it's a state law claim, so the contours will vary from state to state), "Any person who shall willfully bring, prosecute or maintain an action and has no direct or substantial interest in the relief thereby sought shall be guilty of the crime of barratry." Not actually owning any exclusive right that is infringed, yet bringing lawsuits, sounds a lot like not having a "direct or substantial interest in the relief thereby sought."

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&cp=30&gs_id=1v&xhr=t&q=Dana+Eiser+righthaven+barratry&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Dana+Eiser+righthaven+barratry&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cab8d79b6906b781&biw=1680&bih=922


Read Dana Eiser's lawsuit:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57780379/Eiser-v-Righthaven-LLC-Civil-Unfair-Trade-Practices-Complaint


With the explosion of copyright trolling the barratry concept may quickly gain importance.
This could be the key to a class-action that many have been hoping for.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

You Rock! Period.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

You DO rock SG.

You might also be interested in a recent article in the Seattle Weekly about copyright trolls and the movies. They are pressuring people to settle for very high amounts of money. Keep in mind, these trolls have no real proof that the people they accuse have actually downloaded the movie. All they have is an ip address, so it could have been a neighbor boosting their wireless or even someone else in the household:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-08-10/news/porn-piracy-bittorrent/

My favorite part of the article and something hat might inspire someone here:

In February, a Massachusetts man named Dmitriy Shirokov filed a class-action lawsuit against Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver on behalf of himself and 4,576 other John Does accused of downloading a German-made film titled Far Cry. Shirokov is seeking $5 million in damages from the attorneys, arguing that they engaged in "fraud and extortion" by pressuring him for settlement payments and intentionally overstating the possible repercussions of not paying up.

"It's clear that this is an injustice, and our client wanted to see something done about it," says Shirokov's attorney, Dan Booth. "The statutory damages—what they are threatening people with and saying 'If you don't settle, we may go after you in a court of law seeking these damages'—they reference cases that just don't apply. They have no relationship to what they could actually get in this case. They're not playing it straight. The law doesn't support their claims."

Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver are fighting back in court, and the outcome of the case against Shirokov and his co-defendants is still pending.

[Katerina]

Wow! That's something! Getty is getting sued, Rightheaven is getting sued, there should be at least one more company to added to the list
Well, considering that 90%of Getty's images are not even registered - it can be not difficult to fight and prove "barrarty" claim against them (in addition to that infringement claim that was filed for court pictures). But what about Masterfile? They register images (well, yes, in compilation) having anagreements with photograthets, where it was written that they give full authority to sue on their behalf? And Masterfile sues......

[Katerina]

I would also like to add that I am working on a sort of open letter, which I am going to publish in schools, universities, internet - wherever is possible. In this letter I am sharing my story - well, in general the story of everyone else who is here. This is just to attract public attention to this issue with Getty and Masterfile. There are still people who don't know about this forum, who get scared and pay or ignore. I decided to do this for a reason. Here is the extract from my email to Masterfile:
"After some intensive research I have found that the infringement cases for images are very common in the United States and there are thousands of people who got the letters of demand from the companies like your, including yours. Most of them ordered their websites from third parties or didn’t see any signs of copyrighted work either. It means, that you are aware of that internet users are tended to use the images found in internet using the most common search engines – Google, Yahoo, etc., you know that there is a high possibility of infringement. You say in your letter that you take the infringement as a serious matter (my note: in the next letter they stated that have loss and damages from infringement), so what do you do to prevent future infringement? I have found out, that you use the watermark when images are posted on your site only. Did you put copyright signs or watermarks on the pictures that could easily be found using search engines? How did you make it difficult to use your work without your permission? Did you enable right click function of “save the image as”? Why do not you send notices of copyright violations with the request to remove immediately first?"
Their answer was:
"Masterfile is in the business of licensing rights-managed images for commercial reproduction by clients around the world.  We have been doing so for nearly 30 years.  While we would prefer if end users licensed our material legally, unfortunately this is not always the case.  As such, we must dedicate valuable resources which could be utilized elsewhere to locating infringing use of our intellectual property, and enforcing our copyright.  We do this because the unauthorized use of our images negatively affects us and our artists." and "There is no requirement or obligation for a copyright-owner to assign a copyright symbol, watermark or any other type of identification to a copyright-protected work in order to protect their rights to their intellectual property.  It is solely the responsibility of the end user, the party publishing the intellectual property, to ensure that they are not infringing on the rights of any party prior to publishing said material."
You can see that we didn't get responses on the questions asked. For me it sounds like "I don't want to do anything to protect my works, but I want to get full recover for the damages if this happens". It didn't prove that settlement letters are their buisenss model, but it leaves to to think this. They know that people will infringe, and it is good for them. So, then why to rise this issue in public? The less people know, the more money they will get. That's why I decided to publish the letter, to have people know about what the hell is going on. I am still working on it, and have it in a very raw draft so  far. As soon as I am done, I will send it to Matt or post here as the beginning.
I also think to create a short poll that can be run on a facebook may be, or, again, in universitites, work places, etc to see in percentages how many average americans (not lawyers, artists - categories which deal with copyryghts on daily basis) know what  constitutes copyright infringement (downloading movies, music, images, etc.). If there is a great percent of americans who don't know, then, again, it will show that there can be a lot of potential infringement - which is good for Getty, Masterfile and others (and considering the fact that they do not do anything to prevent their damages from infringement.....)
If we cannot get necessary proves for class action lawsuit or barrirty, may be if we get all the smallest pieces all together, this will help?
I just need to know what you guys think of it, if it all worth of doing this.

[newzshooter]

See also: Vexatious litigant.

Glad I'm not one. I only deal in facts that I can back up with proof when it comes to infringerments.

Katerina, like it or not, there is no requirement to place watermarks or copyright notices on images. As a matter of fact, if someone wanted to put full resolution images on a webpage with no protection, they are perfectly free to do so, they would be stupid, but it's the copyright owner's choice.
As a matter of fact, I don't put watermarks or notices on most of my images (I do on one site only). I think they are ugly and detract from my images. I want people to see the photo, not some ugly blob in the middle of it. I do put lower resolution images online, I disable right click downloading (a popup opens with a copyright warning if someone tries right clicking), I have a copyright notice on each image page and I began loading copyright/contact info into the exif data of each image about a year ago. All are reasonable and prudent measures.
Yet, people continue to infringe. I've come to the conclusion that, no matter what, there always be people who don't care about copyright.
It's a catch-22, I need to have people see my photos in order to make a living, but at the same time by having those images viewable, they are also vulnerable. There is no foolproof way to display photos and have them fully protected.
What would you have me do?

[Katerina]

At least you do everything you can to protect your works:
"I do put lower resolution images online, I disable right click downloading (a popup opens with a copyright warning if someone tries right clicking), I have a copyright notice on each image page and I began loading copyright/contact info into the exif data of each image about a year ago. All are reasonable and prudent measures." And what about Masterfile or Getty?
I do understand that infringement still happens and will happen, and you have full right to force it. But do you do this in the way that Getty or Masterfile does?
Don't get me wrong. I do respect the copyright and agree that artists should be paid for their works. I just do not agree with tactics of these companies. That's what gathers people here.
I want these companies to be reasonable. True, that's their choice to put the copyright notice or not. But if they decide not to, then they shouldn't threaten with up to $150 000 for gamages (for willfull infringement, btw)

[newzshooter]

Katerina, I tried sending "nice" letters at first, but they were often ignored. Now I send out a DMCA notice, which includes a cease and desist phrase, along with a demand for payment/offer to settle letter that is much more blunt.
The letter points out the facts of where the infringing image is and, if possible, when it was placed on the site. It also lists when the image was originally uploaded to my site, the date it was copyrighted and the copyright registration number.
My letters also mention the statutory damage maximums for both willful and innocent infringement. Since most of my infringements have been by for profit entities, I make it understood in no uncertain terms that I will argue that the infringement was willful.
Unfortunately, coming off as a jerk and using threats works better than being a nice guy. I know, I tried.
As you and everyone else here knows, large corporations can be a pain in the a-- to deal with, their attorneys even more so. So I really do understand your pain on that point.

[Nemen Night]

@newzshooter, please leave Katerina alone. She is correct.

Katerina, you efforts to write a letter and send it everywhere will be greatly appreciated. Write to the Attorney General in several main states specifically about Masterfile. They are the worst and the easiest to topple first. Recommend the Attorney General to investigate Masterfile for extortion, barratry and other crimes. Point them to this website and Oscar to obtain specific evidence of all crimes.

The most important is to write and send the letter. It does not need to be perfect. It is enough to write. "Please investigate Masterfile see this website for details: www.extortionletterinfo.com". You dont even need to sign your name. Just send it. Later you can send another longer and better letter. Send it via their website. It only takes a few seconds! My other post in this forum has all the links where to send it.

@newzshooter, you can find a solution to your problems in my response here:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2161.0.html

[photographer]

Heres another photographers case that people tend to overlook and its why I have adopted the Getty/Masterfile approach.

I am commissioned by a company. They dont see stock photos in their industry that suit their needs so they go through a commission process. I work with them over a period of time discussing their needs/wants/expectations and through an iterative process on their site and my studio we agree on a set of finalised images.
An exclusive license agreement is drawn up on a certain set of the images and the rest I can use as stock. They put them on their website, use them in their literature and promotional material, I get paid, everyone is happy.

A time later I have an irate COO on the phone saying Im a disgrace and that I have breached our exclusive agreement and he will tell the local and national business community not to work with me again. Im confused, he calms down and sends me multiple web links.

Some people in the same industry and competitors of his company have just decided they cant be bothered to do all the work themselves and just steal the images off their website.
Now its up to me (as the copyright holder) to go down the heavy route and issue proceedings because I need to prove to my now ex-client that the images were stolen and that I just wasnt being greedy by selling the images on.

Image theft is theft plain and simple. The people stealing images dont realise its not just a picture on the internet but something someone has spent time money and effort in creating and sometimes professional reputations hinge on that. It is worse if models are involved, I had an image stolen and used on a site about drug abuse, the photo was taken from one I had sold to time magazine for an article and the thief decided he would take it and label it as 'drug addict'. The model who rightly was incensed threatened to sue me for defamation....

I try to be reasonable most times but there are certain times when you have to come down hard. Every time I have to spend a day issuing take down notices and contacting lawyers is a day away from doing what I should be doing, making images. I would love to have a world were I didnt have to do this (and I say have because in most cases I am forced to take action) but as long as people keep stealing and putting my livelihood in jeopardy I will do it.

[SoylentGreen]

I guess that I feel for 'newzshooter' and 'photographer' a lot more that I feel for the big stock image companies.  It would appear to me that they're more like 'victims'.
I also sense that their situations are somewhat different than those of the large companies, but I appreciate the perspectives that they have expressed here.

Copyright infringement is not "theft".  If you phone the police about a "stolen" image, they won't come; it's not part of any criminal statute.  Furthermore, if you get your stereo stolen, you lose the use of it, and you lose the value of the item.  If an image is infringed upon, you don't lose the image, or the use of it.  You may have lost the income that you would have had if the infringer had purchased it.  But, that assumes that the infringer would have purchased it, which is speculative.

'photographer', you spoke of issuing proceedings, which I take to mean "court proceedings".  My opinion is that the moral 'high ground' is sending a simple cease and desist letter.  It works the vast majority of the time.  Threatening a lawsuit or going through with a lawsuit in order to generate monies is a method of using infringements as a revenue stream.  There's nothing wrong with that so long as you own the images, have done the paperwork, and are asking a fair price.  But, less people will feel sorry for your plight and others like you in such a case.

I don't think that the vast majority of infringers are crooks or evil.  The culture of the Internet up until very recently has been a free-for-all.  It's the fault of infringers for sure, but it's even more the fault of artists/photographers who didn't consider protecting and policing their content until they realized that they could make money from legal threats.  So, now we're left with quite a mess.  Prior to this, most people had only heard of IP disputes over major brands or patents.

Large stock image companies are doing a huge disservice to photographers/artists like you.  They wish to systematically weaken the copyright protections rather than strengthen them.  They wish to make the system of bulk registrations acceptable as proof of copyright.  However, the concept of bulk registrations actually weakens the concept of copyright protection for everyone.  If a company can say, "it's our image, and it's in there somewhere... just take our word for it", then how is that a proof of copyright?  The image might be in the collection, or it could be a scam (it's not in there).  Maybe it's in there, but it's your image, or even mine.  Therefore, a person or company could claim whatever they/it wanted, and that would be proof enough.  That would be fine if everyone was honest, but not everyone is.  In the end everyone's copyright's are weakened, as standing would be based on taking someone's word for it, and that's not simply not enough proof in this day and age.

In any case, we're going to see something big happen soon.  Getty might go to court over a big case involving several images.  Or, several Masterfile victims may get together and file suit.  Masterfile in particular may be vulnerable here.  They have a policy of sending people threatening letters, making threatening phone calls, sending 'draft' lawsuits (this is illegal for collection agencies to do in some places by the way), sent cases to collection agencies over non-existent debts, filed papers with the courts and then backed out at the last minute when they realized that the defendant was going to fight.  Even a small number of people who have experienced the above could get together, and Masterfile had better hope that they own the copyrights.  Demand letter recipients have been contacting the actual photographers about alleged Masterfile infringements, and some of these photographers are saying in writing that they still hold the copyrights.  In such cases Masterfile had no right to do what they did.  Getty is often especially weak on copyright standing, so they're a target too.  However, they have so much invested in this scam that they'll fight to the death.  Masterfile doesn't have nearly the same resources.

S.G.

[Katerina]

Thanks, SG!

[photographer]

I guess that I feel for 'newzshooter' and 'photographer' a lot more that I feel for the big stock image companies.  It would appear to me that they're more like 'victims'.
I also sense that their situations are somewhat different than those of the large companies, but I appreciate the perspectives that they have expressed here.

Indeed. In many of the cases of people I contact, they too are 'victims'. They have been hung out to dry by their web supplier or web company but as they are the publisher they are ultimately responsible. It is up to them to sue their web supplier or the web suppliers insurer. Of course this is also bittersweet for me as an ex-girlfriend of mine spent years training to be a web designer back in the days of hard coded sites only to be put out of business by those doing things on the cheap. Ask any legitimate web design company about the pressures on them by being undercut by those who lift sites and photos off google. Previously this has been almost impossible to detect but with the new google image search its instant.
In the past I have had to rely on picscout and tineye but now Getty has bought picscout expect it to be coming from everywhere.

Copyright infringement is not "theft".  If you phone the police about a "stolen" image, they won't come; it's not part of any criminal statute.  

For now 
Its currently being discussed in the EU to put it on the statute and white papers on amendments to Berne have suggested making it either a global or country agency issue. In other words the good old government will recover damages through fines and will remunerate creators accordingly.

Furthermore, if you get your stereo stolen, you lose the use of it, and you lose the value of the item.  If an image is infringed upon, you don't lose the image, or the use of it.  You may have lost the income that you would have had if the infringer had purchased it.  But, that assumes that the infringer would have purchased it, which is speculative.

Thats quite a simplistic view of it, as I gave in my examples above there are many other issues involved which can add to the damages. For instance I am negotiating for exclusive use of an image but first the purchaser wants to make sure that all the ripped off versions on the web have been removed. I dare say if that fee was in jeopardy the infringer would soon know about it. It also depends a lot on whether the stolen image was stolen wilfully, in other words if the person knew it was someone elses IP and removed all of those details. This can be difficuly on those who have stolen a stolen image if you know what I mean. Its hard to disprove the wilful aspect as the details have gone.

'photographer', you spoke of issuing proceedings, which I take to mean "court proceedings".  My opinion is that the moral 'high ground' is sending a simple cease and desist letter.  It works the vast majority of the time.  

Indeed, Id never go after a blogger for 9k, thats just ridiculous. However as I mentioned above there are cases where this has lead to loss of revenue beyond the basic image licence fee and thats when I really press the issue.

Threatening a lawsuit or going through with a lawsuit in order to generate monies is a method of using infringements as a revenue stream.  There's nothing wrong with that so long as you own the images, have done the paperwork, and are asking a fair price.  But, less people will feel sorry for your plight and others like you in such a case.

There are two issues there, one is the ambulance chasing, downright bad news and the other is that it will tar people with the same brush who have legitimate complaints. Similar to those infringers who dont know any better as opposed to those doing it for commercial gain. Theres a whole range of issues and as you say photographers feel less sorry for those infringers who are as much a victim as we are. Indeed this site has been invaluable for some of my colleagues for providing them with contact details for lawyers who will take their case on. It works both ways.

I don't think that the vast majority of infringers are crooks or evil.  The culture of the Internet up until very recently has been a free-for-all.  It's the fault of infringers for sure, but it's even more the fault of artists/photographers who didn't consider protecting and policing their content until they realized that they could make money from legal threats.  So, now we're left with quite a mess.  Prior to this, most people had only heard of IP disputes over major brands or patents.

Whilst I agree not all infringers are crooks or evil, I disagree that its somehow our fault. I have always made sure my images are marked with my ownership, indeed all images carry the camera serial number and owner so its embedded the minute we press the shutter. I also dont accept that that most people assume things are free, they must belong to someone somewhere (Ive been using the web since 91 and was always told to be careful of copyright issues, even before the net was invented).
Funnily enough I didnt realise I could make money from legal threats until I came across this site. I thought I would just have to go to court and so I just filed without even entering negotiations. Now I feel there is an opportunity to enter into negotiations before

Large stock image companies are doing a huge disservice to photographers/artists like you.

Tell me about it, I have no love of Getty, Ive been badly treated by them for years, Getty is only out to protect one thing, Getty. This is what this is all about. If they dont stamp down on infringers and stamp down hard then they will lose their business too.
Just a bit of background info, my Getty contracts state that as copyright holder I authorize them to act on my behalf. When it comes to court I just sign an affidavit that I am the copyright owner (which is then verified) and I have instructed them to act on my behalf (just as you would any other lawyer). I have spoken to Gettys legal department many times and trust me, I would hate to be on the receiving end.

They wish to systematically weaken the copyright protections rather than strengthen them.  They wish to make the system of bulk registrations acceptable as proof of copyright.

Actually blame the USA for that. They did not implement Berne completely and hung on to the legacy which requires registration, everywhere else in the world that isnt involved so it is a lot of hoops to go through in the US courts.

However, the concept of bulk registrations actually weakens the concept of copyright protection for everyone.

I dont understand? As far as I was aware only the copyright holder can register an image. In a lot of cases the likes of Getty and Masterfile do have in house teams producing the images and so own the copyright. They can register what they want.

If a company can say, "it's our image, and it's in there somewhere... just take our word for it", then how is that a proof of copyright?

Its not. Thats the problem with the US registration system. You only sign a form to say you are the copyright holder. Theres nothing to stop me registering someone elses images. Hence why the US system is redundant and no other country does it. Everywhere else you just include the original in the court papers. Simple - it is what we have to do when we go to court anyway and by the time it does that Getty etc already have their affidavit witnessed by a local lawyer, proving copyright.

The image might be in the collection, or it could be a scam (it's not in there).  Maybe it's in there, but it's your image, or even mine.  Therefore, a person or company could claim whatever they/it wanted, and that would be proof enough.  That would be fine if everyone was honest, but not everyone is.  In the end everyone's copyright's are weakened, as standing would be based on taking someone's word for it, and that's not simply not enough proof in this day and age.

Indeed, which is why the likes of Getty store the original file and have it on record with all the details embedded and they check this all out before sending the first letter. I cant say for Masterfile as I know nothing about them. When I send out infringements, I send out a copy of the infringing image, the context and a proof of my original file. Thats all the recipients lawyer needs to know so we can cut to the chase.

In any case, we're going to see something big happen soon.  Getty might go to court over a big case involving several images.  

They have outside the US and won every time. One business in the UK I think it was decided to call their bluff on a 1500 GBP demand. They settled on the morning of the case for 27k GBP. Thats over 43 thousand dollars!

Or, several Masterfile victims may get together and file suit.  Masterfile in particular may be vulnerable here.  They have a policy of sending people threatening letters, making threatening phone calls, sending 'draft' lawsuits (this is illegal for collection agencies to do in some places by the way), sent cases to collection agencies over non-existent debts, filed papers with the courts and then backed out at the last minute when they realized that the defendant was going to fight.

Again I cant comment as Im not involved with Masterfile but either way I want to see a resolution of this particular matter as it will stop all the ambulance chasers and let people know that creators with legitmate concerns address them.

Even a small number of people who have experienced the above could get together, and Masterfile had better hope that they own the copyrights.  Demand letter recipients have been contacting the actual photographers about alleged Masterfile infringements, and some of these photographers are saying in writing that they still hold the copyrights.

As I said above I dont know about Masterfile but my Getty contracts allow them to act on my behalf as copyright holder. Getty also get an affidavit regarding copyright before any court case. I cant persue any claim regarding my images lodged with Getty (as per the contract) and can only take this on if they are not willing (which is never in my experience).

Getty is often especially weak on copyright standing, so they're a target too.  

Again not in my experience. They often have things tied up incredibly tight. Ive had them reject model releases that the signature was smudged, date written in different order (signed by europeans) etc etc. In submitting images I have to be careful I dont infringe anyones copyright with the images or in the case of editorial images, clearly submit them as such. Even if I did submit a non-editorial image with copyright infringment, it would never get through and I would be on the receiving end of a phone call!

S.G.

Can I just say thanks for continuing the debate in a rational way as it helps to put a different view across and perhaps gives some insight as to the legal requirements for the other side. As I said above I can only give details on my experience with my own images and some experience with my images with Getty. I have no experience of Masterfile.

[Nemen Night]

@photohrapher
No. You cannot sue 5-10% of small businesses to drive them out of business or torment individuals that posted your stupid image on the internet. Period! These businesses are US employers that are crucial to the US economy. Your dumb picture is not important. Do you understand this or not? I suppose not.

I can bet that you have several CDs at your home with copied software or music from your friend, or have given it to someone. If not you, your child has them.

Suing the end user (someone that has purchased template) for image that the template maker used, is totally stupid. If you used the same process, you could be sued for everything you purchased and are using as the end user.

For example: If you are using Canon camera to shoot your photos for your photography business, you could be sued by Nikon because you are using Nikon patented technology in the Canon camera that you bought and are using it in your commercial business as the end user.

Don't you get it? Probably not.

Greedy photographers, please stop wasting Soylent's time and others time here. Many of the issues you raise have already been answered in different topics of this forum. Soylent or others don't need to feel obligated to respond over and over again to the same thing. We are busy working here on devising a plan to curb your greedy aspirations and change the laws to protect the innocent infringers. The forum is intended for victims of the flaw in the US law, not for those that abuse it. You will have the chance to voice your opinion in court once we fire back a class action lawsuit against all of you extortionists.

If your photos are not selling, too bad. Change your profession. Many of us have DSLR cameras and are photographers as well, but not trying to get rich of it by filing lawsuits like some of you.

Put a copyright sign on all of your images if you don't want them copied. There are many images that are not copyrighted on the internet and the owners want others to use them. Why should we need to assume that all of them are copyrighted. Put that copyright sign to distinguish yourself, otherwise don't cry if your photo is copied.

You cannot sue 5-10% of small businesses to drive them out of business or torment individuals that posted your stupid image on the internet. Period! These businesses are US employers that are crucial to the US economy. Your dumb picture is not important. Do you understand this or not? I suppose not.

YES, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. PUT A COPYRIGHT SIGN ON YOUR PHOTOS IF YOU DONT WANT THEM COPIED. DON'T HAVE THE SIGN, IT WILL BE COPIED THAT IS GUARANTEED! IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE SIGN, IT MAY MEAN THAT YOU WANT YOUR PHOTOS TO BE COPIED SO THAT YOU CAN SUE SOMEONE LATER FOR $30000. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOUR WORK, NOT JUST FILE FOR COPYRIGHT AND WAIT UNTIL SOMEONE COPIES IT SO THAT YOU CAN FILE LAWSUITS. THIS IS HORRIBLE! THAT IS WHY THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE BEING VICTIMIZED. IT HAS GROWN TO A POINT WHERE LARGE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS MASS EXTORT MONEY FROM INNOCENT AMERICAN PEOPLE. STOP YOUR ENTRAPMENT SCHEME AND PUT COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF YOUR IMAGES TODAY!

[SoylentGreen]

'photographer': thanks for the interesting comments about the web design issue; it's quite a competitive business.
I also have the impression that many businesses outsource web design to other countries to save money.

You stated that, "Its currently being discussed in the EU to put it on the statute and white papers on amendments to Berne have suggested making it either a global or country agency issue. In other words the good old government will recover damages through fines and will remunerate creators accordingly."  I'm not aware of this, but, I'm interested in looking into it.  However, I'm not sure how this could be successfully implemented.  I can't see how the "state" would or could take on civil litigation issues for individuals or businesses.  If it's a 'fine' that one cannot fight, then it would be "against the constitution" as US folks might say.  Is there a source for the information?

You also mentioned that, "Just a bit of background info, my Getty contracts state that as copyright holder I authorize them to act on my behalf. When it comes to court I just sign an affidavit that I am the copyright owner (which is then verified) and I have instructed them to act on my behalf (just as you would any other lawyer). I have spoken to Gettys legal department many times and trust me, I would hate to be on the receiving end."  I believe that there may be some serious legal problems with this method.  This method of assigning the right to sue, but not the actual copyright has gotten Righthaven in a lot of hot water:

"Chief U.S. District Court Judge Roger Hunt was particularly peeved to learn that Righthaven was trying to engage in legal slight-of-hand by purportedly having publisher Stephens Media, LLC assign it any right to sue for copyright infringement. This was impossible, the court concluded, because copyright law forbids assigning the right to sue over alleged infringement; “only the owner of an exclusive right under a copyright may bring suit.”

http://onward.justia.com/2011/06/16/judge-righthaven-in-the-wrong-on-copyright/

Getty has had some success outside of the US, but I do believe that it's been a bit spotty.  They haven't won every time.
The big win in the UK was earth-shaking. The defendant didn't show up for court as I understand it and received what might be considered the worst possible outcome.
Getty lost quite a famous case in Germany. They sued an alleged infringer who has his own contract with the photographer, and Getty lost in court.

"In Germany, Getty images lost a court case to an individual after the person has proved that he gotten exclusive rights from the photographer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images

As you can see, I'm more familiar with US/Canadian issues.  Perhaps you can shed even more light on UK concerns in future posts?
Just some of my thoughts and some stuff that I found on the web along the way.  Thanks for your contributions here.

S.G.