Photographer responded to my email ....

[grafiti]

I have another question then.  This particular image that I used was referred to as a 'Rights Managed' image.  Is this a way around the copyright ownership thing?  According to the Getty people, that makes this image more expensive.  Does anyone have insight on this? 

Kristi

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

A "Rights Managed' image is Getty-speak for their images that are licensed under more narrow usage constraints. They may license an image for only certain use (a web site, but not a book cover) or for a window of time. In contrast their "royalty-free" images, once licensed, can be used across all media as much as you want.

It theory the  "Rights Managed' images are more exclusive or har-to-get content. But in practice I am finding a lot of what they offer available from companies that do not employ copyright troll tactics like Pond5.com. I have also approached artists and photographers direct through Flickr and DeviantArt.com.

I predict that Getty's tactics will soon drive away their entire customer base.

[grafiti]

Thanks for the explanation, mcfilms.  I had to go and find an expensive image in google - couldn't have used a crappy image!  Jeeze!  Also, thanks for the tip (Pond5.com) - I love having reasonable resources like this! 

You brought up another point I was wondering about.  Now that they have these 'trolls' out there, I would like to use a troll to find out if a little image I may use is indeed safe.  I have been using TinEye, it seems to be better than the Google image search.  Is there anything else out there that is even better?  I can't afford to have this happen again!

thanks!
Kristi

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

 I was not familiar with TinEye. Thank you for that.

I have been thinking that someone should start compiling a list of companies that do and don't threaten to sue customers and also review sites that offer public domain images.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

"I would like to use a troll to find out if a little image I may use is indeed safe"

why take the chance and use anything??? either purchase the license to use the image, get written permission from a photog to use an image or buy a camera and make your own images. It scares me to think that you may still want to "use" any images after finding yourself here with the rest of us.

[SoylentGreen]

Recent reports indicate that Google "search by image" is more effective than TinEye.
Go to Google Image Search, and click on the little camera icon just to the right of the where you'd type your search criteria.
Now, you can upload an image to search for, enter an url of an image, and even search for similar images.

I think that some photogs such as Ryan McGinnis may be using these free tools to troll for infringements.
Why pay PicScout?  I was going to mention this before, but I didn't want to give "ideas" to the trolls out there.
But, it's out now anyway.  New free tools may soon render PicScout redundant, unless it adds other value-added services.

Let's all keep in mind that no matter what tools we use, none of them can guarantee whether an image is free for use.
They only show us where a given image appears on the web.  Indeed, even the Copyright Office doesn't guarantee that just because something isn't listed that it isn't copyrighted.

I read a posting recently by an attorney that said that recent changes to copyright procedures make "copyrighted status" valid upon submission of an application.
Not just when the application is finally processed.  So, images having been copyrighted may not appear in the database immediately.

Posting by Daniel Nathan Ballard in part:

"I write only to note a very recent -- and fundamental -- change in the law regarding the copyright registration requirement.
 
The rule that most courts used to follow [at least in the Ninth Circuit] was that a copyright owner had to actually register his or her copyright with the Copyright Office before a court would even consider the question of whether the copyright was infringed.
 
In short, the mere filing of an application to register the copyright was not enough -- the Copyright Office had to actually issue the registration [often a 24 month process] before the court would hear the infringement case.
 
That rule changed last week when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued its decision in Cosmetic Ideas v. IAC/Interactive Corp. [see http://j.mp/aPJ1L1 ]. The new rule is that a court MUST consider the infringement case so long as the copyright owner has merely applied to register its copyright with the Copyright Office."...

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/copyright-infringement--innocent-infringement-278743.html

buddhapi's suggestions are great.  Let's all keep our receipts when we purchase our images, too!!

S.G.