Why dont they go after Google?

[gettyhastogo]

I question why Getty doesn't go after Google. That is where I got the image in the first place. I thought Google put them there for the taking. Did they want us to just look at them? How can Getty even prove the photo came from their site?

I called Getty and they told me as soon as that photo is taken, it is copyrighted. They were rude and the person I spoke to acted like I robbed her house.

I have another questions. Who is to say that Getty did not doctor the screen shot of my web page? I can do.. so why cant they? So what proof do they have that the photo truly came from my web page? If I said prove this photo was on my site. How would they prove it? From some software program? From some unofficial archive?

I hope Getty goes out of business. They have no right pushing small business owners around. For the second time in my life, I wish I was a lawyer. The first was when I went through my divorce. One more time and I am going back to school.

Good luck people.

[Lettered]

I think they use www.archive.org .  There are also some caches that keep copies of your old website for awhile.

[Oscar Michelen]

Let me answer some of your questions:
(1) They don't go after Google because of the newly enacted Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA protects sites (ISPs, etc) that allow users to post content (YouTube, Google, Yahoo, etc) It states that sites like these are not responsible for copyright infringement done by the posters. The DMCA requires copyright holders to inform these sites that an infringement occurred and asking them to cease and desist.  The ISP then sends that notice to the poster and removes the offending material. So in short - there's no money in it.
(2) Getty does use the Wayback Machine (www.archives.org) to prove what the site had as its content. Sometimes they also take a screenshot at the time of the infringement and have that as evidence.
(3) I agree that this is a clear example of a large corporation pushing small businesses around. Its why I love being a lawyer that I can help people fight back a bit. I have said this over and ove again, we do not approve of copyright infringement and we don't begrudge anyone's right to protect one's intellectual property - its just the manner and mechanism and exorbitant demand that make this troublesome.

[bullyriddick]

4) Google's and Microsoft's lawyers are eating this kind of bullies and their arguments for breakfast. If you Google for "George P Riddick" you will see that George is notorious for writing extra long comments about copyright issues. I guess that's his way of getting into big league of copyright elite, by writing fantasy stories about his company being leader in graphics industry (did anyone see his images? you couldn't be leader with that product 20 years ago, let alone today). BUT, he never sued Google despite being angry with them and "proving they are breaking copyrights". He knows that if he dared to challenge Google, the best that could happen to him was to pay hefty legal fees after losing the battle. He just don't dare to challenge Big G, although "he has a strong case there."

[Designer]