Masterfile, Getty and others act like a dumb farmer. US courts too dumb to see.

[Nemen Night]

Let me give you an analogy.

You go to a restaurant. You order an a nice meal and pay for it. As you are leaving a farmer comes up to you and says “You ate my tomatoes!” “You owe me $1000 for eating my tomato.”

As you are looking puzzled, the farmer explains that the tomato in your salad that you just ate and paid for is his and it was not paid for by the restaurant. You explain that you just sat down at the table, ordered, ate and paid the restaurant.

“No matter” says the farmer. “It was my tomato and you should pay penalties far beyond the cost of the tomato normally.” “It is your responsibility since you ate it.”

No one questions the right of photographers to make a living. The issue here is that people bought templates or hired professionals to create sites and images were used which the purchaser of the web site design assumed were properly used. there is so much free or very cheap imagery that there is not REASON to steal it.

So for Masterfile or Getty to pull this ruse is absurd. If they sent a note out and said, Hey, pay us the $49 each for those 3 images…people would pay, not problem. It is billing people $3K for 3 images which were mistakenly used that is the issue. It is similiar to forms of extortion.

[newzshooter]

See Corbis v Starr (Ohio 2009)
A: Website owners have the duty to double check that no infringing material is used.
B:Get everything from designers in writing, including a contract stating they will be responsible for any infringing material they place on a site. It may help you recover any losses incurred due to an infringement.
C: Get copies of any licenses.
D: Get IP insurance.

Just some suggestions from a guy who has sent out more than a couple "extortion letters". I register my work. I defend my work. I can, will and have sued over it.
Just remember, I'm a small business, too, one that has spent thousands on equipment. You should be able to spend a little time or a little cash to make sure your business is "clean". If you can't afford to do either, perhaps you should rethink your business plan.

[Nemen Night]

I noticed your other post about suing to get a share in a company. LOL. Please update us how it worked for you. You sound very greedy and you should adjust your expectations or perhaps think of another profession if you want to make a lot of money. Making money from suing people is not a business model for a "small business". Because of people like you others are suffering. You will pay for it when the time comes.

[newzshooter]

Apparently, you can't read, either. I also stated that I am a small business, as well AND that I had to close a business I purchased a year after buying it.
As for this other infringement, I also stated that I liked their idea and really didn't want to put it out of business, so rather than suing, I'd offer to take a small share in the company. It is a start up, so that offer may just fly. I at least I've got the balls to try a different tactic, and I don't just go out and take other people's work, assuming it's "free' because it is on the internet.
I do have a right to be paid for my work, even if you think it should be free.

I dare you to go to a store, shoplift a $49 item, get caught and then try to explain to the judge why you should only have to pay the $49, but no other costs.
The problem is people are more inclined to steal something they view as having "less value". A candy bar versus a Ferrari, for instance. That attitude spills over into the world of intellectual property, as well, which is very, very different than petit theft or grand larceny.
That $1 special photo you lifted because you viewed it as having "less value" than the $350 photo could cost you a whole hell of a lot more than the $350 because of copyright law. It's called a deterrent, it's meant to help keep dishonest people/organizations from stealing other's work. other

[SoylentGreen]

Technically, it's not really 'stealing'.
More accurately, it's referred to as "piracy".
'Stealing' assumes that the actual, original article has been taken; it's gone.
'Piracy' implies that a copy has been made, while the original article still exists, intact in the same place.

Also, getting a 'share' in a small company might not be as good as it seems.
A small business could simply close, and you'd be out of luck.  You'd have a hard time proving that they closed to get rid of you.
Then, they'd just start again under some other name.

Now, if you could get actual 'stock', say in a bigger company, that might be worth something.

S.G.

[newzshooter]

Yes, SG, the correct term is piracy, but my candy bar/Ferrari analogy is quite true. Perceived value/perceived risk. People are more inclined to take part in illegal behaviour if the item in question appears to be inexpensive and the risk is perceived to be low. "Oh, it's just a little item, it won't hurt anyone if I don't pay for it."

I realize I come off as though I think every infringement is willful, but I do think there are some innocent infringers. Most are kids and other individuals who don't think things through. But, I know that my daughter had to read and sign an internet policy form in junior high, high school and the three colleges she attended. All included an explanation of copyright, so I think a lot of kids "know" but don't think and I think that, at some point there won't be any excuse for anyone over the the age of 16 to say "I didn't know." (Which is normal, if I recall my teen/young adult years correctly. A bit fuzzy there.)

On the other hand there are others who have no excuse for infringement.
Website designers are at the top of the list. They want the lowest cost/highest margin possible and some will infringe to keep profits up.
Anyone in the media or publishing. (Except maybe the janitor.)
Artists, writers, musicians.
Lawyers.
Anyone or any entity doing business on the web. I find it ironic how many infringers have a copyright notice on their sites. Yeeesh!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Speaking as a web developer/designer, I have always insited that my clients supply me with all images and content for various reasons. I never took it upon myself to educate my clients to the risk of grabbing images from google search, until recently.. Now they get a quick education and at least my side of the street is clean..It's amazing to me how many of my clients brush it off as nothing and continue to send me images to use which are clearly stock images and I just know they didn't purchase them.. So yes there actually innocent infringers out there and a good number of them I am sure, then there are the others keep that help the letter campaign rolling along..

I just had a client call me yesterday telling me she had her daughters friend build her a new site, she's fresh out of college and just starting her business.. I go to look at the site and low and behold there is a page with the privacy policy/ terms of use which I generated years ago and use it for most of my sites, it's the only content I don't require my client to supply me with..so she grabbed my content for which I own the copyright to..  I guess I could send a letter with a cease and desist, just to prove a point but I'm not in the mood to be pissing in the wind today..


Another client notified me that another realtor was using his verbiage from his site, after checking out the pages in question, the infringer did indeed copy the content verbatum, going as far as to not even strip out/replace my clients name, she had about 5 pages worth of stuff on her real estate site telling people why  they should hire my client as their real estate purposes. That was classic

[Nigel Tuffnail]

Neman , If I can call you by your first name. I'm a farmer and I take offence to your comments, You obviously pick tomatoes for a living so you should know better.

[Nemen Night]

@Newzshooter:
You are going against Company CEO's people that are 100 times smarter and clever than you. Do you really think that you can outsmart them with your lawsuits? How many of those lawsuits won actually resulted in payments? do you think somebody will pay you $20,000 for your lame picture? even if you win the judgment in court? It is cheaper and easier to just file for bankruptcy and open another company next month. Do you think that we will let you get away with it once we know that someone like you forced us to do that? You are terribly mistaken!

@Newzshooter and @Nigel ...
Let me get this...

So you bought a camera, walk around and take pictures, then you Photoshop them. If this is what your profession is?, do you really think you have what it takes to go against the big boys? Do you think the CEOs are so dumb that they will be giving you company stock because you want it? I am not surprised at your imagination. You are a photographer!

You should make your own website and advertise your pictures there for sale to see if anyone buys them for a reasonable price. Hey, that won't be enough money for you to live right? because selling pictures for $20 is not enough and nobody will pay $100 for it either, so you thought: "..wait a minute I got an idea, how about I do what Getty or Masterfile does. I register bunch of my pictures with the Copyright Office, and put them on a website, get Google index them, then there will be many people from around the world copying the pictures and putting them on their websites. It is even better if some international people take them, it will give even more exposure for my images and even more people will copy them. Then, the Americans (your country man by the way, traitor!) will take them and put it on their websites. Then I can sue them here where I had them registered with the US Copyright Office. That is brilliant!!! Why didn't I came up with that earlier!!! I am so smart! Im going to sue everyone for $150000 per photo because they are criminals and thieves because they used my photo, hahaha... I'm gonna get shares of companies, Im going to be rich because the stock will go high!!! (think Mr. Pit from Seinfeld episode:).."

So is that your business plan? How far do you think you will go with that? You came to this forum for what? To convince everyone that it is the right thing what you do? and tell us that we are all thieves and criminals and someone should pay you $20000 for your lame picture because you entrapped him? You came to a wrong place. Better get a real job and earn honest living like others in the society instead of praying on others. Go get a job! (if someone hires you, because I would never hire you if I knew that you sued someone for a picture on a website!)..

It used to be fingers found in Wendy's burgers, slip and fall.. now we have this! and the worst thing is that many individual innocent people or small entrepreneurs are attacked by those like you. How will the US economy grow if we have such disgruntled citizens and faulty legal system!

You said: "My small photography business is failing or failed before..." So what? Start another business, do something else if you can't live from selling your photos... Nothing lasts forever. We all need to adjust to changing economic and business climate.

Today everyone has a digital camera. I myself have Canon EOS 5D Mark II and many tele and wide angle lenses and I consider myself a professional when it comes to photography. I even had my own dark room years ago. I have taken tens of thousands of pictures of nature, mountains, wildlife. But I am not going to put it on the internet because I know that as soon as I do, someone will take it and I will never be able to stop that. This is just a human nature and no law in the world will ever prevent it. You, Masterfile, Getty and other crooks know about that and made this their primary business to sue entrapped people all over the world for their livelihoods.

With my vast photo collection, I could easily do the same, but I won't because I would not be able to live with myself knowing that I am destroying other people lives and close small family owned businesses with some nasty lawsuits just because there is a law that allows me to do that.

How can you be so damn greedy? You should go to church once in a while and pray for yourself because you are going straight to hell as of now!

[Nemen Night]

@Nigel Tuffnail, @Newzshooter:
You are not a farmer, you are one of the greedy photographers who can't make money selling pictures, so you decided to post them all over the internet and entrap people.

Farmers are very smart actually. The initial post is an illustration of a dumb photographer/stock image company behavior. Farmers don't wait for people outside of a restaurant to charge them for tomatoes they ate.

I own enough professional equipment and have taken enough pictures to call myself a professional photographer as well. I had my own dark room and all equipment that comes with it ages ago. Have taken photos that you likely never will.

The difference is that I did not become one of you crooks that entrap people and extort $1000's from them for photos that they would never buy anyway, or sue them for $150,000.
As you can see not every photographer needs to be a crook like yourself!

If I dont want my pictures taken without permission, I don't put them on the internet. If I do, I put a copyright sign on them.

Go get a real job if you can't make money selling your pictures! This is the solution to your problem!

[newzshooter]

@Nemen-

Oooo, name calling! Hit a nerve did I? You know, in a judged debate the person who loses emotional control loses the debate.
Anyway, since you are such the expert in farming, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the difference between a disc, a spring tooth, a harrow, a roller and a moldboard plow. My guess is you don't know the difference between a swather and a combine, either.
I find odd that you'd call yourself a pro based on the equipment you claim to own. Last I checked a professional is one who earns a living with his/her gear.
But another question begs to be answered, if you are so good with your 5DMkII, what the hell were you doing with a stock image on your site? That’s really not adding up. You should be able to get the image you needed yourself, after all you’ve got many “tele and wide angle lenses”.
My average settlement rate? Better than 90% Why? Because in almost every case I've had a registered copyright.
Considering you have no obvious basis in which to judge my intelligence versus the intelligence of any given CEO, I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that they are 100 times smarter than I.
I'll give you a little background, though. I am an award winning journalist. I've received local, state, national and international awards for both my photography and my writing. I've received recognition for editorial writing, crime reporting and religion reporting and breaking news, among others. On the photography side, I've won for breaking news, sports photography and feature photography. In addition to newspapers around the country, my work has been featured in magazines, scholarly journals and advertising, as well as on sites such as NPR and CNN.
On the more artistic side of things, my work has appeared in galleries and artists have used some of my work as the basis for their paintings, most recently in Australia. I shoot a very limited number of weddings per year, about four on average, and get paid well for them. My signed limited edition prints sell just fine, thank you. I also donate limited edition prints to groups and charities I support, they often bring in over $1,000 at their auctions.
In addition donate my time by mentoring high school journalism and photography students and giving talks to grade school kids, along with shooting portraits of 4-H and FFA kids and their animals at our local fair each year for a nominal feel. Basically I charge the fair enough to cover costs.
So, when was the last time you did anything charitable?
As I stated before, you seem to have a problem reading, I never stated my photography business failed, another business I purchased failed. Not because of my lack of photography skills, but because of the economy taking a dive and a dishonest employee making of with thousands of dollars. That ex-employee is now behind bars.
I think your reading problem might have had something to do with your little infringement issue. I think you might have missed some text stating “Image may be subject or copyright” or “All rights reserved”.
Up until about four months ago, I dealt with an average of two infringements per year, hardly conducive as a business model. In the past five months alone, I’ve had to deal with four, including one that involves 14 vicarious infringements of the same image. A company took it, and then allowed it to be used on 14 other sites. Excuse me if I think that’s a bit over the top. $20,000 doesn’t even come close to actual damages.
In your world, people wouldn’t even be able to brag a bit about their successes.
As for stumbling across this site, I was researching infringements, when I found it. Being curious, I wanted to see why demand letters were being called extortion letters.
To an extent, I think the stock photo companies may be going over the top a bit, but I understand why they are heavy handed. People do not respond to “nicey nice” letters. Let’s face it, fear motivates people.
From the sound of your anger and hatred for anyone defending their work, I’d venture a guess that you aren’t in the least bit apologetic about infringing, but are angry that you got caught.
You wanted to use something that belonged to someone else that you didn’t pay to use in order to make a profit for yourself.
And you call me greedy?

[Nemen Night]

I am not angry and I am not calling you names Newzshooter. This is my writing style. Stop panicking.

Whatever your excuses are, it does not change the fact that you extort $100000s from people over some picture that you took with your digital camera. Nothing can justify that, even volunteering at school. Your crime far exceeds that of the infringer. Your greed will destroy you one day.

Canon 5D Mark II is a full frame professional camera. The lens selection, knowledge of optics, equipment and your skill play the most role. Also different equipment is intended for different purpose. EOS 1Ds may be good for weddings, or sports events, but not for the kind of photography that I do where the equipment cannot be too heavy or cumbersome.

What do you have?, probably some outdated clunky Cannon Mark EOS from few years ago? LOL.

You don't seem to have much knowledge of equipment if you tell me that judging by my equipment I don't have knowledge or similar. You are either angry at me that I blasted you for your money extorting photography business, or you are not that good of a photographer.

What is your website?, I want to see your pictures.

I will also check if your website is infringing upon some of my software patents or some other companies patents. Maybe myself, or someone else can sue you for $500K or take a share in your future earnings, or maybe will take your house if worth anything. I wouldn't take your camera and lenses because I would need you to keep photographing those weddings to earn a share of my settlement income. lol. Patent is more important than a picture so 500K is the minimum amount plus we need some deterrence to make sure that you don't do it again.

You should know that there is a software patent for almost everything. Every website infringes upon at least 3-5 patents. Starting from browser detection (IBM patent), elements of shopping cart (Amazon patents) and many more. They are just not being enforced (why? because the infringement is widespread), but I'm sure that some of these companies would gladly pursue someone like you if you try going after them or even just for fun because some stock image company in the past harasses a nephew of a friend of an IT company executive. This actually gives me an idea to figure out what patents Masterfile website is infringing upon and notify the companies that own these patents to pursue infringement claims against Masterfile. Why not? Masterfile could have obtained a license, but instead they had decided to willfully infringe upon registered software patents.

Maybe you work for Masterfile and are posting here rubbish?

I don't condone stealing intellectual property, but I much more despise those that are trying to make windfall profits from multiple lawsuits and ruin other businesses or personal lives which is what you are doing apparently. Volunteering at school won't absolve you from your crimes against poor people and their businesses.

You are correct. I do not volunteer. I work only for profit, but my work is honest and I pay ton of taxes that pay to support this country including a dysfunctional government that is unable to pass laws protecting American business. I am volunteering my time now trying to rid of crooks that destroy American businesses and people.

[newzshooter]

Nemen,
You really seemed focused on equipment, but I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with you over it. If you've actually got what you say you've got, good for you. But, if it's the wrong type of equipment for the type of work you claim to do, then why buy it?
It just doesn't make sense. It's like buying a set of SAE wrenches when your working on something with metric bolts.
As I've stated at least twice before, you seem to have a real problem with reading, I never judged you on your equipment. I merely asked why you would use a stock image if you were a professional. Your answer appears to be "because my camera is too big".
Alrighty then.
As for being angry at you, nope, not in the least. I find you rather amusing with your rabid rantings throughout the forum.
As for me naming my website, or giving my real name, not a chance. I'm not foolish enough to open myself up to a spam attack or hate mail from people like you.
Nor am I foolish enough to operate without insurance, including liabilty and IP insurance. If my site is infringing on a patent (highly unlikely) then my IP insurance will cover my butt. If someone trips over one of my light stands and breaks an arm, I'm covered there, too. As a matter of fact, I even carry libel insurance in case someone sues over something I write.
Since you only work for profit, doesn't that make you greedy? After all, it's all about the money. Maybe that's why you are so angry, you like making money, but you hate spending it. Reminds me of a certain Charles Dickens character.

[Oscar Michelen]

It seems  that every time a sound discussion begins, it gets hijacked into lowbrow argument without adding any analysis. The initial post started with a hypothetical but it was not an apples to apples analogy (or tomatoes to tomatoes). Once the farmer sells his tomato to the restaurant the transaction is finished. But no one buys IP anymore, they only license it, giving them no right to allow its re-use or re-sale. Once again, photographers have every right to expect their IP to be used properly and with permission and they are entitled to damages if that IP is pirated.  But is it right to try and enforce those IP rights by sending out letters seeking far in excess of what that piracy is worth? And if a website user can establish that he had no knowledge or reason to believe he used pirated material,(because he used a third party developer or because the images had no watermarks or copyright management information) shouldn't it be enough that he has been warned, taken the images down and never will use them again?