Thanks for bringing it back to civilised - I'll go through your points to make sure Im not misrepresented
I get the points that you're making in your last posting. If I may:
"Hurry up and pay out. It takes time to do fact-finding plus research, and you may accrue interest while you're doing that. So pay up fast, don't negotiate."
Nope, thats not what I said and contrary to the views Ive posted. It does take time to do fact finding and research and a month or two isnt going to make much difference to the interest. In my posts where I have mentioned what I have done I have always mentioned negotiating. What isnt worth doing is ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Some sort of conclusion must be reached.
"Don't ask questions of the demand letter sender, because you'll get charged for every phone call and email that it takes for them to convince you to pay."
Nope, again I didnt say this. You have to ask questions of the demand letter sender, they could be trying it on. They have to provide you with details of the infringment and evidence of how they came up with their figure. They also have to give you enough time to contact your lawyer (see point below), present them with the evidence, see what they say and then get back to them with your figure and then negotiate. In every single case Ive ever had it has always been advised to enter into negotiations. After all a judge/jury will look to see if the process has negotiated to see if an amicable settlement has been reached. What bearing they put on this is up to them but its worth remembering.
"Lawyers are 'bad' because they make a living defending people from Righthaven, Riddick/Imageline, MF and Getty Images."
Good lawyers also make a living helping me recover damages from infringers. In fact I would go so far as to say some of the same lawyers are doing it for both parties. Where people have to draw the distinction is when the lawyer(s) offer bad advice, take things off the internet or are just stringing things out. Most settlements can be sorted out within 2-3 weeks if its done correctly and there is no dragging of heels by either party or the solicitors. I have had one case drag out 8 years (not copyright) and whilst the payout was substantial, the legal fees dwarfed this.
"Furthermore, lawyers cost a lot of money, so it's much cheaper to just pay those who send demand letters. It's too expensive to fight them."
Not if you have union representation or use your company insurance policy and legal protection line....
"The lowly photographer gets screwed in the end, regardless."
Ive been screwed as much by Getty as infringers, dont worry about that one.
Thanks for your opinions. I don't entirely agree with you, but perhaps I've helped to clarify where you stand?
No, Ive done that myself. My opinions are based on my experience, not through quoting stuff other people have said or misinterpreted on the internet. I go through dozens of these infringments per year, which range from takedown notices to filing court papers, on various continents. You only have my word on that and can disregard it if you want but it is my experience and no amount of quoting wikipedia entries or someone elses assumptions and misinterpretations of other peoples postings will change that. I am in possession of all the facts about all of my cases. I also quote from actual people and actual circumstances I know.
e.g. the government quotes - here in the UK local government (councils) are responsible for ensuring PRS licenses are intact, they can fine and can collect on behalf of the PRS and take a cut which finances their end. This is only for hard standing offices, the web isnt in the legislation.
Every time you go after an internet infringer it is where the offence took place which is their registered web address. This is not taken care of under current EU legislation so there are debates about extending it to include web (in the UK every business website must include their proper office address).
Its all included in the copyright debates as the movie and music industries are pushing it to be so, photography is part of that legislation so a central register and licensing database is proposed which unlike the US system is proactive not reactive.
One other point about the US system is that it doesnt prove copyright, it proves you have registered copyright. Those are two different things. There are also scams where people have registered other peoples images (the US system doesnt check content) which again is why the likes of google with image recognition ability are better for this type of registration. Every time you file court papers you need to prove you own copyright and this isnt showing US registration (which isnt recognised anywhere else and the US is the only country to do it). Hence why Getty need an affadavit from its photographers. You need to show a lawyer the raw file (or unedited out of camera jpeg - and there are forensic tools to prove this) and the edited file. It is easier with professional cameras as all the information including the specific camera details are embedded and insurance companies also have the camera registrations to back this up even if you sell the camera later.
None of this information is new, even when entering photo competitions ownership of the original image needs to be proven like this. Its a very straightforward simple process.
Thanks once again for calling me "Charming", Helpi.
"Nice S.G. Very charming."
S.G.
So let me get this straight, someone else, in a different part of the world says similar things to you and you dont think, hold on a minute two different people telling me the same thing doesnt mean perhaps they are right or have a different view, they must be the same person?
Hmmm...
Glad you arent advising me on all this stuff.
As you say though, you have given your opinions, they are different to my experiences so I'll go with my experiences.
Topic: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis? (Read 27734 times)