Lawsuit filed against Getty images for Copyright infringement.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

  LOS ANGELES - Ron Raffaelli, who says he is known as "the King of Rock and Roll Photography," claims Getty Images violated his copyright by selling stolen photos, in Federal Court.

Ron also recently appeared on the popular TV show "Pawn Stars" selling previously unpublished photo's of Jimi Hendrix.

I have the complaint document and will get it posted to the scribd library for you all to digest...sure feels nice to see Getty on the receiving end for a change..

[SoylentGreen]

Another gem of a find.
Interesting that Getty didn't want to settle, and it's become a lawsuit.

If Getty infringed on the photographer, that's rather hypocritical.  One would think that Getty would be an expert in the business.
It's like being the CEO of a leading condom company, and then contracting a raging STD.
Pretty butthurt if you ask me.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Wait until you read the complaint!

Here's a link until we can get it on scribd

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/23/RockPhotos.pdf

[SoylentGreen]

Wow!!  An interesting read indeed!!
Getty should have stopped displaying and selling those images as soon as they were notified of the photographer's concerns.

Also, this document is one of quality; unlike many that we see from the troll lawyers.
No spelling mistakes, plagiarism, or phony legalese.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Imagine the headline:  "Getty Images Accused of Copyright Infringement and Dealing in STOLEN PROPERTY!!"

[Matthew Chan]

Ron Raffaelli vs. Getty Images Complaint has been posted to the ELI Document Library on Scribd.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79247032/Ron-Raffaelli-vs-Getty-Images-Complaint

[holysmokes]

You know whats ridiculous, people are being attacked by Getty Images for innocently displaying a photograph (aesthetically), but Getty Images knew they were purchasing an archive of images from a person who has a history of acquiring stolen work. Getty bought the archives and put them up for sale (re-distribution, for profit).

 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Quick update on this case. Getty has answered the complaint, with the usual denials, so this will be slowly dragging thru the system as each point in the complaint is addressed.

I'd like to get others opinions on this one portion of the answer, am I reading into this correctly, or am I totally of base in my thinking.

From Page 16 - Paragraph 8
8. The FAC is barred, in whole or in part, because any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff were either wholly or in part the legal fault of persons, firms,corporations, or entities other than Getty Images, and that legal fault reduces the percentage of responsibility, if any, which is to be borne by Getty Images.

Seems to me Getty Images has sent out plenty of extortion demand letters, where the recipient was given permission, by a supplier or vendor in which there may have been elements of a Getty Image, yet when told this they see it as a non valid defense, and still want the money...So once again whats good the goose is not good for the gander.. Getty Images are hypocrites on just about every level!

Read Getty Images Answer to the complaint here:
http://copyright-trolls.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/rock_photos_answer.pdf

[SoylentGreen]

Good posting.

Yes, it seems to be rather hypocritical.

I think that a valid argument can be made that "legal fault" can be separate from "damages".
Even if Getty wasn't at "fault" in this case, it would make sense that the plaintiff could claim damages against the profits that Getty made on his works.

It'll be interesting to watch this play out..!

S.G.

[Couch_Potato]

Just more evidence that Getty have no idea who owns copyright for any of the photos on their site.

A copy of that lawsuit would be a nice addition to any reply back to Getty asking them for proof of copyright.

[Oscar Michelen]

Rob: That paragraph is standard "boilerplate" language for the affirmative defense of comparative fault - Getty is alleging that if they are at fault then a third party is also at fault and Getty should only be responsible for their share of the fault.  Getty has strung dozens of standard boilerplate affirmative defenses to their answer in this complaint.  These two are particularly interesting:

FIFTH SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
5. The FAC is barred, in whole or in part, because Getty Images’ conduct
was reasonable, justified, and in good faith.
SIXTH SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
6. The FAC is barred, in whole or in part, because even if some material
allegedly owned by Plaintiff purportedly was used by Getty Images without consent
(which Getty Images denies), such use was made with innocent intent

If plaintiff's counsel is smart here, he will show the court the thousands upon thousands of times Getty has told Mom and pop businesses that good faith and innocence are not defenses to an infringement claim.  Also maybe folks who get a letter where Getty makes those statements can shove this answer back in their face and say "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" (if people still use that phrase)

[stinger]

Well said, Oscar!  Perhaps the concept of innocent intent needs to make it into this forum's articles about how to respond to Getty.  Not that they even read the response letters.