Messages

121

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is there a definitive IP range for PICSCOUT - i want to kill the spider!

« on: August 08, 2013, 02:00:19 AM »

Yes, maybe this qualifies for a #gettyflubs tag as it might help someone in the future.

122

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received extortion letter from Masterfile... Have some questions

« on: August 06, 2013, 03:59:49 AM »

sunset, they will deal with you up until the moment it becomes clear that you will not pay their full asking price. Then they will pester your clients.

123

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I emailed letter on Jun 6th but have not received any answer yet

« on: August 03, 2013, 03:47:05 PM »

If I ever hear a complaint about Oscar's letter program it has to be the lag in communication. I honestly think that is one area that could be marked as "needs improvement." That said, however, you have to realize there is a huge gap in the level of urgency. People like Oscar and Robert and S.G. and Greg and Matthew have seen how this has played out for hundreds of people over many years. The wheels of injustice turn very slow and the "deadlines" they present are a joke.

But I also understand that as a new letter recipient people want to get to some sense of "closure" as soon as possible. People don't like the feeling of this hanging over their head.

Personally I think Oscar needs to hire Ving Rhames for his office:

124

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: copyright questions

« on: July 23, 2013, 11:51:13 PM »

Could they? You bet.

Everything in life is about weighing the likelihood. WOULD Facebook sue you for infringing on their trademark? I'd have to say there is close to zero percent chance of that. And if they came after you, it probably would be for using their trademark, not  copyright. I've read stories of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce suing someone for using a photograph they took of the Hollywood sign. Getty was even sued for using the trademarked pine tree air fresheners in a stock photo they were selling. But Twitter and Facebook want to encourage people to use their brand in the right context.

FYI all these major companies do have usage guidelines that tell you how you can (and cannot) use their logo:
https://www.facebookbrand.com/dos-donts
https://twitter.com/logo

Also, something else to be aware of is fonts. If you customize your site to use fonts beyond Arial, Times, and Verdana, you need to make sure the typography is cleared.

125

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Whois Information

« on: July 22, 2013, 09:30:12 PM »

I think it WOULD slow them down. There are so many infringements out there with public whois info. Why would they waste time tracking down the owner? One could probably further complicate the process by paying for the domain with paypal linked to a PO box address and hosting the site in another country.

For me, I don't believe in all this tricky obfuscation. I think it makes more business sense to make it easy to be found and be careful in sourcing your images.

It would be interesting to survey letter recipients and find out if there are many (or any) with no contact information on the site and a private whois.

126

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got My Getty Letter - Almost Laughable

« on: July 22, 2013, 09:07:50 PM »

@gettydontplay -- If you are in the business of hosting sites for others, you should have a look at this article:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole/ (This doesn't really help you in this particular case.)

Also, although there are no guarantees in life, Getty would have to be insane to go after you and your issue. They will take a swing at rebuking whatever letter you send their way. So, in my opinion, you can either totally ignore them after that or (even better) follow Greg's excellent plan of action and let it be known you will not roll over. In any case, don't phone them and only email them to get the name and physical address of the person in charge of the copyright compliance team. (That ought a shake 'em up a little)

127

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: HOLY #@*&$! Everything's just changed!

« on: July 08, 2013, 11:28:51 AM »

Simply stated, it means if you own a site that allows other people to upload content, and you have filed a DMCA agent, you have certain protections. Is one of your users has uploaded an image, the copyright holder must notify you and request that you take it down.

This is very different (under current law) from a site owner who uses an image directly.

128

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has any "photographer" ever posted on ELI that was NOT a lying troll?

« on: July 03, 2013, 11:39:04 AM »

HaHa... Here comes the bill for $40,000!

129

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Okay, this takes the cake...

« on: July 02, 2013, 09:22:16 PM »

These sorts of images are precisely why people who receive letters from Getty are advised to request contract and copyright information from Getty.  Just because the images is listed by Getty and priced by Getty does not mean that Getty  has a valid claim.

Exactly. Lucia totally nailed my thoughts. I am certainly tagging this with the #gettyflubs tag so people will discover this in the future.

And DvG you do realize that Getty has sent extortion claim letters regarding images in the public domain. This shouldn't be all too surprising.

That said, I guess this is what could have happened; Future publishing shot the products for Nikon's press release. Nikon had the rights to release the images for press releases. Then Future decided to make a little extra cash and allowed the images to be represented by Getty. Once again, its going to come down to being one of those legal grey areas.

130

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image used was part of our Portfolio

« on: July 02, 2013, 08:37:29 PM »

The way MOST of the industry works is that images you license for a larger project ARE allowed to be displayed as a portfolio piece. I think there is actually a legal precedent for this (But I'm not 100% sure and not a lawyer). However, I also know that Getty's record on this is rather sketchy. When you inform them that this image WAS licensed and you have permission to use it in your portfolio, I would be very interested to hear how they reply.

131

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has any "photographer" ever posted on ELI that was NOT a lying troll?

« on: July 02, 2013, 08:31:56 PM »

By the way... to the subject of this thread... I would just like to mention that I have seen some of Robert K's nature photography and I would definitely consider him a professional photographer. His stuff is better than some of the images I've seen on Getty. AND, as far as I know, he is NOT a lying troll.

132

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Website Infringement

« on: June 30, 2013, 10:42:37 PM »

Do a search. It's been addressed (more than a few times) and it's a no-go.

133

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter from a "Photo Attorney" who is on Caroline Wrights team

« on: June 25, 2013, 12:09:16 AM »

Honestly as far as I can tell ALL of these micro-stock companies write themselves a loop hole. Seems even they are not willing to accept responsibility and indemnify the end user.

However, if you are using an image someone claims to have exclusive rights to, it should help if you can show a license. Most legitimate companies will leave you alone and pursue the entity that sold you the license.

I say most because there have been several cases of photo attorneys hounding end users, despite being shown a receipt for a template or an invoice from another developer.

134

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Thoughts on my Response to Getty Images. Next step.

« on: June 07, 2013, 01:45:14 PM »

DvG, I think you are giving some one-sided opinion here. Here are a few replies based on my opinion. (I'm not a lawyer, but I have been studying this for a while.)

Getty still can bring an action in the US on Cole's behalf assuming either a) his contract has that provision or b) Getty get his approval prior to filing suit.

Indeed they can. But at least one US court has determined that they would be precluded from collecting statutory damages and/or attorney's fees for any infringement occurring before registration.

Getty aren't going to hand over a copy of Cole's contract to you as that's private and confidential and they've alluded to this (the part where documents would be produced during discovery ahead of trial) but point b) makes that moot anyway.

That may well be their decision. However the O.P. is within their rights to demand such documentation. Getty could ask for a confidentiality agreement and the O.P. could sign that. However by not making this vital information available will prevent a business owner from deciding if this claim is legitimate or not.

Also, as Cole is a UK resident, there would be no need for him or Getty to file a registration within three months of first publishing (a "timely" registration) for statutory damages to be sought; Cole will be sending his images to the UK office of Getty, so the country of first publication would be the UK - so Berne Convention terms apply for litigation purposes.

Again, courts in the United States appear to disagree with you.

Also, another thing that doesn't factor is the sales history for that particular image: maybe it's been licensed dozens of times, or maybe it's never been licensed at all. None of this factors in an infringement lawsuit - all that the courts assess is what fee the image was offered for license at... and even then, that would only be in a Actual Damages & Profits claim.

Not true. If an image has never been licensed and you can show the court dozens of examples available for license at a fraction of the price being sought, the court will weigh this in determining the value of the image. One cannot simply state, "oh that one, we were trying to license that one for $10,000."

I have thousands of photographs in my archives which have never been used by any of my clients; there are 'popular' images that have been licensed many times for varying fees, and I have on occasion licensed a few select photographs for four-figure sums.

Oh boy... here we go with the hamburger analogy again...

I'd also like to touch on the term "innocent infringement" that gets thrown around a lot; this is referenced in 17 USC § 504.

"In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."

Note the infringer sustains the burden of proving portion: this means going to trial and stating your case infront of a jury.

Also, the court may reduce the damages to just $200... or they might not. There's a mistaken belief held by many that proving an innocent infringement means that the courts will award no more than $200.

The fact is they could award any sum starting at $200, rising up to and including what the plaintiff was seeking (which will depend on whether they're seeking Actual Profits & Damages or Statutory Damages)

The O.P could also discover that the stock company did not have exclusive rights to the image. (We don't know because the contracts are not provided.) The judge may decide this was just a blog about health and fitness and he MAY find it was Fair Use. (A long shot, but possible.) The point is that although you say a court proceeding could lead to a charge of $200 and up, I am pointing out that the real range is $0 and up.

Personally speaking - and I cannot stress the personal part enough - I think that offering to settle for somewhere between the "lost" license fee and what Getty are asking for would be a good compromise.

The other replies to this thread are valid too - you could choose to ignore their claim and the demands that will follow, as well as the possibility of suit being filed, for the duration of the next three years (that's the statute of limitations for bringing a copyright action in the US Courts: three years from the date of discovery of the infringement), or you could dispute the claim either directly or via representation of some means.

Just my €0.02 worth.

Personally my number would be $350. And that is because the O.P. basically admitted to using the image right off the bat.

and that's my 2¢.

135

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty letter about image included with commercial web design software

« on: June 07, 2013, 12:41:12 PM »

When you reply to Getty, I would also make it clear that you will begin tracking your time and will invoice for your time when it is discovered that you had every right to use the image.