Messages

181

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"

« on: May 20, 2013, 12:02:49 PM »

Its not my fault that photographers live in a bad neighborhood (the internet).  An analogy: If I buy a used part and it turns out to be stolen (unbeknownst to me), I return it.  I'm not fined and harassed for "statutory" or "actual" damages as far as I understand it.  I'm not a criminal.  My "punishment" and "lesson learned" is that I lost the part I bought.  I'm more careful and knowledgeable next time.

Except that it's not just photographer's that inhabit the internet neighbourhood - we all do; just like a real-life community, there are laws in place to govern and limit what actions we can take so that the overall best interests of everyone are served.

As a sidenote on the analogy you used: much would hinge on the price you paid for the used part, and whether you had any proof of payment, to avoid the potential of facing criminal charges for being in receipt of stolen property. For some states, the burden of proving criminal intent for such charges is quite low or even non-existent.

An example: I hire an overseas firm to design a website for me.  He uses infringing images, but tells me they're his own, or he has the rights to them, or whatever.  Maybe he doesn't even say anything if I'm not knowledgeable enough to ask.  I get a demand letter from true copyright holder. I explain the situation and take down the image.  The copyright holder asks for proof and I show him the invoice from the overseas firm.  I get warned (not fined) and we part ... maybe even with me as a new customer.  I know that isn't the current copyright law, but that's how I think it should work.

It can work that way and, legally, if you have all your ducks in a row and can unequivocally prove what is termed innocent infringement, then a rightsholder should know that pursuit of a claim against you is really in no-one's best interests.

If a rightsholder still pursues you after you've produced evidence that you absolutely, genuinely had no idea that you would be committing an infringement based on accepting the work of a third party... well, I personally don't agree with their stance, even though the letter of the law might permit them to do so.

Besides, the rightsholder has to know that under US law, their claim might get struck down to as little as $200 even if they prevail. Far better to educate the infringer and work with them than roll the dice through the courts.

I'm talking about unremarkable shots. I know you still disagree, but I'm not entirely convinced that a court would disagree with my position in many cases.

Even an 'unremarkable' shot has value - whether or not it might be unique. If Getty has a shot of a baseball against a white backdrop for $49, then 123RF has a similar image for $4.99, and Fotolia has a similar image again for $0.99... then why would anyone appropriate the Getty shot?

The answer would be that the infringer either didn't know about copyrights, didn't care about copyrights or (worse case scenario) did know but simply did not want to pay even $0.99 for a picture to use on their website.

I'm not sure how the courts would view all of the above but, in general, matters of appropriation of property seem to lean towards the "you have the choice to not do it" when it comes to the crunch.

On your burger example: should I be fined $30,000 because the hamburger I bought from a street vendor in India looks too much like a big mac?

I get what you're saying here, but this is an apples-to-oranges comparison when it comes to IP laws. Or maybe it's a Whopper to Big Mac comparison.

Statutory damages for registered image infringements are the current law. I understand that, I just don't agree with it in the case of innocent infringement.

I really have a problem with the term innocent infringement, as there can be varying degrees of actual innocence. The truly innocent are usually ignorant of copyright law and are thus unwitting in their actions.

Thankfully, at least the court is allowed to lower statutory damages to $200 per innocent infringement, but I still disagree with it.

I can sympathise with you finding it disagreeable, I really do.

For unregistered images, it's my understanding that my opinion is in line with the courts to award "actual damages" which is fair market value.

Almost correct: you'd need to remove fair, because the value is largely determined by what the photographer might have otherwise licensed the image for. Consider that Annie Leibovitz could command a far higher rate for her works than an emerging commercial photographer might - and this would be factored for in almost any suit for a work that wasn't timely registered (you still need to file a registration before you can initiate a lawsuit)

I really want photographers to be successful by providing a product that people want to buy.  I really do. I'm really happy for them when that happens.  I just don't like to see some poor unknowing chap harassed for tens of thousands of dollars because he unknowingly used an unremarkable picture of a bowling ball in some silly blog post that 10 people read (a made-up example).

Photographers also want the same thing and would be a very happy bunch if infringements didn't occur. We're not really a litigious bunch (honestly!) and would far prefer to create and share our work without the risk of it being appropriated, exploited or otherwise abused.

On this point: I've had to deal with more infringements by large businesses, corporations and media outlets than I have private individuals (hence my screen name here). Copyright protects me against their predations... which is perhaps the original intent behind the levels of statutory damages.

This is why I support both a small claims process and widespread education so that Joe Average doesn't fall foul of these laws.

182

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"

« on: May 20, 2013, 09:00:04 AM »

With some of the stuff I've seen, I'm not convinced that this isn't going on.  What is just as bad, IMO, is essentially turning a blind eye to it because it is helping increase infringement revenue.  Honestly, if this weren't the case, wouldn't they be doing at least simple things to slow down the proliferation of their images on these "free" sights?  Things like watermarking their images.

Here's the problem: when a client licenses and downloads an image legitimately, that photograph won't have a visible watermark on it. It might have a unique filename and embedded IPTC and EXIF metadata with information about whom the rightsholder is and further still, it might also use a digital watermark such as DigiMarc to allow uses of that photograph to be tracked and traced.

The file can be renamed, the IPTC and EXIF data can be stripped out - which just leaves the digital watermark (if it is present).. and all that serves as is an electronic 'fingerprint' which allows the uses of the photograph to be found and then checked to see if they are legitimate.

Another issue is that login details for image libraries are routinely traded online so that the blatant, don't-give-a-shit infringers can access high-resolution images for their own sites; they buy or trade these passwords and the second that one becomes deactivated, you can bet that a half dozen more spring up.

A good many of these people live in countries whom don't have strong IP laws on their books and, worse still, they use tech such as VPNs or IP masking to make it nigh-on impossible to track them down, let alone shut them down.

At the very least, shouldn't an innocent infringer (overseas website designer victim) with an invoice be given a second chance?

I'm not sure I follow you here - please elaborate so I can get an understanding of your point.

Should a simple picture of an everyday object (a baseball for example) be copyrightable?  I don't believe it should.

We're going to disagree here because there are an infinite number of ways in which you could photograph that baseball to make it look unique or different. There's the background, lighting, framing, depth of field and a myriad of other elements to the creative composition of a photograph that means your shot of a baseball could stand head and shoulders above all the other shots out there -

As a fixed expression of an idea, any photograph can be copyrighted. The question of how unique such a photograph is might determine its value in the mind of the end user... but that still does not give anyone the right to just appropriate it.

Think on it this way: you want a burger. You can get a $0.99 one at McDonalds, or a $19.99 gourmet burger at an upscale restaurant. Essentially, both products are the same - so you have to make a value judgement on your needs versus your ability to pay. Is the gourmet burger worth $20? Is it worth twenty times the McDonald's burger? Probably not... but you can choose what to eat, the same way you can choose to not eat either of them.

Shouldn't demands/awards for actual damages be substantiated by a sales history of the actual image and/or similar image sales? and NOT on some inflated dreamed up retail "list price" that no reasonable person would pay?

No to the first part, though I somewhat agree to the second part - because providing such information during legal process can back up a claim quite a bit. Here's a very recent example of how that worked in court

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2013/26.html

If it is unique/creative/important enough to copyright, doesn't it deserve it's own single copyright registration?  Is "bulk uploading" of hundreds or thousands of unremarkable images for copyright not just another cog in the infringement demand machine/scheme?

Again, I'm going to disagree here. On a work week, I shoot thousands of images and sometimes hundreds get sent out to clients during that week. I bulk register because a) it's permitted and b) it's the right balance of cost vs. effectiveness for both artists and the copyright office.

If it were mandated that every single work be registered individually, then only major content creators could afford to register their copyright works - and this would leave small businesses and the self-employed ripe for exploitation.

183

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"

« on: May 20, 2013, 05:59:12 AM »

It's also not right, in my opinion, to bulk upload to the copyright office a picture of every single animal, vegetable, and inanimate object you can think of, then send a crawler out to find the inevitable group of unknowing innocent infringers, and threaten them with a $30,000 per infringement lawsuit if they don't mail a check for $1500 or so.

I'd really hope that there aren't any creatives out there exploiting the system by knowingly seeding their works just so they can issue legal demands or court proceedings from infringements; that's fraud on the same level as people whom fake accidents, injuries or illness so they can instruct an ambulance-chasing attorney to collect for them.

It would be a severe abuse of the system and - in my opinion - would need to be treated as a criminal matter.

Not to mention that the group of innocent infringers can be multiplied exponentially by doing something to make sure overseas website designers (who don't give two sh__s about copyright law or who they're getting into trouble) have access to the images to use in their work.

I agree that copyrights abuses outside the US/Canada and EU are an absolute nightmare to deal with - especially "wallpaper" or "free image download" sites, which are major sources of unwitting infringements by those whom are unaware of copyrights.

The solution would be that Berne Convention signatories would at least be required to have legislation similar to the DMCA on their books - but, given how slowly domestic laws are enacted, can you imagine the issues in getting a global agreement proposed, let alone ratified?

We need a fair copyright law that makes sense.

Absolutely; there needs to be a "small claims" process which would allow recovery of "lost" license fees without the need for attorneys to be involved but - more importantly - there needs to be a concerted effort to educate people on copyrights and why they're important to creators.

Robust, consistent education on copyrights would mean fewer infringers, less lawsuits/demands and possibly more licensing of works... and that's got to be better than the situation we're in right now. I'd go so far as to say that copyrights need to be taught as early as the 1st grade.

184

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty getting sued...again

« on: May 19, 2013, 11:54:08 AM »

Jerry,

Getty did, in fact, specify that images from the set are only available for editorial usage.

Go to Getty's homepage, put your cursor into the search box and type "Berry Gordy Chicago" in the search field, being sure to search editorial images only. This will yield 93 results from that search.

If you click on any of the 93 thumbnail images, you'll be taken to a medium sized preview which will contain the image caption (description) and a host of other file information.

The two key fields to look at are Restrictions and Release Information.

For the photographs in this set, the Restrictions filed reads "Contact your local office for all commercial or promotional uses."; this is fairly standard as Getty would be the go-between for the photographer, licensee and image subjects when it comes to getting the appropriate permissions to use an image in either way.

Here's how it works. Getty's client wants to use the photograph in an otherwise restricted manner. Getty contacts the photographer to ensure that they're okay with that particular client using the photograph outwith the limits of editorial use. Getty then makes efforts to contact the person(s) pictured in the photograph to obtain their permissions to license the photograph in a non-editorial context.

It's the responsibility of the client to pay both Getty AND the subject(s) when they want to use the photograph for commercial or promotional purposes.

The only scenario by which this three-way approval process might be simplified is if the subject(s) pictured in the photographs had signed model release forms and provided them to the photographer, either at the time of shooting or at any point thereafter.

The 'release' in the form is basically a written statement of consent that the person(s) have granted permission to the photographer to make use of their likeness in any way he chooses, usually in return for being paid, but sometimes it may be an exchange of services such as "Time for Prints" for instances such as fashion or art modelling.

In all of this, there's one potential spanner in the works: a client of Getty might have purchased an editorial license and then used the photograph in a commercial/promotional context without informing anyone - doing so would be a breach of license terms (a copyright infringement) and also Thompson's rights of publicity.

If this is what happened (and there's nothing in his claim to suggest this) then he's barking up the wrong tree... his suit would at least have to name whomever made use of the photograph in such a manner as a co-defendant; all that Getty would need to do to get off the hook would be to demonstrate that they only ever licensed the photograph for editorial use.

I'd also like to touch on one last thing: assuming that Thompson's claim only relates to the fact that Getty had a photograph of him available for editorial licensing, then he's really going to lose, and badly. I had another quick look around the web to see if there were any other photographers present - and here's an interesting page I found.

http://www.chicagonow.com/ndigo-chit-chat-all-that/2012/11/an-evening-with-barry-gordy-at-history-makers-2/#image/1

You'll see that it appears a small red carpet and white backdrop were placed by the event organisers with the apparent specific intention of having guests pose for photographs in this area as they arrived. I've covered dozens of similar events where this has been the case and know the format quite well.

I'll hazard a guess that, when Mr. Thompson arrived at the event, he was invited by event PR to pose for photographs in this very location. It would have been Thompson's right to refuse to be photographed and/or ask where or how the photographs were going to be used... but let's look at the photograph again

http://assets.starsightings.com/photos/000/001/357/00000135723/135723.thumb.160x160.f2d5d654b76505f66d4687c7e75ea1a3.jpg?v=1353420281

Yeah, it's not ideal to use a thumbnail sized shot but, if you enlarge it, you can see that Thompson is looking straight at the photographer's lens, is smiling and has obviously stopped to pose for them - therefore, there is implicit consent in having his photograph taken.

Going out on a limb (again), I'll suggest that Thompson objected to the photograph when he discovered it available for licensing and mistakenly thought this was an infringement of his personality rights. If his attorney wasn't conversant with the laws of relating to this, then... well, you can guess how it's going to play out.

185

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty gewtting sued...again

« on: May 18, 2013, 04:18:34 AM »

Robert,

Having read over the court documents, it appears that the plaintiff - Marshall Thompson - is suing getty because his likeness appeared in one (or more) of the photographs they had available for licensing on their site. He's claiming this is an infringement of his "right of publicity"

Without knowing which photograph(s) Thompson appeared in, or the whether they were available for editorial or commercial licensing, it's not clear if he has grounds for a claim and/or will be successful.

If Thompson's likeness was included in photographs that were available only for editorial licensing - and providing that he was photographed either in a public place or in the context of editorial reportage - then it's likely Getty will prevail.

Conversely, if Thompson's likeness was prominently included in a photograph that was available for commercial licensing, and the photographer in question either did not seek to obtain a model release from Thompson or, worse still, if the photographer falsified a model release from Thompson, then he may have grounds... but his claim should be against the photographer, not Getty.

When you submit a set of stock photographs to any agency, you almost always have to fill out a form indicating whether model or property releases are required (based on the subject matter) and if they have been obtained (in which case you would upload copies of said releases with the set of images)

Getting to specifics: I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the images to which Thompson has objected might be the one (and similar) on the bottom-right corner of this page, which is the only instance I could find when searching for "Marshall Thompson Illinois Getty"

http://www.starsightings.com/event-An-Evening-with-Berry-Gordy

A further search yielded this set on Getty's site, which does not include the photograph above (being that it has likely been removed from the set on Thompson's request)

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?query=z.i.H4sIAAAAAAAEAOy9B2AcSZYlJi9tynt_SvVK1-B0oQiAYBMk2JBAEOzBiM3mkuwdaUcjKasqgcplVmVdZhZAzO2dvPfee--999577733ujudTif33_8_XGZkAWz2zkrayZ4hgKrIHz9-fB8_In7dfLn9-ZN79-79Hr_W-u2ve7bILvJf89f4NX6Nx_T_NL_Ml8XyIr0q2nk6yev6Or2o6tl1Op0X0-yi-jVHaCrPr_3l-bn9I_KYlr9mUldV-zKrs0Xz6-hnvxb-v7uDX--Y9r-7-eU3wz-_Cf3_13v3-ro5fcdA8H_vbwaS2f5_Tf0dcH_t7HxqsTR_4P-_Nn7ucNeL1r3pfv91qHFpv7B_4b1fl_6oFxZs-Oevj-a7-OvX488nFkbnb37tPIRi_2QoOxbKeQeK-5tfq0Mo9k-Gsmeh1B0o7m-iTG5e-jXxx6-tfzCZdvHbb0j__y137t_dPbi7t7O7l-7sPOL_4bvfGP-AlkSmfGWA_prBX792PmnsN-YPpn_u0PJ-_7Vy19z7_dduViv7Of4waP9W9sXLqXvR_f7rVLXHPfYv_mqS-1-Zv_D82rOrpfn91zR_gHF_nWbtjSf469fOM4eB_wf9vvK_sH_8uk0ALfzz13737LmbG_rDfpHVHm7eH79RM61W-ZP1clZ6RAw-NQB_HHAe7NzH778OsdXaNg_--nXmtfwhFMJfBsLH9P9f62CHW02CVhOv1SeuFbGXEzj_j1_vRX6VN-3_EwAA__-SHF4skwQAAA..&rid=156612331&rcat=Event&rt=IL%3a+An+Evening+With+Berry+Gordy

If this is the photograph in question, then I'll go out on a further limb and say that Thompson will not prevail in his claim, as his likeness was made available for editorial use and he knowingly posed for the photograph.

It's very probable that the photographer, Daniel Boczarski, had access to the event only with the permission (or even invitation) of the organisers and, furthermore, the organisers would have known that he was filing shots with Getty. It's almost routine for event PR to contact photo agencies and offer them the option of sending a photographer, either exclusively or maybe as one of several press photographers granted access for reportage purposes.

Assuming the above is aligned with the facts, then it very much looks like Thompson has objected to his photograph being made available for editorial licensing; Getty complied with Thompson's request to have his photograph removed as a gesture of goodwill, though they certainly did not have to.

In attempting to pursue a personality rights claim against Getty, it very much looks like Thompson will only wind up lining the pockets of his own counsel.

186

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: CANIPRE - Copyright violators (and hypocrites)

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:18:47 AM »

Well, no. Actually a French agency, The Washington Post, and Getty Images have been sued for $120,000,000 for what was a major copyright infringement. Story with most recent update info I could find is at...

Not quite; Agence France Presse, The Washington Post and Getty Images are in the process of being sued. The jury trial date is set for September 16, whereby rulings will be sought on some of the outstanding claims in this suit.

Back on January 14, Judge Alison J. Nathan granted partial summary judgment in favor of Morel i.e. she agreed that AFP and the Post had infringed his copyrights, but decided that it would be up for a jury to ascertain the level of damages to be awarded.

During the same trial, the Jury will also be asked to determine Getty's liability. The fact is that Getty has a reciprocal partnership with AFP which allows each party to access the others image library.

Much will depend on what evidence is presented to show how aware Getty was that AFP had no rights to the images, as well as what steps they took once they were notified that they were infringing. This will really hinge on the technicalities of the reciprocal agreement and how they are implemented between the two agencies libraries and content delivery systems.

Lastly, the judge also ruled that AFP, the Post and Getty will only be liable on a per image basis, not on a per infringement basis (irrespective of the fact that the photographs were licensed some 820 times); this has significantly reduced Morel's potential damages award to a maximum of roughly $1,400,000...

My gut feeling is that there will be a very significant award re. the actions of AFP and the Post, whilst Getty might be able to demonstrate that the largely automated nature of their reciprocal agreement with AFP absolves them of liability... though this will hinge on their post-notification actions and the evidence of such.

187

Legal Controversies Forum / Taking the whole damn cake, eating it, then threatening to defecate on everyone

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:16:33 AM »

This is beyond troubling.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/14/0134224/new-prenda-law-shell-corp-threatening-to-tell-your-neighbors-you-pirated-porn

I don't see how this can be legal, ethical, moral or even logical... if the letter is to believed then, at best, it's tantamount to a "professional suicide" note from whomever wrote it.

All I can say is that if such correspondence was ever issued here in the EU, the sender would find themselves on the wrong end of criminal law in very short order.

188

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: CANIPRE - Copyright violators (and hypocrites)

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:03:51 AM »

Zero sympathy from me; if you position yourself as a champion of rightsholders works, you need to be whiter than white when it comes to your own behaviours.

And yes, I've seen this happen before.

189

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: A message from the little guy

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:02:15 AM »

The place where something might get dicey is something like this: Say DavidVGolliath takes a picture of Jessica Simpson wearing a beautiful hand crocheted shawl. That image is RM. Then a craft blogger might see it, copy it and write a blog post asking her readers where they might find a pattern for a similar shawl. (FWIW: The shawl is discussed here http://www.knittersreview.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=22293 ) In such a case, DavidVGolliath might end up involved with a dicey issue.   I don't know how he'd feel about it but this really would be different from "wanna be Perez Hilton".

Just an observation: the forum users are posting links to external sites where someone can see the photographs that they're referencing - that clearly falls under fair use.

Even if the forum users were using the images directly in their postings, any less-than-fair use (someone claiming it was their own shot, encouraging people to share/distribute the image etc.) could likely be dealt with via a DMCA notice, as the forum operators probably have a DMCA agent and will enjoy the safe harbor provisions accordingly.

(Caveat: I didn't click on any of the links posted in that forum)

I rarely have issues with people using my work on internet forums for these very reasons. What I take issues with are sites - large or small - that appropriate my work whom could (in theory at least) have licensed it from me, especially if they're passing themselves off as being an editorial or commercial site - doubly so if they solicit payments or advertising revenue.

I take a much more serious view if the site has a copyright policy or "Terms of Use" section which states something to the effect "All content is (c) us" or some variation thereof. That will likely lead to me making a DMCA violation claim, particularly if my work has been used without a byline credit and/or where IPTC or EXIF metadata has been stripped from it.

If the site policy makes mention of content being owned or licensed by them, the gloves start to come off... and for instances where I discover that the site owner is an educated person whom damn well should know about copyrights (think business, journalism or creative arts graduate), then I often don't bother negotiating with them - it goes straight to one of my attorneys.

190

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Well at least they are trying SOMETHING in the UK

« on: May 16, 2013, 04:34:47 AM »

Is there a flaw related to the Berne Convention?

The Berne Convention states very clearly that you cannot allow copyright works to be used in a way which detracts from the copyright owner's ability to earn a living; as a signatory to Berne, the United Kingdom would be in breach of the convention if they enact domestic legislation which limits the rights of copyright owners to profit from the work that they create.

Article 5 of the Berne convention states that authors receive copyright protection without the requirement of any formality, such as having to register their work with an agency or collective society; Article 9 of Berne grants authors the exclusive right to authorise the copying of their work.

There can be no clearer example of limiting the rights of copyright holders to profit from the work that they create than legislation which permits the commercial use of orphan works, especially if you are required - even on a "voluntary" basis - to register with a UK based agency as part a mechanism to minimise or prevent such exploitation.

It seems to me the balance will vanish once the registration mechanism is set up. That shouldn't take very long.

I'm in favour of a UK or EU registrations body (especially if it broadly mirrors the US system) but not if registration is required or preferred to protect ones works against the potential of being exploited as "orphans" by less than scrupulous entities.

My rationale isn't based on my own business, but on the millions of people whom upload their own images to sites such as flickr, Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook etc. - casual users of image sharing sites whom probably have no idea about copyrights. Remember, the language of the ERRB applies to all works, not just those created in the UK.

Creative professionals might know to register their works to protect them, and will have to suck up the time/expense of doing so as a cost of doing business. Joe Average might not be cognizant of how his pictures, designs or so on could wind up being appropriated - and there's a good chance he won't be able to afford to register his work (factoring for the current economic climate)

The US recognizes copyright exists from the moment created, but also requires registration for the purpose of assessing statutory damages and penalties.

A registration is technically required only before you can file suit in federal court; the registration needs to be timely (within three months of publication of the work) to permit a claimant to pursue statutory damages of up to $30,000 per work infringed - or $150,000 in the case of wilful infringements... otherwise the claim can only be for actual damages (usually the "lost" license fee) and/or DMCA violations.

191

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Well at least they are trying SOMETHING in the UK

« on: May 14, 2013, 03:06:14 PM »

What's wrong with a scenario where there is a free to use image registration system? That essentially fixes the problem.

The problem is that such an image registration system doesn't yet exist in the EU/UK, so the ERRB has kind of put the cart before the horse.

I too would welcome a recognised registry that one could upload their images to - one that is referenced in the legislation which will form one of the cornerstones of the "diligent search" that they cite as necessary.

There would also need to be codification of the penalties for using works without performing such a diligent search, as well as penalties for the use of registered works.

Lastly, the serious flaws in the bill which relate to the Berne Convention need to be addressed too.

Believe me: rightsholders want those win-win-win scenarios too. The act, as it stands, might not permit such a thing as it appears to favour those whom want to use a work rather than seeking a balance between the interests of creatives and the general market.

192

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"

« on: May 14, 2013, 02:14:31 PM »

I hope you don't think I was being an asshat, I certainly can be at times..but I want you to know it's refreshing to get an artist on board that is not wearing blinders, and is open to discussion, as opposed to simply calling us thieves. Getty is their own worst enemy, but they are to dumb to even see it...because of the blinders and the money signs at the end of the tunnel..

No offence taken and no, I didn't think you were an asshat; I know that we'll have slightly different perspectives on some issues but, honestly, I'm here because I'd like to put forth the viewpoint of an "average" photographer whom is trying to find a middle ground... so all discourse - even those with a bit of friction - are welcomed as opposed to being confrontationally entrenched with immutable beliefs.

We need copyrights, we need laws to protect copyrights, but we also really need some means to address how the internet has impacted creatives without us resorting to the 'nuclear option' of lawsuits laden with multiple zeroes ahead of the decimal point.

193

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"

« on: May 14, 2013, 01:38:20 PM »

[quote author=Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) link=topic=3707.msg15640#msg15640
so just what protocols are you using?? I'm curious if you're registrations would stand up in a court of law...[/quote]

http://www.copyright.gov/eco/help/#eCO_1.5 with reference to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

I create .zip files of low-resolution copies of my originals, not exceeding 500px on one side. As I have a 5mbps upload pipe, this allows me to utilize the full 170mb file limit per .zip file.

The eCo upload process allows to to have multiple .zip file attachments per registration, so I simply upload as many .zip files as are necessary to comprise the body of work that I'm registering

Given the sheer volume of work that I create, I don't file quarterly registrations but instead register each body of work that pertains to a specific event e.g. the body of work might be "Photographs from Edinburgh International Film Festival 2013, June 19 - 30"

This makes the number of images I file per registration smaller, and also makes it far easier for me to keep track of my registration certificates.

194

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"

« on: May 14, 2013, 12:48:57 PM »

We all saw how well the bulk registrations worked out in the Advernet case...yeah Getty "won" by default, but were awarded ZERO because of bulk registrations that were deemed invalid..

Robert, if you register your images within the guidelines as set out by the Copyright Office and upload your bulk images properly within the constraints, then there will not be any issues.

My (coarse) understanding of the case you reference is that Getty did not follow the protocols for bulk registrations.

195

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"

« on: May 14, 2013, 12:46:08 PM »

You may well be very good at photography, but it's also quite clear that you're equally competent with settlement demands and negotiations.

Believe me, I'd really rather that the latter wasn't the case... but with each passing year, the sheer volume of infringements of my work has grown to the point that the unauthorised uses of my photographs exponentially outstrip the legitimate ones - and that is regrettably an issue which I feel I have to confront head on.

Philosophically, I abhor the idea that "Everything boils down to money. Period." From my little spot on this planet, it's this entrenched attitude about the almighty dollar that makes the world a shittier place.

I actually agree with you - again, it's not how I'd like things to be but, living in Europe in a capitalist democracy, it's one of the realities that is inescapable.

For what it's worth, earning my living as a professional writer on the web the past fifteen years, I've raised a family, met my financial obligations, and have had a good life without having to conclude that "Everything boils down to money. Period." And I've managed to do these things without ever once sending a settlement demand email or registered letter to somebody who put one of my articles, commentaries, novels, white papers, or stories on their website or on a file sharing system without permission.

If that's the case then I congratulate you - though might I ask exactly how much your work has been appropriated in the last fifteen years? Just as a point of curiosity.

In closing, I appreciate your responses to my questions and now feel I have a clear understanding of your position. Thank you.

You're welcome. As I said in a separate thread: because I'm a photographer whom diligently protects my works, I honestly don't expect everyone to agree with my viewpoints and opinions - and I'm here as a contributor to these forums both to share my experiences and learn from those of others.

It's the only way that a middle ground will ever be found when navigating the legal and moral complexities of copyrights in the digital age.