Messages

1

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Science Photo Library

« on: May 21, 2015, 01:39:30 PM »

He's still the innocent party in this mess...he used the images in good faith, according to the stated license. The photographer should go after the person who uploaded them with the CC mark on them.

As for Creative Commons...there's going to be unethical behavior in ANY field of endeavor. Should we chuck it all out because someone, somewhere, abused or misunderstood it?

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Big Change at Getty -- Free Use

« on: March 06, 2014, 06:32:49 PM »

It's a total trap. I am seeing a lot of buzz among the professional writers/bloggers I work with about the new "free" images. No one understands what "commercial use" means. They think that if you don't slap the image on a product for sale, it's "non commercial use"

3

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K Tylor rears his ugly troll head...again

« on: February 07, 2014, 06:52:51 PM »

Reading the original quote from Facebook, I'm confused. Did the person find the image through Pinterest and use it on his own website? That is how I read it. "We found the image through Pinterest."  If that's the case, then it could be a problem. If, however, he 'repinned', and repinning is akin to hotlinking, then it's not.

Here's another question to ponder. What if a site has a "Pin" button next to an image, encouraging site visitors to share the image via Pinterest (and other social media)? Do they hold any liability here, or does it all fall on the original pinner?

Frankly, I don't care if anyone pins my images (I'm a writer, photographer and content marketer....BuddhaiPi knows me).  As long as they don't stick their name on my images and try to resell them, it doesn't bother me, but then again, I usually share my better images under a Creative Commons license. My choice, I guess.

Anyhow...did they get the original image from Pinterest, download it, then use it on their site?

Or did VK find the image on Pinterest and claim infringement?

That's the difference.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pinterest New Relationship With Getty Images

« on: October 28, 2013, 12:08:29 PM »

Did anyone else catch this quote in the TechCrunch piece? I keep thinking of all the people sharing here who posted sample sites for college projects and what not. This is a direct quote from Getty's CEO: 

"As Getty Images co-founder and CEO Jonathan Klein laid out for us last year, this was something that the company was gearing up to address.

“We’re comfortable with people using our images to build traffic,” he said. “The point in time when they have a business model, they have to have some sort of license.”

Source: http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/pinterest-inks-deal-with-getty-images-will-pay-a-fee-for-the-photo-agencys-metadata/

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Does this apply to Facebook and other social media sites

« on: August 19, 2013, 01:37:40 PM »

Stinger, I think you are correct.  With Facebook, the only place the image is actually uploaded to is the individual user's content area (Photo Albums).  Let's say I upload a photo of my cat to Facebook. The image resides in one of my albums. Stinger decides to share it with Greg.  Just by clicking "Share", it appears on Stinger's timeline or Facebook page, but he did not move the image, just shared a link.  The image resides only on my Album. If I decide to delete it, it will disappear off of both my album and Stinger's timeline. But only the person who originally uploaded it actually moved the image file from his computer to the Facebook system itself...everyone else passing it along is essentially sharing a link back to the original image.

6

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: VKT Lawsuits

« on: August 05, 2013, 10:00:32 AM »

Living Social does have a registered agent. See #21 on this page: https://livingsocial.com/terms#copyright_notice_digital_millenium_copyright_act

7

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

« on: April 16, 2013, 11:54:49 AM »

You too, Mulligan? I'm also a professional writer and photographer. Last week alone I spent hours chasing down the web host info for a DMCA. A scraper site grabbed an article of mine along with four photos to which I own the copyrights. This is starting to get to be a weekly activity, and my time could be better spent. 

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 11, 2013, 11:19:39 AM »

The graphic was a big help; thank you.

9

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 11, 2013, 08:20:38 AM »

I'm still a bit confused, and the link to the Stop Getty site doesn't work for me this morning so I can't read the primary source material.  If Getty goes after actual damages, what amount would they seek? The actual license cost? What about business related sites; would they seek other actual damages because an image was used on a business' websites??

10

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Latest image scraper – a troll by any other name

« on: January 10, 2013, 07:03:58 PM »

The site claims you can add a robots.txt file to block them: http://www.brandprotect.com/disallow-brandprotect-robots.html