found on another site

[Cliff61]

I found this on another site, its in response to somebody who recieved a letter:

"I hate to say this - but whoever said Getty images don;t go to court was talknig nonsense. They are the most litigious company I know, and as there is no issue you used their image (even a part of) with no payment or prior use agreement that remains theft. Their software is coded to prove ownership, and this waterark allows their search proceedures to show up imges that are used but not paid for and licenced. Should it go to court, you will lose, as their demand for payment will be higher than what the licence cost would have been, but that is allowable because of the manner in which their image was stolen. There is an argument (possible) that you may have used part of their image to create another (like audio 'sampling') this would create a fresh work of art with its own copyright, but in the absence of this, I'd ask for time to pay up - copyright infringement is treated harshly by the courts".

Any thoughts?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Probably a photogrpaher making this staement, the FACT of the matter GETTY very rarely sues over copyright infringement, a quick browse through pacer proves this. This does not mean they don't sue or are not litigious, because they might be in different areas, but not when it comes to copyright.. Notice the poster of this shows nothing to back up any of his/her statements. If there is a site we can see the lawsuit history in the UK I'b be interested to see it, as PACER only shows US cases.. I realize the laws are a bit different over there, and there is the chance that Getty files more, depending on if they have better chances of winning, clearly hee in the states they have very weak case at best.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

The last case I am aware of that Getty actually sued anybody was the Getty v Advernet case which they won by default by bankrupting Advernet so they could no longer defend themselves but received no money because of issues with registration on all 35 images.

However I would say, at least here in the US that they are one of the most sued companies. Back when they were a publicly traded company they were sued by their stockholders because Jonathan Klein and top brass were backdating stock options to line their pockets with company funds, they have been sued by their contributors in a class-action lawsuit for once having signed Getty's exclusive rights contract taking the artists image and marking them down to his little as two dollars. They are currently being sued by Rock Photo selling his photographs without his permission or compensation, they just lost a verdict in the Daniel Morel case where they took his pictures off of Twitter from the Haitian earthquake and started selling them. They just recently lost a trademark infringement lawsuit against Tree Freshener Corporation for selling photographs which contained the little Christmas tree air fresheners in them, and so on and so on.

So perhaps the OP in the other forum was correct in stating that Getty was the most litigious company but on the receiving end. I can only imagine that top level morning meetings must be very interesting in the Getty boardroom where issue one is always….What did we get caught doing now and who was suing us.

[Cliff61]

This is a link to the other site:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?224152-Getty-Images-threatening-us-with-legal-action-over-quarter-of-a-photo

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I rest my case....here's a quote from the very same op, and as suspected it's a photographer, who has problems making money from selling his/her images

"Semantics. I sue people when I identify my images have been stolen - money due to me has been subverted due to the theft on my image for their own purposes. 'Copyright infringement' may be a technical term, but for the owner of the image it is simple theft - and fortunetly - because it IS CI makes it a breeze to prosecute when the money is not paid.

'Harshly' in terms of the original claim by the copyright holder is usually upheld, and Getty (and Corbis) as masters at extracting funds claimed for. It usually is within the corporate environment - but as consumers become publishers, they are finding what the real world has in store.

Strict proof is not required in cases like these. You don;t take a taxi, arrive at the destination then argue the price on the meter. You negotiate if this is possible and agree a price. There will be a published schedule of fees for licencing, and a seperate set for those images NOT licenced prior to usage. If the user does not wish to be fingered, they don;t steal anothers product (whether knowing or unknowingly).

[Couch_Potato]

Getty never sues anyone.

How do I know? You only need to look at their extortion letters. In their letters they only ever mention one case which is Getty vs JA Coles which settled out of court after the summons had been sent so they did initiate proceedings.

That was a victory for Getty only in so much as the company settled. There is no proof they would have got that amount had it gone to court. If they do send a summons your barrister will definitely tell you to settle because they have a legal obligation to tell you that as the costs for fighting in court can be huge.

They never mention any other cases because there are no others.

In the small event there are other cases they obviously didn't end well for Getty otherwise they'd use them in their letters.

[SoylentGreen]

Personally, I'd take advice from somebody that actaully speaks English. lol

S.G.

[richertog]

"In their letters they only ever mention one case which is Getty vs JA Coles which settled out of court after the summons had been sent so they did initiate proceedings."

Do wake up and smell the coffee. The reason you don't hear about cases going to court is because for all their bluster, people know they have no defence and cave in when they get the court summons and realise this is about to get heavy.

If you stole someone's work and got caught, stop squirming and pay up.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

"In their letters they only ever mention one case which is Getty vs JA Coles which settled out of court after the summons had been sent so they did initiate proceedings."

Do wake up and smell the coffee. The reason you don't hear about cases going to court is because for all their bluster, people know they have no defence and cave in when they get the court summons and realise this is about to get heavy.

If you stole someone's work and got caught, stop squirming and pay up.

Possibly one if not the most intelligent posts on the whole ELI forum!