PDA

View Full Version : You couldn't make this up


NutLoose
30th Jul 2016, 20:32
Getty sent a photographer a letter from the agency in December 2015, charging her with copyright infringement for the display of one of her own images on her website. Getty demanded that she pay for the use.
She subsequently discovered that Getty was sending such demand letters to other users of her images that she had made available for free use by the public.. It turns out they have been doing it with thousands of her images.

The shoe is now on the other foot and she is suing Getty for 1 billion dollars for the same copyright infringement.


Photog Seeks $1 Billion from Getty for Copyright Infringement | PDNPulse (http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html)

Good on her.

lomapaseo
30th Jul 2016, 21:04
Getty sent a photographer a letter from the agency in December 2015, charging her with copyright infringement for the display of one of her own images on her website. Getty demanded that she pay for the use.
She subsequently discovered that Getty was sending such demand letters to other users of her images that she had made available for free use by the public.. It turns out they have been doing it with thousands of her images.

The shoe is now on the other foot and she is suing Getty for 1 billion dollars for the same copyright infringement.


DO the other folk that got letters from Getty for publishing her photos have a right to sue Getty for false claims?

If one of us were to review all the Getty images and and discover one of ours had been posted without our permission do we have a right to tripple damages?

ORAC
30th Jul 2016, 21:17
Depends where she published them online - in the early days photographers weren't savvy. The terms and conditions gave the rights to their photos to the site. This goes into the issue of the megapage T&Cs used by such companies - and if they can/will be upheld by the courts or thrown out.

An interesting case to watch - with major ramifications.

NutLoose
30th Jul 2016, 21:23
Highsmith filed suit July 25 in federal court in New York, alleging that Getty and its subsidiaries have been charging fees for the use of her images without her consent. She has been providing the images to the Library of Congress since 1988 for use by the general public at no charge. “The defendants have apparently misappropriated Ms. Highsmith’s generous gift to the American people,” she says in her claim. “[They] are not only unlawfully charging licensing fees…but are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner.” Highsmith says she never abandoned her copyrights to the images. She says the Library of Congress had agreed to notify users of the images that she is the author, and that users must credit her. But Getty has not only distributed her images without her permission, it has failed to give her proper credit, despite the copyright information attached to her images, Highsmith alleges. - See more at: Photog Seeks $1 Billion from Getty for Copyright Infringement | PDNPulse (http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html#sthash.dPIkvH9a.dpuf)

Sounds pretty bulletproof.

vapilot2004
31st Jul 2016, 05:03
Defense attorneys and litigators criticize the tactics of Getty Images and one of their biggest complaints, aside from Getty's infamous bullying stance and demand letters, is how the process is computerized, often with little or no human verification of a suspected violation.

Serves them right!

ORAC
31st Jul 2016, 07:06
Getty's T&Cs. Read the "Exclusivity" paragraph in the header, then section. 1.1.

http://aphotoeditor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-contributor-agreement-v.4.0-d-sample-english.pdf

ExXB
31st Jul 2016, 07:21
Why isn't this theft? And dealing with stolen goods? And extortion? And money laundering?

Why isn't someone going to jail? And as a repeat offender?

Hydromet
31st Jul 2016, 07:23
This can get complicated. I was contracted to make some 'pieces' (I won't be too specific for obvious reasons) for presentation to some dignitaries. At the presentation, the only photography permitted was by a photography company, who were there by arrangement with my client. I don't know who, if anybody, paid whom. When I asked my client if they had any photographs of the presentations, they sent me the photographer's images. I presume that unless it had been specifically agreed that the photographer assign copyright to my client, I should not use the images on my website. Then again, the photographer has made an image of my work, but I suspect that I wouldn't have much luck suing them.

Laarbruch72
31st Jul 2016, 08:03
Why isn't this theft? And dealing with stolen goods? And extortion? And money laundering?

Why isn't someone going to jail? And as a repeat offender?

Because there are legal definitions to those offences including clear points to prove. This fits none of those. This is a copyright issue and is rightly being dealt with as a civil matter.

VP959
31st Jul 2016, 12:18
Copyright is a nightmare now, with the internet and the dumb mindset of many internet users that anything "on" the internet is "free" and can be used as they wish. Coupled with the ease of copying stuff from the web and it becomes near-impossible to try and enforce copyright ownership, unless there is a clear-cut case like this.

I've written scientific papers that have been published in journals, plus a few articles (with photos) that have been published in magazines. In most cases I've retained the copyright to both the text and images, and granted limited publication rights to the publisher.

Despite this, I've found images and papers that are my copyright appearing on websites without my permission. Some websites will take things down on request (Linked in are very good at doing this quickly) some websites refuse point blank to comply, and basically tell you to go to court if you want.

I'm doing battle with an Irish company that are using photos that are my copyright on their website, as advertising for their similar, but different, product. They are refusing to take the photos down, the UK and Irish advertising standards people are so over-loaded with this sort of request that it takes years for anything to happen, and the internet web hosting company (which is in the US) need me to lodge a $100,000 deposit with them to cover the legal fees involved before they will start an investigation into copyright breach on one of their hosted websites..............

People ignore copyright all the time on the web. For example, on any internet forum hosted in the UK, then the copyright of a post, and full legal responsibility for it, rests with the person posting it. They are both copyright holder and publisher in law. Technically, there are only limited rights for others to use such content, excerpts may be copied as a reference, for example, with an attribution (which happens automatically on most forum quote systems). You can't copy a copyrighted image or photo and publish it elsewhere without the copyright holder's consent, nor can you copy content from a post and republish it elsewhere without the copyright holders consent.

When we post here we give a limited licence to the forum owners to use the material, but often that is restricted. For example, if I write an article for a magazine then I will sell them a limited licence to publish. Usually that would be "UK only, single publication", which means if they want to republish it they have to negotiate a new fee with me. I do this because I got caught out many years ago. I sold an article (my first) to a magazine and unwittingly gave them "all rights". This meant that they could (and they did) publish the same article in other magazines they owned in other countries without paying me another fee (or even telling me). I only found out about this when a friend in the US emailed me to say that he'd read an article by me in a magazine there, and I chased up the publisher to find out what had been going on.