SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 16 of 33 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718192026 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 808
  1. #376
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Get knotted Getty

    I understand your thoughts, but how about we all just tell them to get F'n knotted!

    Getty are just dirty pond scum that are on their way out of business.

    You can't behave the way they are and assume that you have a tomorrow! At least, not on the internet - it doesn't work the way they are behaving. They are stuck in a bricks and mortar mentality!

    Goodbye Getty! You are nothing short of depraved criminals!!!!!!!!! And your time is up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Goodnight! You wont be missed!

  2. #377
    SitePoint Enthusiast Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    ModxVille
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree - and the other possibility is that Getty have accounted in the money they expect to make through intimidation and badgering, thus exagerrating their financial performance. Some corporations do the same except with overvalued pension plans after making an acquisition, the surplus is used to balance the books - so Getty might have come up short and this is their remedy, which would explain why they're prepared to put their reputation at stake .. no company, no reputation worries.

  3. #378
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In the UK, from the 26th April 1999 the Civil Procedure Rules provide that Statements of Truth have to be endorsed on documents when proceedings are issued. Documents to be verified by a Statement of Truth include any proceedings issued in the High Court or County Court.

    See the 4th question here and read what it says.
    http://www.thomashiggins.com/contested.html


    So with all the inconsistencies in Getty’s so called case and demand letters, along with the way they are demanding money and threatening you, as has been well documented and pointed out on this forum, if you were Sharon or Chloe or anybody else from the Getty License Compliance Team, would you put your name to that statement and submit to a UK court ??

    Maybe that’s why letters are unsigned and emails have big disclaimers at the bottom and they dump it on dodgy debt collectors who you can legal tell to go away using Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 here in the UK.

  4. #379
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Yes - How about Getty just jamm it up their a s s !!!

    Getty are filth. Let them jamm it up their coits.... don't give them a cent.... no one yet reports having gone to court... besides, that's not what Getty are about!!!!!

    But, I agree with the actions of an earlier post. The internet is very powerful. Put as many links to this forum as you possibly can.

    If we keep going, we'll rank higher for search terms such as "images, getty, dodgy, filthy, manky, a holes, corrupt, m f ' n, scum sucking, pigs, dirt images, porky, dirty, scumbags" than Getty cuurently does. And, as you'd expect, they rank fairly highly with these search terms.

    Get close to their audience and we win!!!!!!!!!! Having no future cash folws really stuffs a business up! Spread the message however you can - let's collectively bring these dung beetles to their knees. Getty are p e ni s es.... As a group, let's let them know it!!!!!!!

    Believe me, it's possible - let's do it!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. #380
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wouldn't it be exciting to ruin their business - merely by highlighting their lack of ethics!!!!!! Bring them DOWN !!!!!!

    It can happen - it's possible with a concerted group effort.... I encourage everyone to help, and rally, for each other against these filthy maggots....

  6. #381
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    With respect, can't we just stick to the facts?

    All of this derogatory stuff does not contribute much to the discussion. All it does is make an already complex thread harder to follow.

  7. #382
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well Said

  8. #383
    SitePoint Enthusiast Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    ModxVille
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Has anyone got a court hearing date yet, or a summons ?

  9. #384
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yeah, lets stick to peoples stories. I for one have read the entire thread but have yet to see anyone post about a "sucessful" conclusion. Has anyone got any stories/facts about Getty simply "letting you off the hook"? As lets face it, thats what we are all hoping for.

    Oh, and still no return call from Getty, 18 days after the lady said she would "have to see her boss" and get back to me at this time tommorrow.

  10. #385
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,478
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Usually in situations like this "let me talk to my boss; I'll get back to you tomorrow" means that they know they screwed up, and their legal department is already having to change their pants. Usually.

  11. #386
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Aploogies - my passionate distaste for these people is making me somewhat unrestrained. I will control my posts in the future. Sorry if I offended - didn't mean to!!!!

    The whole thing is just making me mad angry though....

  12. #387
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's not about causing offence Hairybob. I have actually been billed for £2385 by Corbis, not Getty and I am worried about this. I have read through this excellent but complex thread twice now and "non contributory" comments just make the job that wee bit harder.

    I understand how you feel but it's best that we stick to the facts.

  13. #388
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tban View Post
    Great post HairyBob, thanks! (POST #338)

    Does anyone know of anymore archive sites apart from archive.org? I've already removed content from the site - but don't know of anymore sites.

    My question is - all the "proof" they seem to have is a paper screenshot of the website at the time of infringement. That seems to me that it could easily be dismissed since it doesnt really take much skills to be able to manipulate a screenshot in photoshop or to fabricate evidence. Surely any judge could understand that? I could take a screenshot of any website and superimpose any picture I wanted onto it and then claim that website stole my picture. Are they seriously going to walk into court with a piece of paper as evidence as the only proof of the infringement? I'm thinking of producing a "screenshot" of Getty.com with my product photographs and printing it off and taking that with me. This will show how easily they could have manipulated screenshots to their advantage and hopefully will dismiss their evidence. I also will do a screenshot of my current website and say this was the website at the time of the alleged infridgment

    The other question I have is - one of the images came from a "free" website template I got from a template provider website. Now although G claims that it's the end user's responsiblity to licence the image, since they dont put any copyright information on the image itself, how is one realistically supposed to identify the copyright party? Of all the images on the internet and all the websites, how do we know the image came from Getty and not Granny Smith down the street? They make no attempt to protect the images or to have any watermark to identify it's origin.

    I have a screenshot of the template site I got the image from. However I dont know whether it's better to go the "I dont know what you're talking about - that image was never on my website" route, or the "it was, but I got it from a free website template provider" route.

    Any thoughts gratefully received

    Thanks
    Now let me see if I can follow you here. First you want to accuse Getty and Picscout of fraudulently fabricating evidence against you; falsely denying having used the image(s). Then you want to perjure yourself again by offering a current screenshot (deliberately back-dated) and falsely swear that it has always been so and untampered.

    Right so far? Some things to consider. In challenging their evidence you will already have perjured yourself and it will be your burden of proof that their evidence is fraudulent. Failing to do so will not relieve you of the judge's displeasure, or the civil and criminal consequences, MHO.

    You're like the famous lawyer who argues: "First I will prove that my client never borrowed the vase. Secondly, I will prove that the vase was broken when it was borrowed. Thirdly, I will prove that it was in perfect condition when it was returned."

    This is all assuming you even get to court, which is very improbable, and assuming an attorney would let you, once you hired one. Attorneys are officers of the court, and dare not proffer false evidence or testimony. If you were dumb enough to get that far, you'd be in far deeper guano than you are now. (My imperfect lay understanding).

    It's noteworthy that you are obviously willing to perjure yourself if you can even post and ponder these questions. Truth seems to have no value in your calculus apart from a possible tactical advantage. So much for your sense of ethics.

    A week later, and umpteen more posts, I'm the first to remark your novel approach, so apparently nobody else considers dishonesty any big deal either. Does this forum have no standards?

    Some of this stuff is pretty funny, I'll say that. The Grand Prize goes to the bit about Getty's sites not being "accessible to disabled users."

    #373: "... completely inaccessible to disabled users. It has 63 verification errors on their image cat index. This means they are wide open for a counterclaim/prosection under current Uk disability discrimination legilastion. [sic]"

    I've never suffered from 'prosection' or 'legilastion' but they sound fairly horrible. I didn't even know there was such thing as 'disabled friendly' sites, but it sounds like a good idea. What would you do; limit everything to monosyllables & smilies? This is the group for such innovation, that's for sure!

    I started out with a certain sympathy towards those whose infringements were caused by unscrupulous acts by template providers, such as the one Corbis just won the judgment against. That sympathy is about worn out as I see the focus here is Escape and Evasion.

    I concur in sticking to the facts. One more to consider is that a standard component of settlement agreements is a clause restricting the parties from disclosing the terms. The most you may be able to say is: "The matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties."

    Another fact: Copyright is vested by law the moment an image is made. It's not Getty's or Corbis' burden of proof, but your's to disprove (or argue 'fair use', which none here have claimed).

    Malicious speech is very ill-advised, particularly if you anticipate negotiating with either Getty or Corbis.*

    Do seek professional, adult advice before adopting any of the 'death-wish' paths offered here or at the Corbis spin-off thread.

    * As competitive pressure mounts we can expect more invoices from Jupiter, Masterfile, et al. As the scope of infringements grows, via the routes we are too familiar with, the financial impact cuts more painfully into the whole distribution food chain, ending with me and my peers. (I'm not with Getty, but probably will be, as they continue to gobble up brands such as iStock).

    A suggestion to the Mod Squad: Merge this and the Corbis Thread. There is now a distinction without a difference in subject.

  14. #389
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    'I didn't even know there was such thing as 'disabled friendly' sites, but it sounds like a good idea'
    so why comment on a subject you clearly have no knowledge or understanding. Pehaps start by reading these 3 links:-
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3117050.stm
    http://www.ecru.co.uk/articles/accessibility.html#q6
    http://www.kms.co.uk/internet/accessibility.asp

    As a disabled person i was completley unable to read gettys site and i still cannot check the validity of their claim - by the time the various institutions and the RNIB finish with Getty they will be lucky to have two dimes to rub together let alone throw spurious claims at small businesses with a view to extorting money out of them.

    The semantics and spelling for me is difficult with speach reader software.

    If you are of the opnion that every single image which is published must first be checked at getty's data banks of thousands of images then you have a fairly distorted and ill advised conception of both moral and legal rights.

    For those in the Uk the fact that Getty charge $25 in China and $2,500 in the Uk for the same image is a violation of s.11(2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and s2(2) of the Competition Act 1998 which makes any such invoice Void as well as imposing Criminal sanctions on both the photographer and getty as they are two distinct parties who:-

    's2(2)

    (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions ..

    (d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage'

    There are at least five other criminal offences currently being committed by getty Images and i am not in the position to divulge details through fear of jepordising those prosecutions. My only hope is that getty will fall in the trap of actually bringing one of these malicious cases to court so as to trigger those prosecutions.

  15. #390
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you're accusing Getty of price fixing, then you need to understand the definition: "Price fixing is an agreement between business competitors selling the same product or service regarding its pricing". Getty can choose to price it's own products any way they choose. There's no other party involved. Same thing with your second statement -- what other trading parties? A customer is not a trading party. Furthermore, you actually have to purchase a product to be a customer -- Getty is after you because you're not a customer.

  16. #391
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [removed by cdn]
    Last edited by cdn; Feb 16, 2007 at 10:47.

  17. #392
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry about the long post, but this is a long thread and I know people have come here looking for support, answers and ideas.

    I also received a letter from Getty in October. I ignored the first one, but felt physically ill every time I thought about it. I consider myself a very honest, conscientious person so being sent this letter has really shaken me up. I inadvertantly posted two thumbnail-size images from Getty as 'placeholders' on a second-level page of my site a couple of years ago during a redesign and had forgotten about the images. It's a 'deeply buried' and little used section of my site.

    After receiving the first letter I immediately removed the images from my site. But the letter states that Getty "will continue to require full payment of the demand presented to settle the matter and avoid further escalation".

    They want to charge me $1,000 per image, with the invoice showing Usage as "Web - Corporate or Promotional site", of which my site is neither (http://www.extremescience.com). I received a second letter stating that;

    "Your failure to make payment immediately will result in escalation to our Legal department and the possibility of legal action being commenced for damages exceeding the amount presently being offered by way of settlement."

    I'm sick and tired of feeling anxious about these horrid letters and harassment so I've taken action. I called the number on the letter over a week ago and no one was there. I left a message asking a question about the fines/fees being assessed and how they came up with those numbers. Also, questioning the assessment of fees based on "Usage" that was out of line with the purpose of my site (content-only, purely informational/educational, no products or services being sold). To date no one has called me back to answer my questions.

    Last night I went on to Getty Images and pulled up both of the images in question, selected the terms, usage, application, and duration for which I had used them (selecting a two-year time period in arrears) and added them to my shopping cart. I then paid for the licenses of the two photos as they had been used on my site. The total - $240 USD.

    I then e-mailed the copy of the license and receipt received from the Getty store to the e-mail address in the letter. I included a letter explaining the nature of the site (non-corporate or promotional), how I felt the fees being assessed were arbitrary and not based on actual usage. I carefully explained that my site is not a profitable venture funded or underwritten by any corporation, business, institution - just myself.

    I closed by stating, "I will acknowledge that these images were used without authorization and license from Getty Images and I apologize for this accidental oversight. I accept responsibility for my actions and offer the attached, purchased licenses and use fees as retribution for the offense."

    I'm not sure what will happen next, but I found this forum thread AFTER I had taken the above measures to ease my conscience. Yes, I'm well aware that Getty has probably taken on this brutal campaign in order to 'generate revenue' for themselves, but I am also aware that the works themselves are from real people who deserve to be compensated for their work.

    I'm hoping, assuming that the fees I paid to properly license these images will go to the photographer(s) and consider it 'late payment'. Any fees above and beyond the licensing for the actual use are ARBITRARY and EXCESSIVE. Getty and their law dogs will be hard-pressed to prove that the 'fines' they have come up with represent any real, actual damages. The $240 USD I paid is all they would be awarded if it ever went to court in the U.S.

    Maybe they'll accept it and move on. I'll be happy if I NEVER hear from them again.

    As for the previous post from Infringed666, yes this forum has standards. I'd like to think that I have morals and standards and will not stoop to threats, epithets and rants to share my story. I certainly feel angry at Getty now, after this whole experience.

    To state, "Furthermore, you actually have to purchase a product to be a customer -- Getty is after you because you're not a customer." is not necessarily the case for me. It is probably also true for a number of 'infringers' who may have received these letters from Getty.

    I regularly purchase images from Getty and have in the past for myself and many of my clients. I've given them a LOT of my business, thousands of dollars worth in the years since I first found them. The infringement I'm guilty of is minor and a cease and desist letter would have sufficed. However, because of the way Getty has strategized and executed this entire debacle - 'attacking' some of their best customers - they will suffer for it. I predict that they are already 'circling the drain' and have orchestrated this campaign to raise funds to rescue a sinking ship. It's smacks of desperation.

    Getty has lost not only my business, but all the potential business of my business network of colleagues and clients. This one may be the straw that breaks that camel's back.
    Last edited by ShakingShoes; Dec 16, 2006 at 23:43. Reason: Link to site wasn't properly coded

  18. #393
    SitePoint Zealot NinjaNoodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Great post, ShakingShoes.

  19. #394
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In response to Infringed666 posting above....

    "You're like the famous lawyer who argues: "First I will prove that my client never borrowed the vase. Secondly, I will prove that the vase was broken when it was borrowed. Thirdly, I will prove that it was in perfect condition when it was returned."

    This is all assuming you even get to court, which is very improbable, and assuming an attorney would let you, once you hired one. Attorneys are officers of the court, and dare not proffer false evidence or testimony. If you were dumb enough to get that far, you'd be in far deeper guano than you are now. (My imperfect lay understanding).""


    There is no reason why the majority of us would need an attorney (lawyer) to go to court. In the UK most cases would be handled (if Getty had the balls to actually take up an action against us) by the accused representing themselves in the Small Claims Court. Any Judge would throw out their outrageous claims for payment as a waste of the Courts time.

    As has been stated many many times in previous threads...

    "under section 97 of the act they say we have broken http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1988...n_7.htm#mdiv97 Most of us can show that we were unaware and “did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates”. Therefore Getty are only entitled to the cost of the image, not damages. i.e. what they are currently selling the image for."

    If I were you Infringed666, I would spend my time telling Getty to take greater care of your copyrighted stuff and watermark it so all can see.

  20. #395
    SitePoint Guru ckita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Truly Asia
    Posts
    733
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I'm sorry i didn't have time to go through the whole thread, but does this apply internationally or just USA and Canada?

    Thanks

  21. #396
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Internationally!

  22. #397
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    SidraG 'There's no other party involved'

    Surely the two parties involved are the photographer and gettyimages. Unless Getty actually shot all those images themselves there are two distinct parties - the image maker and the publisher.
    As for being a customer well in my case Getty raised an invoice which surely makes me a customer. In any event if I buy the image for $10 at Chinese prices - I am a customer.

    Yetanother said 'I would spend my time telling Getty to take greater care of your copyrighted stuff and watermark it so all can see'

    I could not agree more.


    As a single mother i try and support my income from my web-site selling baby clothes. About 2 months ago i received the 'Getty letter' claiming i had used 7 images and demanding £11,481.
    My ex gave me those images 3 years ago - where he got them from i do not know so i checked them out using digimarc, copyscape and every software i could find to see if they were copyrighted as they had no watermark. I waited 4 weeks before i convinced myself they were OK to use - so i published them on my web-site. To be honest i forgot about them as the pages were made when i first started.
    I am told by gettyimages that possession is all that counts and if i pay within 14 days they would give me a 10% discount but if i tried to contest them i would expect to pay over £25,000 in admin and legal fees and because at the moment they were only looking at a period of 6 months and not the 3 years i had them on my site for.
    I do not have any money as my site only makes me about £20 a week. I have two children to support and i am worried sick as to where to get the money from.
    I did not know even know gettyimages existed so how was i suppose to check!!!!!!! I did everything possible at the time to make sure those images were not copyrighted - how was i to know they belonged to someone else???
    I felt suicidal for weeks until i read this forum.
    I really hope those evil *******s are torn apart in court. I for one feel happier since reading this forum because i had no idea about this s.97.
    Getty and its photographers are putting images online for anyone to download without any watermarks or copyright symbol. How the hell are people like me suppose to know it belongs to them. Surely by taking the images off my site that is enough!
    I am not a thief and have never stolen anything in my life. If those images were of Princess Diana or of a football final then of course i would have thought maybe this is not a good idea. In my case they were pretty crap photographs of baby clothes and I checked as much as possible. Anyway why did getty allow those images to stay on my site for 3 years before doing anything!!!!!

    I also followed this forum and checked out the price of those images in getty and in China one of them sells for 6 months for $10 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I feel extremely angry that crappy photographers who cannot make a living from the rubbish they make, try and screw the life savings out of single mothers, blind people and small businesses by using and abusing Copyright laws.

  23. #398
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Excellent replies from Shaking shoes and yetanother.

    Sally you have my full support and sympathy. You are quite right about their being at least two separate parties (possibly 3 when you bring the higher earning photographers agents into the equation). In my opinion these parties appear on the face of it to be engaged in price rigging. The UK motor dealers caught a cold a few years ago for a similar violation however in that case their price differences were NOWHERE NEAR AS EXTREME AS GETTYIAMGES.

    Sally the reason why Getty did not do anything for 3 years is I suspect because until Picscout came on the scene there was no way they could check if their images were being used. Likewise there was no way you or any of us could find out. (In fact I still cannot find out as there are no 'alt' text attributes with any of their images - at the moment I have to rely on what others see for me)

    I respect good photographers and i respect they deserve a living from their art. However those who use gettyimages and know about what is happening have my disdain and utter disrespect for abusing the copryright laws in this manner.

  24. #399
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Getty is protecting the rights of the photographers they represent by going after people who use images without purchasing them. Sally23, whether or not you could find copyright info on the pictures doesn't matter. The point is that copyright law says that the photos belong to the photographer - the photographer in this case gave permission to Getty to sell them. Just because you had the images and couldn't find out who owned them doesn't give you the right to use them. This is not finders keepers, guys! Images or file or articles on the web do not belong to anyone who gets a hold of them. They belong to to those who created them. Eventually, Getty will get around to taking some lucky ones of you to court -- they'll likely start with those for whom they can get even more money out of -- but that neither makes you safe nor right. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Getty is contractually obligated to go after anyone who steals their property, knowingly or not. And, they can charge you for damages, not what you might feel the pictures are worth. Whether a court will award them the damages they seek or not remains to be seen. Sadly, your liability is not in question as much as you think. No court is going to care about what Getty is accused of doing -- they will only deal with the case -- did you use the images without paying or not.

  25. #400
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    SidraG - if you find something and then make every conceivable effort to find its owner without success -what do you? Most people would keep it until the owner turned up and then give it back to them. Which is precisely what people on this forum are doing except that owner is now saying I want all your money and I am taking away your livelihood.
    If the images are of a famous person, event or product or if someone is trying to sell on that image then I agree with you to a certain extent. However in these cases the photographer did not digitally sign or watermark the image and sat back for years before popping up and making an extortionate demand for an image no reasonable person would assume was copyright protected.
    Legally and morally you are completely wrong and I sincerely wish this matter would go to court. Unless you are aware of an issue that we don’t perhaps you could explain what s97 means. Literally it means if you did not know it was copyrighted no damages can be awarded against you. To me it seems fairly clear and unambiguous so unless you know different perhaps you could enlighten me.
    Remember one thing and that is if Getty lose - you the photographer will be liable for costs - not Getty - because if you check your agreements with them you will find a little clause whereby you have to indemnify Getty against all claims, costs and damages arising out of their publication of your images.
    Finally I would be extremely careful about making statements that Getty should go after anyone ‘who steals’ their property. Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
    In these cases there is no ‘permanent’ because everyone removes the images
    There is no ‘intention to deprive’ because no one knows firstly who that ‘other’ is or secondly that it belongs to another
    Finally theft is a criminal offence and from this forum no one has been charged or convicted. So your statement is libelous, defamatory and utterly without foundation.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •