SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 18 of 33 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 808
  1. #426
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Does anyone choose an image then trawl through Getty trying to find it on there?
    No and why the hell should they!! it has reached a ridiculous stage now where according to getty that is exactly what we all should be doing. The more hits they get the higher their web-site profile. In many ways its obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and tantamount to fraud.

    s153-156 of the 1998 Act could also provide a defence if Getty are claiming to be Getty Images News Service (PRC) Ltd (co number 05274208) as they were not incorporated in the uk until 1/11/2004.

    If they are claiming under Getty Images (uk) Ltd i.e the claim letter contained the following:-

    Name & Registered Office:
    GETTY IMAGES LIMITED
    101 BAYHAM STREET
    CAMDEN TOWN
    LONDON
    NW1 0AG
    Company No. 00948785

    .. then it is unlikely you will have s153 defence.

    If the letter of claim is from getty images of 116 Bayham Street then it is effectively from no one with legal identity or capacity to sue in the UK. Mine was, so i have written to them to formally identity themselves in writing as i need to know who is threatening me before i consider it any further.

  2. #427
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Problem is, how do we know the images on iStock aren't copyright?
    Actually, Getty owns IStock. They bought them in February.
    http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswir..._id=1001994651

  3. #428
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Under the 1988 Act

    253.—(1) Where a person threatens another person with proceedings for infringement of design right, a person aggrieved by the threats may bring an action against him claiming—
    (a) a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable;
    (b) an injunction against the continuance of the threats;
    (c) damages in respect of any loss which he has sustained by the threats

    Because the 'getty letter' was written and sent from gettyimages of 116 bayham street, I think you can sue the 'Sharon' or 'yvette' or 'chloe'. So if you speak to anyone on the phone - insist they give you their full name and try to record the phone conversation. Warn them you are considering proceedings against them personally. ( a pleasure denied to me as they have not picked up the phone for 2 days) Gettyimages of 116 Bayham street has no legal identity or legal capacity to sue. The letters they are sending out do not contain the correct details of their registered name, office, or company number. If you can pinpoint and prove whoever you spoke to or whoever wrote to you then you can sue under this section because as they have no legal capacity to own copyright it is therefore legally impossible to infringe the copyright of 'gettyImages of 116 Bayham Street.'


    Before you send money also have a look at the remittance slip - name of the beneficiary is?????-- in mine its Getty Images International Ltd who by virtue of s153 and 154 means the images do not qualify for copyright protection unless the photographer was British.

  4. #429
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SallyM View Post
    So, Getty were aware of your 'infringement' one year ago but continued to let you use the images without issuing any 'cease and desist'? I'd like to see them explain that to the judge!

    Sal.
    I got my cease and desist order, my original bill, and a letter offering a discount all in one envelope a few weeks ago!

  5. #430
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Copyright Tool Will Scan Web For Violations


  6. #431
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    #399, SidraG wrote:

    "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."

    Thanks for injecting some important facts. Unfortunately, delusions seem to rule the discourse at this site. How does the expression go: "No good deed is too small to go unpunished."

    Don't sign off too soon. Even sillier delusions to come:

    #400, the unstoppable silverstall writes:

    "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."

    The shooter has to screw up before incurring any liability, such as putting their name on somebody else's work, or labeling an Non Model Released image as 'Model Released'. This only means something in the context of claims arising out of the agency's distribution; nothing to do with the negligence of others, or your spurious allegations.

    Silverstall goes on:

    "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."

    - You don't know what has an embedded copyright or not. I doubt any of the images alleged to have been infringed here do not have embedded © copyright notices under IPTC info, readable by any Adobe software product, (and most other design/layout/DAM programs (?). Help me out here, SidraG or Booler.)

    - Presence or absence of © notice is irrelevant to the facts of the copyright or it's infringement.

    - It is hardly the shooter's fault if it takes years for the infringement to be discovered. As others have posted, the Picscout and other spider technologies are relatively new, but I am relieved to see effective.

    - When you get around to reading all of 's97' you will see that the court has the discretion to award damages (or more accurately to approve larger settlement amounts, legal & court costs) in excess of 'actual damages'.

    - Ignorance is a foolish defense, given that a 'reasonable person', (only superficially aware of trade practices in web design), would probably expect you to have enough knowledge to expect EVERYTHING to be copyrighted, absent written proof (license) to the contrary.

    - Some here have claimed to have 'searched first'. The Court will want to see proof of what 'due diligence' you exercised.

    Did you, for instance, read the Terms & Conditions for downloading and/or make written inquiries to the site you got the image from?

    Do you have a screen capture of a source site or CD that says 'all images are in the Public Domain and may be copied for any purpose at no charge'?

    How about an agreement with a template provider, certifying that the proper licenses have been obtained and holding you harmless?

    These would be strong mitigating factors and tend to minimize the awards or settlements.

    - For those who have sold copies to third parties, or Photoshopped works containing © copyrighted 'elements', you can expect a much higher settlement amount.

    Challenging Getty or Corbis along the lines of the 'tban method' (Post 338), other 'get Getty' strategies are guaranteed to piss off any court along with proportionately increasing your costs.

    - My layman's read of UK s97 shows it instructing the Court to consider 'the flagrancy of the infringement' in determining appropriate monetary awards. 'Innocence' and 'Guilt' are not binary absolutes. In UK and USA, these are measured variables open to negotiation between plaintiff & defendant, the Court approving; again, IF you ever get to court, (see my last post).

    - In the USA prior-registration with the US Copyright Office (as all your subject images almost certainly are) entitles plaintiff (agency acting on authority of copyright holder) to recovery of legal costs & court fees, AND Statutory Damages, which, again, are on a sliding scale, up to US $150,000.

    In the US, copyright is a federal matter, and any infringement cases must be brought (or challenged) in US Federal Court, and qualified IP Attorneys cost quite a bit more than lesser mortals.

    Don't know who you deal with in UK, if there is the equivalent division of legal jurisdiction. But somehow, I doubt G or C would
    file in 'Small Claims Court'. There's more than the UK Patent Regs to contend with, including the international IP treaties/conventions; not likely within the same jurisdiction as say, real estate disputes.

    #403, Sally23 writes:

    "SidraG
    I find your comments that i am a thief deeply upsetting and disturbing. How could i steal anything from them when i did not know they even existed????? Why have i not been arrested by the police if i am a theif????? Why have you waited 3 years?????
    'No court is going to care about what Getty is accused of doing ' even i know that is a lamentable and pathetic statement from someone who neither cares or understands the issues involved.
    Unlike other posts why don't you support your statements with legal references? or is it because you know you are wrong. You are just like Getty -you have absolutely nothing to back up or support the evil lies you spread."

    How dare you?! This is monstrously unfair and ungrateful of you. SidraG spoke factual truth, however painful you found it. SG understands the issues way better than you do and took the time to instruct you in your hour of need.

    BTW, implementing your 'PHP script' whatever that is, might be interpreted as an effort at concealment, hiding your tracks, and taken as an admission of guilt.

    Before your friends launch their 'Free Getty Images' site, (#409) they might read up on the UK Piracy statutes, which can elevate infringement from civil to the criminal threshold. If they're not broke now, they will be the moment they start giving away images. You've documented your prior knowledge at Post #409, so will likely be named in any possible suite(s) to ensue.

    http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...&page=17&pp=25

    Under certain circumstances, prior knowledge of a crime without acting to prevent it can be an offense itself. I'm sure most of the members of this forum, especially the "so called...unscrupulous photographers", concur with me in declining to be made party to a conspiracy by our silence or failure of due diligence.

    In that there don't appear to be any Moderators at this site, I have, in an abundance of caution copied this post to Getty, in case they are not aware of your plans. A screen-capture is attached. Perhaps they will award me a finder's fee...

    With a little luck, some of my images are included in the Corbis infringements, and I'll be very happy to take a family holiday at your expense.

    Infringed666

  7. #432
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ‘Just because you had the images and couldn't find out who owned them doesn't give you the right to use them.’

    …and your legal authority for that is…?

    ‘This only means something in the context of claims arising out of the agency's distribution’

    And a counterclaim for costs or a claim for damages under s253 against Getty would be a claim arising out of the agency’s distribution of those images – would it not?

    ‘You don't know what has an embedded copyright or not’

    Agreed - most people would not, however copyright laws protect the innocent who cannot find copyright despite making all reasonable enquires – that is why the copyright symbol was born and used in the first place!

    ‘I doubt any of the images alleged to have been infringed here do not have embedded © copyright notices under IPTC info, readable by any Adobe software product’

    This is an important and interesting point. I know ours had not – in fact the opposite – they were embedded with the watermark of the 3rd party who supplied them. A friend of mine yesterday checked some images on Getty’s web-site and none of them had embedded notices, watermarks or any other identification. He had the full suite of tools available in Adobe/digimarc

    'When you get around to reading all of 's97' you will see that the court has the discretion to award damages'

    Subsection (2) specifically deals with flagrancy of the infringement which cannot be established if (as in all our cases) the images in question were removed as soon as notice was received. It also refers to the benefit accruing to the defendant – this is aimed at e.g. reselling images and in most of the cases on this forum no-one gained any benefit

    ‘Ignorance is a foolish defense’
    ..and your legal authority for that is…?

    There's more than the UK Patent Regs to contend with, including the international IP treaties/conventions; not likely within the same jurisdiction as say

    Not to forget all the company law, tax law, fair trading/competition law, limitation of actions acts, European directives etc etc

    Of caution copied this post to Getty
    So you approve of widespread copying without permission – interesting.

  8. #433
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Surely, hiding a watermark within a file is not due diligence? How can they assume everyone would use a tool capable of reading them? I use Fireworks and just tried to see if I could read any hidden watermarks in the images like the ones I'm being target after. I couldn't find anywhere in the application how to see something that I didn't even know existed.

  9. #434
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Before your friends launch their 'Free Getty Images' site, (#409) they might read up on the UK Piracy statutes,'

    Lol – IF these guys are based in China or Thailand I am pretty sure they would laugh as much as the solicitors I recently showed Gettys scam letter to.

    Excuse me but where did I state or imply they were my ‘friends’

    ‘You've documented your prior knowledge’

    Sorry where did i say they were about to do it? You are just like getty – making false and libellous allegations

    ‘BTW, implementing your 'PHP script' whatever that is, might be interpreted as an effort at concealment to me that suggests'

    actually its a method of preventing HACKING which is the activity picscout are currently engaged in.


    The advent of the digital camera combined with photoshop, has made a lot of people realize just how easy photography is. With a little time and effort anyone can produce better quality images than Getty and their so called professional photographers, who have been ripping us all off for decades. That is why the days of GettyImages and the likes of you are thankfully soon to be destined to the rubbish bin –and good riddance. Your last little effort at trying to extort money out of honest people is failing. A new breed of photographers who are prepared to work at normal semi-skilled hourly rates of £6- £15 are taking over – and best of luck to them - for they know that the egostiscal, overpaid and underskilled ‘shooters’ are on their way out.
    I now really hope they (whoever ‘they’ are) take me to court as I will show the judge that I can take exactly the same picture I am accused of stealing in about 4 seconds. Do you think £1,300 for 4 seconds work will be considered fair by the court?

    'With a little luck, some of my images are included '

    unless you can show all on this forum those images it will be treated as a sad, pathetic and attention seeking LIE.
    sally

  10. #435
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    We're getting back to slagging each other off, which does no good at all. Why not stick to the facts. Infringed666 you would perhaps be better somewhere else rather than in here gloating at other people's misfortune.

    With a little time and effort anyone can produce better quality images than Getty and their so called professional photographers, who have been ripping us all off for decades.
    Sally, I am in the same boat as you (with Corbis) but this is just not true. To say that anyone can do better than a professional photographer just does not make sense.

    Lets get back on topic.

  11. #436
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Booler,
    i was referring to Gettys' professional photographers and not professional photographers in general. The point is they are simply ripping people off.

    does anyone know where or how to find out the date these images were created?
    sally

  12. #437
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Infringed666 View Post
    With a little luck, some of my images are included in the Corbis infringements, and I'll be very happy to take a family holiday at your expense.

    Infringed666
    I really dont understand why you are posting on here. All you seem to want to do is rub peoples noses in the fact that they are in a bad situation. There is no need. You cant make people feel much worse about this. What do you get out of this? This thread is for the purpose of helping the victims of this problem and helping them decide what action to take, not pointing and laughing at their misfortune.

    I can empathise that you as a photographer dont like being infringed and its a fair point. But how can you agree with the level of damages Getty are trying to extort? In some cases people are being billed for more than they earn in six months. How is that fair or reasonable? If Getty were to issue say a £250 fine and say 'take it down or you will be charged £1000 per image', now I would say that would be pretty fair and you can be sure the infringer would now be educated on copyright law and not do it again. Instead Getty are asking for absorbitant amounts, or should I say trying to scare people into paying absorbitant amounts, which they flat out dont have the capability of paying.

    The difference between copyright infringement and 'theft' such as stealing from a shop or not paying in a restaurant is that everyone knows that those are illegal and that they would be doing wrong. Its ingrained at a young age. On the other hand if you pull 100 people off the street and ask them if they think it is illegal to use images they find on google images or similar and could lead to this kind of situation, I would bet that 70-80% would say no.

    Whilst ignorance is not a valid defence in a court of law, in the larger picture what is needed is education on the subject, not trying to ruin people financially as Getty are doing. By doing what Getty are doing, they are only damaging their business and making people more likely to anonymously distribute their images online on purpose as someone said earlier, and less likely to ever purchase from them. If they were to be more reasonable then they could educate people and reduce infringment without creating this bad image for themselves and damaging their customer base.

    Sending housewives and single moms, ma and pa businesses barely turning a profit and similar people these extortionate claims is not a just act and I am sure that most photographers with a conscience would be horrified at the thought that their photos could cause someone serious financial difficulty. Sure maybe they'd want to see a penalty of some kind, but not at this level. Over the last few years I've seen quite a lot of my own work used by other people on the net, and sure it irks somewhat and I've sent emails asking for them to be taken down (in 99% of cases they do so). But it would never occur to me to try and profit from their using my stuff, and if a 3rd party I'd licensed the works to were using them to extort money from people, supposedly on my behalf, I would be flat out disgusted.

    As I said before, its using a bazooka to swat a fly. I mean its seriously feasible that people could be made bankrupt, lose their houses, risk their health or even contemplate suicide over the sums involved in this business.

    While your enjoying your family holiday I hope you think about the poor person who's money you're doing it off the back of (who's probably substantially worse off than you before all this anyway) and what they might be going through. Just remember karma buddy. It'll bite you in the *** one day. One day you'll be in a bad situation yourself and someone will come along and point and laugh at your misfortune just as you are doing now.

  13. #438
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    jimmy21 - great post

    Whilst ignorance of the law is no defence, ignorance of an image being copyrighted is. (s.97) Does the average web-user carry around the whole suite of copyright detection tools with them?

    Gettyimages are claiming outrageous amounts. They are no different to the loan sharks who charge 1000% interest.

    Sally asked how to find out the age of the image. This is extremely annoying for me as well because Getty at this stage are not prepared to divulge all the material facts upon which you can base a defence. The age of the image, the nationality of the image maker, the place the image was taken, is the image maker still alive etc etc are all crucial to any copyright action, and yet Getty will not release this data until after they are forced to in court proceedings.

  14. #439
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If Getty were to issue say a 250 fine and say 'take it down or you will be charged 1000 per image', now I would say that would be pretty fair and you can be sure the infringer would now be educated on copyright law and not do it again.
    This is the most sensible thing I have heard in relation to this situation. Getty and Corbis could have done this, educated people, made some money and preserved their integrity.

    On the other hand if you pull 100 people off the street and ask them if they think it is illegal to use images they find on google images or similar and could lead to this kind of situation, I would bet that 70-80% would say no.
    Exactly! What are people off the street supposed to think when all the main search engines provide an image search to help them find other people's images? When you click on an image found by Google images there is a smalll line of text at the top of the page that says, "Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright". However when the page appears your eye is already starting to look at the main part of the screen and the message can be easily missed.

    I am not saying this is an excuse but what importance are uninformed people supposed to place on copyright when the most popular search engine in the world provides the means to find other people's images? I am not blaming Google here but the whole copyright issue is minimalised by this situation.

    Sure maybe they'd want to see a penalty of some kind, but not at this level.
    It has been said before, but I think most judges would look at this in the same way, which is why no one appears to have been taken to court yet. If someone does get taken to court the result will be published all over the web and if the judge finds in favour of the defendant or greatly reduces the damages payable Getty and Corbis will not have a leg to stand in in future cases. Most people would opt to have their day in court rather than pay up.

    Regarding the whole copyright issue, I write technical articles and my own websites are full of information that I know from the comments that I receive are very useful to people. As a result lots of people worldwide copy my work (and let me tell you that my written work takes much longer to produce than an image!) I use Copyscape to find offenders and when this happens I contact them and ask them to take it down. Most often they do but on some occasions they refuse at first. Approaching their hosting company generally works but I would not dream of sending them a demand for 1000 or more.

  15. #440
    SitePoint Enthusiast Webmaster7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very sorry to hear that Getty bought iStock. I don't like Getty's tactics.
    It's ok to go after the people that infringe on purpose, but if you BOUGHT it from a third party, then some sense should prevail. How could you know? You are scaring honest people, not thieves.

    I work more with another company, and I'm always asking their opinion when I use one of their images, to have a proof that it was approved.

    Really sad to read all this, and other stories. Some known people were also caught by these letters.

    If they were educating people, they would warn before, and honest people would remove them. But they prefer to cash in.

  16. #441
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Booler said .. (regarding 250 fine and say 'take it down) .. "This is the most sensible thing I have heard in relation to this situation. Getty and Corbis could have done this, educated people, made some money and preserved their integrity."

    I agree entirely but, from Getty's perspective, they make far more money the way they are doing it and dang those caught in the middle. They are obviously ruining their integrity but only amongst the 'small-time' operators who, to be fair, wouldn't be paying $$$ for an image anyway. I'd suggest the big corporates are paying and burying the costs and not even considering Getty as extortionists. The 80:20 rule applies - go for the big fish and if a few tiddlers get squashed in the process, that's tough but don't worry about those.

    btw, I agree with keeping the legal-ese/copyright slagging out of this thread and lets stick to the facts as to what people are doing, what outcomes are happending, what steps people are taking (or not taking) and what resolutions are being reached (or not reached).

    Sal.

  17. #442
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think for some of those so-called "tiddlers" then some of the legal information appearing in this thread, which has at times been delivered by competent and appropriately qualified people, may not only be relevant, but essential in their circumstances. So please don't suggest that the information on this thread be limited to steps taken or resolutions reached. It should not, and certainly not on your say so!!!

    I suspect many people, to the extent that they are not in bed with Getty, are keen to read what possible defences could be raised / considered in the event that court action is pursued by Getty.

    While I find Getty merely an obnoxious and somewhat depraved, misguided outfit that will invariably come unstuck with the approach they are currently adopting, others believe they have a right to respond as they do.

    But let's be clear - no court has formally decided in favour of Getty. They do not currently enjoy the right to exact money from unsuspecting people in the manner they are attempting to.

    Why then - I ask - would those people, from whom Getty seeks to extract funds from, not want to consider their legal options??????????????????????????????????

    The answer to this is - don't attempt to limit people options. This thread is open to all to discuss, among other things, what legal options may be available to those fighting Getty with limited funds ( in other words the minnow so envisaged)

  18. #443
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hairybob View Post
    I think for some of those so-called "tiddlers" then some of the legal information appearing in this thread, which has at times been delivered by competent and appropriately qualified people, may not only be relevant, but essential in their circumstances. So please don't suggest that the information on this thread be limited to steps taken or resolutions reached. It should not, and certainly not on your say so!!!

    I suspect many people, to the extent that they are not in bed with Getty, are keen to read what possible defences could be raised / considered in the event that court action is pursued by Getty.

    While I find Getty merely an obnoxious and somewhat depraved, misguided outfit that will invariably come unstuck with the approach they are currently adopting, others believe they have a right to respond as they do.

    But let's be clear - no court has formally decided in favour of Getty. They do not currently enjoy the right to exact money from unsuspecting people in the manner they are attempting to.

    Why then - I ask - would those people, from whom Getty seeks to extract funds from, not want to consider their legal options??????????????????????????????????

    The answer to this is - don't attempt to limit people options. This thread is open to all to discuss, among other things, what legal options may be available to those fighting Getty with limited funds ( in other words the minnow so envisaged)
    hairybob, settle down ... I wasn't suggesting that this thread was solely for the purposes I mentioned ... I only added those to contrast against the slanging that had been taken place. Of course, this threads provides valuable information outside what I mentioned and I wouldn't want to restrict it - I want to encourage it and not get bogged down in slanging!

    Sal

  19. #444
    SitePoint Enthusiast Webmaster7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    With Corbis sueing Template Monster due to this same problem, how can we, that bought their templates, know if we aren't going to be hit next?
    http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswir..._id=1002913964

  20. #445
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  21. #446
    SitePoint Zealot NinjaNoodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, Booler, that's very interesting.

  22. #447
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LATEST UPDATE!

    My problem is with Corbis as opposed to Getty but I thought I would post this here since it seems to a more popular thread and the same situation applies to both companies.

    I just received a second letter from Corbis's lawyers.They note that I didn't respond to their orginal request for payment and they are now saying that I must pay by 2nd January or they will be advising their client to commence legal proceedings against me "without further recourse" to me.

    The "without further recourse" threat was also in the original letter. This has been proven to be untrue now that they have contacted me again.

    I am now being told "we accordingly invite you one last time, etc." They are also using scare tactics by stating that if they instigate proceedings they will be looking for legal costs, which are likely to be "in the region of 5000".

    Earlier in this thread someone suggested that for debts below 5000 legal action must take place through the small claims court where the maximum costs that can be awared are 100. Is the less than 5K rule the law or can they choose to take me to a higher court where higher expenses awards are payable?

    If this is not the case can they be considered to be harassing me?

    I think my next step will be to contact them to tell them that I don't have the money and that they will just have to take me to court. I must admit to being a bit concerned about this now.

    Any suggestions or ideas?

  23. #448
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Booler View Post

    I think my next step will be to contact them to tell them that I don't have the money and that they will just have to take me to court.
    What is the purpose of contacting them? Do you think that they will say "OK, we'll drop it" ?

    My judgement would be that they would see you are worried and press further. I believe that it is the guy/gal who ignores them that stands most chance of having the matter dropped. If, in a worse case scenario, they pursue you legal action, which I very much doubt, there will be plenty of time to contact them and try and reach an agreement.

    Of course, you may wish to contact them to help settle your mind but I'd guess that you will only end up being a bigger target for them. The judgement is whether you wish to open negotiations to pay a percentage of X to settle your mind or park the mind-games in the interim (view them as scandalous extorisionists) and (most likely) end up paying nothing.

    Sal.

  24. #449
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    'can they choose to take me to a higher court where higher expenses awards are payable?'

    My understanding of copyright laws suggest they can take you to a higher court for a claim under 5,000 however they have to justify why they did not simply use the small claims procedure which would be extremely difficult.
    They have to prove copyright vested in them before they can succeed. I do not not know about Corbis however i know Getty Images are on extremely thin ground with proof.
    At the end of the day even if you lose no court should order you to pay the whole amount in one go. Advise the court of your financial circumstances and the court should make an order to pay by installements which cannot be greater than your normal living allowance.
    Don't forget that if you did not know nor had reason to believe those images were copyrighted then Corbis cannot claim damages unless you were for example selling them. Therefore make sure you put together enough evidence to show you acquired them from a 3rd party in good faith.

  25. #450
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Therefore make sure you put together enough evidence to show you acquired them from a 3rd party in good faith.
    Proving this is a problem many of us have. I honestly cannot remember where I got the image.


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
  •