SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 22 of 33 FirstFirst ... 1218192021222324252632 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 550 of 808
  1. #526
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by StuckRUs View Post
    If I buy a license for an image from iStock or any other site that sells images I assume I am buying the right to use that image otherwise there's no point in buying it. Are you saying that if I buy from iStock or Getty or wherever else that I'm buying for the fun of it? Or am I supposed to track down the photographer and ask if it's OK for me to buy from iStock?
    As a follow-up, you may also be interested in the following quotes from the Sxc.hu license, since I've seen a lot of people mention Sxc.hu here in the context of design templates (emphasis added):

    You may not use the Image

    * For pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, for spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures.
    * To endorse products and services if it depicts a person.
    * In a way that can give a bad name to SXC or the person(s) depicted on the Image.
    * As part of a trademark, service mark or logo.
    * SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!

    Always ask permission from the photographer if you want to use the Image

    * In website templates that You intend to sell or distribute.
    * For creating printed reproductions that You intend to sell.
    * On "print on demand" items such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, mugs (e.g. on sites like Cafepress), or on any similar mass produced item that would contain the Image in a dominant way.
    From the Sxc.hu license at:

    http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=help&s=8_2

  2. #527
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    With watermarking it is only obvious ON THE AGENCY SITE
    Exactly. That's what I'm saying. The agency site should put the watermark on their previews, not on the licensed image you purchase.

    I'm willing to bet that the people that swipe the images are doing so from the previews, not going and buying one then putting it up for sale. If the previews are watermarked, they are unlikely to want to spend the time with the image in a graphics package removing the watermark.

    In website templates that You intend to sell or distribute.
    Most of us don't do that. We build for a client and we license the image on the client's behalf. It gets used on that site and that site only.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  3. #528
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by StuckRUs View Post
    Exactly. That's what I'm saying. The agency site should put the watermark on their previews, not on the licensed image you purchase.

    I'm willing to bet that the people that swipe the images are doing so from the previews, not going and buying one then putting it up for sale. They are unlikely to want to spend the time with the image in a graphics package removing the watermark.

    Most of us don't do that. We build for a client and we license the image on the client's behalf. It gets used on that site and that site only.
    Questions like this from Yet Another draw this supposition into question.

    How the hell do I find out if there is a copyright or indeed who owns it? Do I have to create a site to show both images and ask the WORLD, (yes, everybody on the internet without exception), if they own copyright?
    This person (and many others) somehow believe that they should have the right to use any photo they stumble across. For example, a photo licensed from an agency and then used on a website will appear in disembodied fashion in a Google Images search, where people routinely troll for images that they use illegally. In such cases the watermark doesn't protect the image at all, since the infringing person stole it from a valid licensee who was displaying it without watermark.

  4. #529
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Google image search clearly states next to each image page that it may be subject to copyright and yes, you're right, people think they won't get caught. The one I have the problem with is the cute little box that pops up in IE when you hover over an image and allows you to grab it. I block that on many of my client sites.

    Please don't think I'm against you in any way, I'm not I'm fully with your right to your own work, I'm just a little concerned that there are people who have done what they believed to be the right thing and are now being told they're going to get sued.

    The computer magazines for example give you a free disk each month with stock images. The mag trumpets that "ON THIS MONTH'S FREE DISK..... fantastic free images for you to do with as you wish. Use them on your web sites, cards.........

    These are supposedly reputable companies supplying you with images. It certainly wouldn't occur to me that they weren't supplying verified stuff. Having said that, the editor I contacted hasn't come back to me so who knows.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  5. #530
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just went and checked the latest issue of one of my monthly magazines. It says,

    A selection of Commercial images for you to slap on your web sites and blogs
    that's it, no other restrictions noted anywhere and it only says it in the magazine, not on the CD.

    Taking images from the web is a no-no and people who do that are asking for trouble and IMHO don't have a leg to stand on. If you've bought from a supposedly reputable stock site, got an image from a disk as above or purchased an expensive web template from a large company such as Template Monster then it's not surprising people are annoyed and I really believe that in those cases Getty should be going after the supplier.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  6. #531
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by StuckRUs View Post
    Please don't think I'm against you in any way, I'm not I'm fully with your right to your own work, I'm just a little concerned that there are people who have done what they believed to be the right thing and are now being told they're going to get sued.
    I'm not against anyone either, I'm just flabbergasted, absolutely flabbergasted at the lack of copyright and rights awareness here, and the degree to which people keep trying to find a way to rationalize just downloading and using images on the sly if the photographer doesn't turn up absolutely immediately at the front door with a bill--and this among people who are supposed to be one of my markets as a photographer. It's beyond scary, and also very frustrating, because I know that there are many of my images out there (licensed) turning up for example on Google Images searches... and now it's rather clear to me that there are a lot of people out there who will be happy to simply take, republish, or resell my copyrighted and not-free images in derivative works or even as works in themselves without offering me an attribution, much less a cent. I expect that from high school teenagers looking to put photos on their cell phones, but not from creative professionals who rely on my work to do their own creative work.

    I'm mixed on people who think they're doing the right thing, but who only pay $1.00 for an image or who get it for free from Sxc.hu. Clearly for a price of $FREE there is little leeway for a place like Sxc.hu to maintain a staff to deal with infringement and rights issues. If someone has submitted a pile of Getty images to Sxc.hu, surely it's not surprising that Sxc.hu doesn' thave the resources to ferret them out, and the license clearly states "SXC cannot be held responsible for any copyright violations, and cannot guarantee the legality of the Images stored in its system. If you want to make sure, always contact the photographers. You use the site and the photos at your own risk!"

    You'll find that the micros are all very careful to say in their license documents that it's your responsibility, not theirs, and they make no guarantees that they have the rights to these images in the first place.

    So while I understand that people thought they were doing the right thing, there are also elements of "too good to be true"-ism at work alongside my inclination to say "you get what you pay for" and for $1.00 (or free) per image, you clearly aren't paying for much, certainly not for legal protection or vigorous vetting and rights awareness by the agencies in question.

  7. #532
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very true but as Getty also own iStock I would have thought they'd check what's on there or at least make sure that their protege is legal. I've never used the others so I have no idea what's on them.

    All I can do is speak for the web designers I know personally who always try to stay on the right side of the law and would never knowingly use something they shouldn't. Like you, their livelihood depends on what they provide to their clients, word of mouth is powerful. If it got out that a client had been sued due to their use of a stolen image then it's the soup kitchen.

    Having said that there are many "web designers" who, as in other professions, are out to make a quick buck and don't care what they do to get it.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  8. #533
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by StuckRUs View Post
    Very true but as Getty also own iStock I would have thought they'd check what's on there or at least make sure that their protege is legal. I've never used the others so I have no idea what's on them.

    All I can do is speak for the web designers I know personally who always try to stay on the right side of the law and would never knowing use something they shouldn't. Like you, their livelihood depends on what they provide to their clients, word of mouth is powerful. If it got out that a client had been sued due to their use of a stolen images then it's the soup kitchen.

    Having said that there are many "web designers" who, as in other professions, are out to make a quick buck and don't care what they do to get it.
    I do agree that iStockPhoto is probably the most "above board" of the micros, and have recently started offering their top photographers Getty (proper) contracts, and I can understand designers needing to keep costs down for smaller clients and use the likes of iStockPhoto or Dreamstime for some work.

    But for someone who uses an Sxc.hu photo at a cost of $FREE or who uses a photo whose source they don't know (and especially for someone who knowingly uses a Getty image without paying up, figuring the use is too small or insignificant for it to matter).... For such people I definitely have no sympathy at all. And even for the people who use lots of $1 images I have mixed feelings, since some amount work on the $1 agencies ends up being stolen--if you check out any of their forums, you'll routinely see threads about people being banned and their "galleries" removed after it was determined that they were earning dollars on someone else's photos or work--it's quite a simple thing for someone to sign up at one $1 agency, "invest" $500 in photos, then re-upload those somewhere else and start earning comissions. The $1 price tag is what makes it an attractive scam.

  9. #534
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ShockedPhoto View Post
    I can understand designers needing to keep costs down for smaller clients and use the likes of iStockPhoto or Dreamstime for some work.
    Yes, a lot of the time we're being undercut by the same people who steal images, their overheads are less. When you go on Ebay and find people selling 10 page web sites, with graphics, for $20 you just know they're cutting corners somewhere.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  10. #535
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not against anyone either, I'm just flabbergasted, absolutely flabbergasted at the lack of copyright and rights awareness here
    You should not be flabbergasted. The Internet actually encourages people to take images. As I said earlier ...

    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 and use them at will? I am not blaming Google here but the whole copyright issue is minimalised by this situation.
    Whilst I know better now, I can remember back to my early days on the Internet. Eveything on the 'net was new to me and when I first saw an image search I assumed that it was OK to use the images that resulted from the search. What could the image search be for if you were not allowed to use the images?

    Regarding the Internet, new people are still coming on board and I'll bet that many of them still think like this. There is not enough emphasis put on copyright by the image searche engines. There should be a notice plastered all over the image search home pages drawing people's attention to this.

  11. #536
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Can people who have been contacted by Getty please continue to post progress reports and/or their actions and/or outcomes, lest we get entirely bogged down in the copyright issue, which (while useful for background) doesn't actually help resolve matters for those who have received a Getty 'invoice' ?

    Thank you.

    Sal.

  12. #537
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, im with Sally. Regardless how the image was 'taken', i am interested in peoples stories and not the copyright issue. I have now been educated enough on the matter.

    YES, i shouldnt have taken the image. YES, i knew about copyright. YES, i was ignorant that i thought if it was such a great deal i would get a cease and desist before a bill. While i fully understand the need for a payment on an image, i admit i made a mistake, but i dont want to have to pay for it with a bill that is so huge that it will bankcrupt my company and require me to look for a new proffesion.

    And YES, UK Trading Standards have advised me not to pay until they can investigate when they return after the new year.
    They told me not to worry, i havent been given a summons or anything so nothing is yet legal.

  13. #538
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Simon stanmore said : -
    Therefore written permission for usage from the copyright holder must be obtained to make use of a photograph legally.

    Please supply either case law or statute to support this statement. (not a link to a photographers random blog/site I mean ACTUAL UK LAW)

    ‘Why steal from Getty?’

    Nobody from what I have read on this forum has stolen anything from getty. I did not even know getty existed 3 years ago

    If I want a Porsche I can... Etc

    Oh how wish getty would take me to court as I can show that I can take exactly the same image with moderate light conditions in 5 seconds. As has been stated before none of the images are ‘quality’ images of famous people etc - in my case they were images of baby clothes.

    Sidra G states:-
    Furthermore individuals don't get to decide that "that these hold NO copyright whatsoever’If an individual takes all reasonable steps to ascertain whether copyright existed then what specific case law or statue says an individual cannot use that image if those steps revealed no copyright existed. If you look at s97 of the Act you refer to in the link you will see the Plaintiff is not entitled to the damages now being sought by getty for innocent infringement. That section was created to protect the public from the deceptive practice of misleading the public that an image was copyright free and then subsequently claiming it is not. It is the Law and I suggest you read it before making any further comments.




    The general theme of ‘every image must have a copyright is flawed for a number of reasons:-
    1. The image maker could have been dead for over 70 years
    2. The issue of what is a ‘photograph’ and what is purely a block of random pixels remains to be tested by the courts.
    3. The image maker could have declared the image to be copyright-free and available for anyone to use freely
    4. There is a subjective test in copyright of how far an image has to change before it can no longer be called a copy. Sometimes a 10% change can alter an image so much it cannot be considered copyright.
    5. The image could have been created by an image-maker in a country not a party to international copyright laws making it a copyright free image

    I could go on and on but you see there are many reasons why an image does not automatically have copyright.

    As for watermarking if Shockedphoto had any understanding of the web-photography industry he would know that watermarks do not have to be displayed with the image - they can be hidden from the eye and embedded in the pixels. The digimarc style software that comes with photoshop allows anyone to see if that watermark is there or not. Getty never used this procedure because they knew they could subsequently profit from catching out millions of web-masters - or at least that’s what they thought.


    Basically what you are saying is that you'd consider this image steal able’

    For anything to be stealable you have to know it belongs to someone else! For the reasons aforesaid there is no way people would know,

    The fact of the matter is the advent of the latest digital cameras and editing software has enabled anyone with less than $5,000 and a few months study to create images to the same quality as getty. You no longer need to invest $100,000 and take a degree course in photography which has resulted in a dramatic drop in the value of photographs. The archaic and greedy Getty photographers know their days are numbered which is why they have embarked on this attempt to frighten every net user to only use their crappy sites before publishing any image.

    Actually, the amounts Getty is asking for is in line with the amount of damages that RIAA was asking when they started going after people who were illegally downloading music.’

    What the general public has to understand is that Music and movies are a totally different issue, both practically and legally. Animation files clearly identify the author in its first few lines of script, whereas an image has no such identification. Animation and sound files have to be ‘downloaded’ whereas images can be viewed by an internet browser without technically downloading it. Moreover films and music all contain copyright warnings and symbols - now I wonder why that is??!!!
    There is no comparison.
    sally

  14. #539
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i agree with sally23 however the issue of images on the web is one that needs to be examined in more detail.
    Action is required on the part of the web user to view Music and movies whereas images like text require no such action. However most browsers download an image and store it in its cache folder. How many web-users would know that the second they look at gettys site those images have been stored in their computer (IE or firefox cache folders). For that reason it is ridiculous to claim copyright infringement on images posted on the web because they are automatically COPIED by everyone who views the image on the web. Its a bit like offerring free chocolates from a dish in a shopping mall. As soon as the person has eaten them then getty say you owe them for the price of the chocalates X 4 because you have stolen them. Ownership of that image they claim remains vested in them however they invite you to look at that image and they know it will be automatically downloaded into your computer so i would argue that image should be and can be treated like unsolicited mail i.e. its yours to keep. The correct and proper way to protect online images is to make them only viewable if a web-user beforehand signs a license/agreement.

    This forum has already dealt with the distinction of theft from innocent infringement so please stop feeding the trolls such as 'infringed'.
    It takes less than a second to create a digital photo so $1 is about the true market price. Ok there a few good quality ones on getty's site however since China is one of the strongest and richest economies in the world, the true market value of those images is the price they sell them for in China i.e $25.

  15. #540
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sally23 View Post
    Simon stanmore said : -
    Therefore written permission for usage from the copyright holder must be obtained to make use of a photograph legally.

    Please supply either case law or statute to support this statement. (not a link to a photographers random blog/site I mean ACTUAL UK LAW)
    ‘Why steal from Getty?’

    Nobody from what I have read on this forum has stolen anything from getty. I did not even know getty existed 3 years ago.
    So simply because you don't know a photographer or an agency then by definition it's okay for you to use their work in any way you want without paying? This is not only a thin argument, it's truly bizarre. "I couldn't possibly have stolen his car, your honor, since I don't know him. I simply appropriated a car across which I innocently came in the normal course of my daily activities."

    If I want a Porsche I can... Etc

    Oh how wish getty would take me to court as I can show that I can take exactly the same image with moderate light conditions in 5 seconds. As has been stated before none of the images are ‘quality’ images of famous people etc - in my case they were images of baby clothes.
    This is also a legal non-argument. You can also easily grow your own vegetables. That does not mean that you are free to take the vegetables that you find in someone else's field, or on someone else's shelves. Maybe you could have taken the photo in 5 seconds, but you didn't and someone else did and as a result, they held the copyright to that image and not you. Your distaste for the law does not change it.

    Sidra G states:-
    Furthermore individuals don't get to decide that "that these hold NO copyright whatsoever’If an individual takes all reasonable steps to ascertain whether copyright existed then what specific case law or statue says an individual cannot use that image if those steps revealed no copyright existed. If you look at s97 of the Act you refer to in the link you will see the Plaintiff is not entitled to the damages now being sought by getty for innocent infringement. That section was created to protect the public from the deceptive practice of misleading the public that an image was copyright free and then subsequently claiming it is not. It is the Law and I suggest you read it before making any further comments.
    Innocent infringement does not mean whatever you wish it to mean. Note section 4 of the UK Copyright Law fact sheet (http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/co...copyright_law), issued by the UK Copyright Service:

    "Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work."

    As well as section 7:

    "It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:

    Copy the work.
    Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
    Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
    Adapt the work."

    The general theme of ‘every image must have a copyright is flawed for a number of reasons:-
    1. The image maker could have been dead for over 70 years
    Easily determinable by the subject of the photo and the quality of the photograph. Is it a black and white photo showing apparel in '20s fashion? If not, then you hardly have a leg to stand on here.

    2. The issue of what is a ‘photograph’ and what is purely a block of random pixels remains to be tested by the courts.
    And a film photo is just a collection of chemicals on tree pulp, and a novel is just an accumulation of ink on that same pulp, and a vocal performance is just air moving across a vibrating structure of carbon-based matter. Copyright does not concern itself with the physics of the medium per se. Copyright instead concerns itself with precisely the organization of those pixels. That is the point. That someone has organized said pixels (or chemicals, or air currents) and that organization is an original work, protected under law.

    3. The image maker could have declared the image to be copyright-free and available for anyone to use freely
    See section 7 above. It does not say "you are free to use the image unless its owner finds you and denies you consent." It instead says that it is an offense to copy, broadcast, show, derive, etc. the work without consent. And the notion that this consent should be written is simply due to the fact that written consent is much more likely to hold up in court in the advent of a dispute.

    4. There is a subjective test in copyright of how far an image has to change before it can no longer be called a copy. Sometimes a 10% change can alter an image so much it cannot be considered copyright.
    On this point you are completely mistaken. Derivative works to not obviate copyright. Again, please see section 7 above. It is an offense to "adapt" the work without permission.

    5. The image could have been created by an image-maker in a country not a party to international copyright laws making it a copyright free image.
    But it wasn't. By your argument copyright is eliminated entirely since any work (even if the author has placed a copyright symbol on it) "could" have been created in one of those few nations not signatory to Berne in which case complete, unfettered use by anyone could simply be filed under "innocent infringement."

    I could go on and on but you see there are many reasons why an image does not automatically have copyright.
    But you haven't given any of them.

    As for watermarking if Shockedphoto had any understanding of the web-photography industry he would know that watermarks do not have to be displayed with the image - they can be hidden from the eye and embedded in the pixels. The digimarc style software that comes with photoshop allows anyone to see if that watermark is there or not. Getty never used this procedure because they knew they could subsequently profit from catching out millions of web-masters - or at least that’s what they thought.
    Watermarking in-data degrades the image; you don't get that storage for free, you get it by altering the values of the pixels themselves. Watermarking in non-image data structures (i.e. IPTC or equivalent attachments) is easily removable. And again, the point is that I do not want to see the precedent set that any image not watermarked is free for the taking because then thieves like you will immediately make the "orphaned works" claim that all of the images out there already are free for the taking, since they are not watermarked. There are decades and decades of works in the public arena already that are not watermarked, and if we foster the notion that watermark is identical to copyright, these works will be stolen by the likes of you immediately and unceasingly. They will lose all of their value. And of course there is also the fact that not every copyrightable work is a digital photo and can be watermarked in this way.

    Basically what you are saying is that you'd consider this image steal able’

    For anything to be stealable you have to know it belongs to someone else! For the reasons aforesaid there is no way people would know,
    Once again you make this rationalization. Digital photos are no different from cars in this regard. You know that the photo did not belong to you. That is all you need to know. You don't need to know to whom it actually belongs to know that it is not yours to take. This is simple property law, one doesn't even need to get as modern as copyright law. Simply not knowing whether something is claimed, or by whom it is claimed, does not make it yours, no matter how much you wish this was the case.

    The fact of the matter is the advent of the latest digital cameras and editing software has enabled anyone with less than $5,000 and a few months study to create images to the same quality as getty.
    Absolutely. And when such a person acquires such equipment and produces such images, they are immediately protected by copyright and you can't simply take them. The "but I could have done that!" argument is specious. You didn't do that, you chose to steal what you think is so easily done from someone else who was selling their work.

    Actually, the amounts Getty is asking for is in line with the amount of damages that RIAA was asking when they started going after people who were illegally downloading music.’

    What the general public has to understand is that Music and movies are a totally different issue, both practically and legally. Animation files clearly identify the author in its first few lines of script, whereas an image has no such identification. Animation and sound files have to be ‘downloaded’ whereas images can be viewed by an internet browser without technically downloading it. Moreover films and music all contain copyright warnings and symbols - now I wonder why that is??!!!
    There is no comparison.
    You show me an MP3 file on a file sharing sit ethat contains a copyright warning or symbol. There are none. You show me a major studio animation or TV clip on YouTube that displays a copyright symbol. There are none. That does nothing to change the fact that the material is protected by copyright. You seem to mistakenly hold the opinion that innocent infringement will protect you, but if you read the seconds of the statute that you quote yourself you will find that all claims of innocent infringement are predicated on the "had no reason to believe" clause. You clearly have in all of these cases (whether a photo found online or an animation or song downloaded from the 'net) that clear and sound [b]reason[/] to believe that they are copyrighted, and that reason is that the vast majority of produced works remain protected by copyright and you had no evidence to the contrary in this case. The simple absence of a copyright symbol helps you not.

    In short, you're a thief and you're not embarrassed by it at all. Hopefully you learn your lesson when you end up paying.

  16. #541
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=Sally23;3222575]Simon stanmore said : -
    Therefore written permission for usage from the copyright holder must be obtained to make use of a photograph legally.

    Please supply either case law or statute to support this statement. (not a link to a photographers random blog/site I mean ACTUAL UK LAW)


    http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/co..._copyright_law

    Specifically...

    "7. Restricted acts
    It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
    Copy the work.
    Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
    Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
    Adapt the work."

    For all practical purposes consent of the owner means in writing. UK commercial photographers usually call such a written permission a 'License to Use'.


    ‘Why steal from Getty?’

    Nobody from what I have read on this forum has stolen anything from getty. I did not even know getty existed 3 years ago


    This is irrelevent (to the law). You cannot legally use any photgraph (or image) that you did not take/create yourself without written (or recorded verbal) permission from its copyright holder (usually the creator). It really is this simple. The billions of images on the Web - Unless you have written (or recorded verbal) permission from the owner on the image, or it was taken a *very* long time ago - You cannot use them legally.


    If I want a Porsche I can... Etc

    Oh how wish getty would take me to court as I can show that I can take exactly the same image with moderate light conditions in 5 seconds. As has been stated before none of the images are ‘quality’ images of famous people etc - in my case they were images of baby clothes.


    Subject matter is irrelevant to copyright law. A photograph of a single white fluffy cloud in a big blue sky is under exactly the same 'protection' as a production involving a bevy of glamourous models on a yacht in the Bahamas
    --
    Simon

  17. #542
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's also an offence to expose oneself in public, and fortunately, most of us are aware of that. Life is good!

    Happy new year!!!!!

  18. #543
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For all of you smug photographer guys, who continue to tell us how evil we all are, lets just assume that we are not disputing that copyright law exists. Let's assume that we admitted that we used the images then let's for a moment consider the real issue, which is Goliath companies trying to impose extortionate penalties on little guys like us. If what they are doing is legal then it is only by a hairsbreadth.

    For those of you who are so fond of quoting the copyright laws let's quote another from the same source as above, http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/co...t_infringement. This is the action they recommend when copyright is infringed.

    "The copyright infringement fact sheet outlines suggested procedure to follow in the event that your work is infringed.

    4. Contact the infringer

    The first step is to make the infringer aware of your objection and put forward a reasonable settlement and time scale to reach the settlement.

    In your letter you should include:

    • The words ‘without prejudice’ at the start of the letter.

    • The name of the work(s) you are objecting to.

    • The reason why this is an infringement, i.e. an unauthorised copy, adaptation etc.

    • State that you believe this act constitutes an infringement. That your work is protected under law and that this constitutes a breach of your legal rights.

    • State that this is unacceptable and must stop.

    • State what action is required to resolve the dispute, usually you would request the withdrawal of all copies of the work, (and any other encroaching materials).

    • Specify a deadline for your conditions to be met [28 days is the normal period].

    • State that you are seeking legal advice and that the case will be pursued if they do not comply with your request within the time period.

    It is normal to simply request the withdrawal of all infringing work as the first course of action, if however you believe that you are entitled to financial remuneration, such as damages or royalties, then contact a solicitor immediately".
    For those of you who say that there can be no question that copyright exists I'll quote again from the section 97 of the UK Copyright Act ...

    "Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy".

    Forgetting your personal opinions this clearly illustrates that the statute accepts that there can be situations when people do not know that copyright exists. I would suggest that just such a situation would be when they were given the image or bought it in good faith from another source. Once again I am not a lawyer but I doubt that there is any judge in the UK who would penalise someone in this situation.

    The question of the amount of additional damages and/or royalties is to be set by the court in accordance with, "(a) the flagrancy of the infringement, and (b) any benefit accruing to the defendant by reason of the infringement".

    What you see above is the law, not just an opinion. If Getty and Corbis take anyone to court they would have to satisfy the court of the flagrancy of the offence and the benefit accrued. In my case I used a small digital icon to illustrate a link between two pages on my website. There was nothing flagrant about this and no benefit was gained. I cannot see how they would ever be able to satisfy a court otherwise.

    Reiterating what was said earlier in the thread this is most probably the reason they do yet appear to have taken court action against anyone. If they do and they lose they can forget about any further extortionate claims.


    Can people who have been contacted by Getty please continue to post progress reports and/or their actions and/or outcomes, lest we get entirely bogged down in the copyright issue, which (while useful for background) doesn't actually help resolve matters for those who have received a Getty 'invoice' ?
    I agree 100% with SallyM on this. Let's forget about the morals of copyright infringement and arguments with those who are only here to gloat on other people's misfortune. Let's have the facts on the progress of your cases and do not waste time responding to the lectures and jibes from these people who are not involved.

  19. #544
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For all of you smug photographer guys, who continue to tell us how evil we all are, lets just assume that we are not disputing that copyright law exists. Let's assume that we admitted that we used the images then let's for a moment consider the real issue, which is Goliath companies trying to impose extortionate penalties on little guys like us. If what they are doing is legal then it is only by a hairsbreadth.

    Sorry if it comes accross as 'smug', that's genuinely not the intention. Moving on...

    For those of you who say that there can be no question that copyright exists I'll quote again from the section 97 of the UK Copyright Act ...

    "Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy".

    Forgetting your personal opinions this clearly illustrates that the statute accepts that there can be situations when people do not know that copyright exists. I would suggest that just such a situation would be when they were given the image or bought it in good faith from another source. Once again I am not a lawyer but I doubt that there is any judge in the UK who would penalise someone in this situation.


    I wouldn't be surprised that if, for example, the breach of copyright was the result of a freebie CD-Rom that came with a mag you would be OK. You would need to produce the CD and it would have to be free from any notice such as "Permission is NOT granted for this content to be used for commercial purposes."

    The question of the amount of additional damages and/or royalties is to be set by the court in accordance with, "(a) the flagrancy of the infringement, and (b) any benefit accruing to the defendant by reason of the infringement".

    What you see above is the law, not just an opinion. If Getty and Corbis take anyone to court they would have to satisfy the court of the flagrancy of the offence and the benefit accrued. In my case I used a small digital icon to illustrate a link between two pages on my website. There was nothing flagrant about this and no benefit was gained. I cannot see how they would ever be able to satisfy a court otherwise.


    The court may take the POV that the benefit acrued to the defendent is the cost they avoided by not licensing the image. AFAIK Getty has not yet begun to use Picscout to find royalty free infringements, just rights managed ones. An example of rights managed pricing for Web use from Getty Images is...

    Licence details

    Use: Web - Corporate or Promotional Site
    Size: Medium - Up to 300x250 pixels
    Placement: Home page
    Start date: 1 Jan 2007
    End date: 1 Jan 2008
    Territory: United Kingdom
    Industry: Fashion / Textiles
    Exclusivity: No Exclusivity

    Contact us for exclusivity

    Price: £ 1,015.00 GBP

    So that's approx. $2000 for as 'typical' Web use for 12 months... Getty's 'demand' of $1000 from offenders could be considered very soft by the courts.

    Reiterating what was said earlier in the thread this is most probably the reason they do yet appear to have taken court action against anyone. If they do and they lose they can forget about any further extortionate claims.

    Rights managed stock images are sometimes licensed for $50,000. In light of this 'extortionate' is a wild inaccuracy, especially considering the law has been broken.

    I agree 100% with SallyM on this. Let's forget about the morals of copyright infringement and arguments with those who are only here to gloat on other people's misfortune. Let's have the facts on the progress of your cases and do not waste time responding to the lectures and jibes from these people who are not involved.

    Again, apologies if this comes across as gloats and jibes. I am just responding to your post with some info which might help put this situation in perspective for you

  20. #545
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The photographers who have been posting need to realize that we see your side very clearly (many of us here are real creatives) - we are sympathetic to the little man - we are only asking you to be.

    Getting into the specifics of how and why Getty is quasi entrapping people via their heavy handed tactics is too tiresome but that is what they are doing nonetheless.

    I support paying a fair rate for good creative work be it an illustration or picture - just as I too would expect to be fairly compensated if I had been contracted to do some work. At the same time, in light of how little the market will allow for a small to medium sized website the idea of paying 1k an image is really not right and a judge in NY would likely recognize this - Getty might get an award but not the absurd amounts they are indicating. If I am a magazine that has real revenue, is accustomed to sourcing images and can afford a higher rate that is one thing but the nature of the sector/business type does have direct bearing on how much that sector will expect a good or service to be valued at. Where availability is higher goods are cheaper and better.

    So if I contract with a photographer to do a small shoot for me I would expect to pay less that 1k for the whole shoot - 3 hours work or so (in Park Slope Brooklyn), not just for one image. Of course if it would be more I would find another photographer who would still be able to do a good job at a lower, reasonable rate - I would not be forced to pay a rate I was totally unaware of, whatever the reason for my ignorance.

    If I have to buy an image from a stock site I would balance how much the image will transform the site, if it is supportive or for layout, as to how much I would be willing to pay for it.

    Again, being that most small to medium sites would be the ones most likely involved in this discussion here and these sites typically cost a client 5k or less, at 1k the images would have to have some super magic power to actually be worth 1k a piece to the "business" or the web designer.

    So on this new day in New York, with our new Governor Eliot, let's look out for the interests of all not just the wealthy, not just those who can afford to protect their interests through nefarious tactics. I don't think the NYC Ombudsmen or our new Governor would appreciate how Getty is actively and electively treating small businesses.

  21. #546
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work
    As asked countless times before what specific Act or case law states this? You have referred to a blog/web-site not LAW!!!!

    You accuse Sally of theft.
    In all cases a third party has come along and said here is an image and you have the right to use it. In sally’s case she did all she could to check whether it was the right thing to do. She even waited a month before publishing it and yet 3 years later a bunch of Israeli crooks and dodgy photographers come along and try to extort thousands of pounds from a single mother. It truly is sad that you hold the law in contempt in supporting these scamsters.

    Digital photos are no different from cars in this regard
    Mmm and there is silly old me thinking registration and engine identification plates are there for decoration.

    ‘Watermarking in-data degrades the image’
    How?!!! It is not contained within the visual layer of the pixels. A digital image is a multi-layered composition and what you see is not what you get. Remember we are talking about digital images not film images.

    ‘You show me an MP3 file on a file sharing sit ethat contains a copyright warning or symbol’http://www.cnetnetworks.com/editorial/copyright.html


    Licence details

    Use: Web - Corporate or Promotional Site
    Size: Medium - Up to 300x250 pixels
    Placement: Home page
    Start date: 1 Jan 2007
    End date: 1 Jan 2008
    Territory: China
    Industry: Fashion / Textiles
    Exclusivity: No Exclusivity

    Contact us for exclusivity

    Price: £ 15.00 GBP

    the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe
    and that reason is that the vast majority of produced works remain protected by copyright and you had no evidence to the contrary in this case. The simple absence of a copyright symbol helps you not.


    On the contrary the absence of a copyright symbol combined with the evidence of acquiring those images from a third party in good faith supports our cliam. Moreover there are millions of images that fall within the public domain because if you look closely at the law e.g. The Copyright Act 1956 deals with published photographs and photographs taken before 1st June 1957; or s 153 and 154 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 those laws could place any number of images in the public domain.

  22. #547
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    BTW shocked photo i found this in your link http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/pr...aphy_copyright

    The purpose of registration is to ensure that you have proper, independently verifiable, evidence of your work. This ensures that if another party steals your photos you have solid evidence to prove your claim.

    Without registration it can be very difficult, and often impossible, to prove your ownership if another person claims the photo belong to them.


    are you able to read that second paragraph or shall i read it for you slowly - it says Without registration it can be very difficult, and often impossible, to prove your ownership if another person claims the photo belong to them

    Getty did not register any of the images they alledge i infringed. Thank you Shocked Photo for giving me another arrow for my bow.

  23. #548
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It wouldn't be Getty who would need to register the images -- it would be the photographer who owns them. Getty is contracted by the photographer to license the images.

  24. #549
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it has been said that i am a theif

    Firstly i have never stolen anything in my life, secondly if i had stolen those images then where are the police? - why have i not been arrested? thirdly since getty and their supporters are in effect saying there is no distinction between the virtual web world and reality then perhaps we should deal with the issue as if it were reality. In the UK if you find an item and ownership cannot be ascertained then the ploice will return it to the finder after a period of about 8 weeks. If you don't beleive me then telephone a police station.

    Also i have spoken to a solicitor who advises me that under the Limitation of Actions Act the plaintiffs must bring a claim within 3 years from when the right of action accrued. This explains why getty are only referring to the last 6 months because THEY KNOW for the vast majority of claims THEY ARE OUT OF TIME
    sally

  25. #550
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    sorry guys i should have said 6 years - not 3 years. (s9. Limitation Act 1980).
    This may still help those who published the alledged infringed images over 6 years ago.
    sally


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
  •