#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.
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
