I need help with some questions answered about copyright infringement

[andnowimbroke]

I heard it all now. $600 for a road sign anyone could have taken. I read a book by Nancy Wolff (professional photographer's legal handbook). It's actually a decent book and gives you insight as to how the "system" works. I believe this is the book where they talked about taking pictures of the golden gate bridge and some guy tried to copyright it and sue everyone. The judge ruled that anyone and their mother could have taken that shot and there was no artistic skill involved. He lost. Another example had a picture of someone standing infront of a sign/picture (prolly in New York) I believe. That artist/person tried to sue over the copyright he had on the sign. Judge said the sign wasn't the main focus of the picture. He lost. I'm not a professional, but at best, this guy might try and take you to court and get laughed at as you show a snapshot of the 0.3% of the screen he thinks he owns for $600. I think he owes you for the publicity you have given to him. I know if I ever want a shot of a sign post, I'll be knocking on his door. As a side note, most people think that just because they took the picture, it is copyrighted. That doesn't always hold up in court. I think now you have to go to the government website and pay for it. It's only $30 for a crap load of pictures and only takes a few minutes to do. Of course, as seen above, that doesn't always hold up in court either. The book I mentioned...you might want to read pages 126 and 127. Sorry ahead of time for your ordeal. If life was fair, everybody would have one. Best of luck.


Greg

[HDNitehawk]

I wonder if the owner of the graphic that was on the road sign can sue Getty for copyright infringment?


Unfortunatly you are not the one they are going to try and collect from, it is your client or employer you made the web page for. If it is a client I am sure they are looking to you to resolve this.


I wouldn't do anything about until they prove that the picture does belong to them. Your client may see this diffrently.

[HDNitehawk]

I wonder if the owner of the graphic that was on the road sign can sue Getty for copyright infringment?


Unfortunatly you are not the one they are going to try and collect from, it is your client or employer you made the web page for. If it is a client I am sure they are looking to you to resolve this.


I wouldn't do anything about until they prove that the picture does belong to them. Your client may see this diffrently.

[Iguide]

FYI, you should do a bit of digging on the web before even considering paying what they want. Getty is notorious for legal bullying and to my knowledge have never followed through on their legal threats.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Hi IAMB:


Well I'm here to tell you that Getty most certainly does follow through on it's threats. Yes they do bully and in my opinion use rather underhanded tactics to accomplish their goal,, BUT THEY DO PROCEED TO COURT!!! Five years ago I had a new website http://www.northernguideservices.com/index.html designed and built by a nationally know company. It was a successful project that defiantly increased my market share for my business in my area. While it was being built I was pretty active in choosing photos for the site from ones that this company supplied me with. We were told that all of the photos had been taken care of by the building company, and they did as far as we all knew at that time. However it got lost in the translation or fine print or what ever that the ones that were from Getty were only paid for a usage for very limited usage time from the time of when use started. Within one week from the 1yr. anniversary date we received a letter from Getty stating that we owed them $16,000. It went on to say because we were the end user we were the party that was responsible for paying Getty. They also said we had to take down all the pictures or we would need to be paying additional amounts anally for the privilege of using their photos. Needless to say we didn't have the money, we told Getty that and they basically said your tough luck pay us the money or we will sue you for it. Well I was in a wonderful humor after that correspondence so I called the build company told them the situation and basically assured them that if I got sued that I was coming after them for way more money, and that they had better replace the photos from Getty with ones that were of equal value and impact on the perspective clients. When the build company balked a bit about having to redo all of this work for nothing I gave them one chance to make all things right or they would regret their decision. The bottom line was I can be a real Pr*ck if someone wants to cross me, which I let them know in no uncertain terms. Just ask anyone that knows me. They did the rebuild for nothing and it came out great. Every bit as good as the original if not better.


Fast forwarding a smidgen and the build company dragged their feet on negotiating with Getty on our behalf. That was when we got notice that Getty was in fact pushing forward with a suit against us and we did end up in court. I with my attorney, Getty's attorney and the build companies attorney. Things went on for two days in court before the judge encouraged all of the involved parties to try to come to agreement and settle out of court. A week later the final compromise was reached buy all three parties. It broke down that the build firm would pay Getty $4000.00, 25% of what they were asking for the use of the pictures and court and legal fees for all. They really had no choice since if Getty was successful against me I would pile it on to them a lot heavier than what I got.


As far as your situation the good news is that from my experience Getty can be brought to the bargaining table to secure a lesser payment. Which I had and still suspect it their intended goal to begin with, with us and I would suspect is what they use for a strategy on a regular basis.


So don't ever let anyone tell you not to take potential legal threats about copyright infringement seriously. Because in fact they do happen!!! Best of luck with it all.





Godspeed


Wayne














<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden" />
<div id="refHTML"]</div>

[freelanceshots]

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]Thanks for taking your time to write a
reply everybody. We will see what happens as Getty is pursuing the
party rental company for payment because they have more money. I
agree with the fact that I think Getty Images is pursuing this simple
road sign image a little to far, but if your a money grubber that's
what you do. I think that they are just trying to serve as the NAZI
organization of imagery where they want to own the rights to
everything image related. I know a few specific photographers that
cover high profile sports and events from around the US that think
Getty's is killing the photographer market. These freelance
photographers make all their money buy selling their images to
different magazines and new organizations where Getty images has such
a vast resource of photographers willing to turn over their images
for nothing that its making it hard for these guys to compete with
travel expenses added. It kind of sounds like the Walmart fiasco even
though I like shopping at walmart for the most part. The fact is five
years ago I did not have a grasp on all the different areas of
photography matters as I do now. As far as ever doing this again, I
will make sure to only submit my photography no matter how
insignificant I think an image may be.

[barba]

Try not to get too emotional about it. Yes, $600 for a thumbnail isextortion, but $600 won't get you far if you need to hire a lawyer to fight them. Maybe 3 hours.

[andnowimbroke]

So don't ever let anyone tell you not to take potential legal threats about copyright infringement seriously

Wayne is pretty much right on that. It's sad that you can have companies that pirate movies,ect, and majorCorps. can't win in court to close them, but an innocentmistake like this and they are trying to rape ya.

[Daniel Browning]

Getty Images is
claiming that one of the road sign images is/was copyrighted by one of
their photographers and that they are owed 600.00 no questions asked, paid right now.

I think I read that the minimum penalty allowed by law for copyright infringement is $200. Maybe Getty would settle for that amount.

[freelanceshots]

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]Thanks again for the replies folks. I'm
sure the company that I did the website for will just end up paying
the fee as they are really concerned about the additional legal
fees and such that Getty Images could rack up pursuing this matter.
The cost of hiring a local copyright attorney would not be cost
effective as that would most likely cost more then the penalty fee.
The party rental companies lawyer already mentioned in a previous
email to us that he knows nothing about copyright matters and that we
would need to seek specialized help in this matter. On the other hand
If Getty Images would have contacted me directly as my name and
freelance business is directly on the party rental home page, Id
handle it differently. They would have to do many things to prove to
me that they have the rights to this image. They would have to show
written proof when this mystery photographer's image became property
of their company, If the image matches the one that we had listed on
the website, when the image was copyrighted if that was done, show
me the image for sale on their website, fees they charge on their
website for using this image. Id also have them break down the 600
dollar fee they are charging and explain this in greater detail.
Again, the image I downloaded that Getty's is claiming they
own/represent was 180 pixels by 70 pixels. Its so small that if you
where to blow it up to a 4 x 6 print it would be unrecognizable.

[Daniel Browning]

...when the image was copyrighted if that was done...

A minor correction: since all images are automatically copyrighted the instant they are taken, I think what you mean is "...when the image copyright was *registered*, if that was done...". Registration only helps if the authenticity of the ownership of copyright is in question (such as may be the case here).