Sued by Getty images

<p>Agence France and Getty guilty to the tune of $1.22 million.</p>

<p>http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2308873/jury-finds-agence-france-presse-getty-images-guilty-of-wilful-copyright-infringement-awards-usd122m-to-photojournalist</p>

<p>Interesting debate. Without addressing the OP post, I will just say I am glad companies like Getty are out there kind of enforcing copyright.</p>

 

<p>Very interesting to hear Getty's defense:<br>

"Throughout the trial, which began on November 13, attorneys for Getty Images and AFP had argued that the distribution of Morel’s images <strong>was not willful infringement but the result of mistakes</strong>."<br>

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2013/11/jury-awards-daniel-morel-1-2-million-in-damages-from-afp-getty-images.html</p>

<p> I'll weigh in on how this probably SHOULD have gone down:<br>

1) Letter from Getty requesting the image be taken down, with information on licensing the image in question and Getty's site information. Notice that billing will occur if image is not taken down.<br>

2) If image not removed, bill sent.<br>

3) Bill ignored, lawsuit filed.</p>

<p>With the initial letter, Getty not only establishes claim, but also quite possibly creates a regular paying customer- this happens more than most people realize. Expanding customer base is in the interest of any business. As complicated as the law has become, we often forget that the average person has LITTLE or NO idea how intellectual property/ rights works. Mistakes happen. Getty is over-reacting in a big way.</p>

<p> Were it me and I was in this position, there would be two lessons learned:<br>

1- Getty has lawyers who file paper.<br>

2- I don't give a rip about paper. Street rules apply. There are lots of people out there who resent corporations and I'm one of them.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Notice that billing will occur if image is not taken down.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>So you're saying that people should be able to take and use images for their business, for as long as it takes for the owner to find them, and then just take them down when caught and incur no cost or penalty?</p>

<p>Wow! So it is the artist's responsibility to only collect fees only when they can catch people using their material? </p>

<p>So based on this premise, we can go ahead and stop paying for movies, music, books, or any other content, for as long as it takes the content creator to catch me? Pretty absurd in my view.</p>

<p>I wish I would be represented by an agency like Getty who goes to sue image robbers and other creeps who have no respect for the hard work of photographers and copyrights.</p>

<p>I wish, because when it happened (and it happens often with microstock and others like Alamy), I was on my own...</p>

<p>So, sorry for what happened to you but well done Getty to go after criminals. </p>

<p>What Getty is doing is not protection, it's extortion. What they are doing is predatory. There will be a massive class action lawsuit against this company, and hopefully it takes them down. Getty knew for years that people were using images illegally but did nothing about it. What they did do was start buying up photo/image sites (and jacking up the prices). Getty realized that they were sitting on a ticking timebomb... by acquiring all of these photo sites... at some point all they had to do was pull the plug on the party and start extorting money from people. I've seen this strategy many times by companies who file tons of patents, and then sit back and wait for some company to infringe on their patents-- but to not take action until the company had achieved success. They would then swoop in and sue the daylights out of them.<br>

Getty is a scumbag company. No offense to the photographers out there, but they are NOT protecting you... they are using you. You are the pawns in their master plan to extort money from dumb people who don't know any better. If someone however is obviously a repeat offender who is obviously and blatantly in violation and refusing to cease and desist-- then Getty has every right. THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE DOING. THEY ARE SCUMBAGS. Are they sharing any of their lawsuit bounty with you? Answer: HELL NO!<br>

Photographers-- you deserve better than this. I think I'll start a legitimate photo site where you are fairly compensated, and where good people with good intentions who make a mistake are treated fairly, and those who don't play by the rules are dealt with accordingly. That is the only way to do it 'right' and ethically. </p>

<p>Ima, why is requiring payment only okay for repeat offenders? We all know that we have no right to steal the images of others.</p>

<p>How does someone that takes some one else's image "with good intentions?" It's stealing. What's good about that?</p>

<p>@Ima - it's obvious you have something against Getty. Getty has always gone after anyone who they catch using their licensed photo illegally. What is wrong with a company protecting what it owns. It is no different from you going to you local Walmart and walking out the door without paying for anything because you claim that you don't agree with Walmart's business practices. It is stealing. You really don't understand ethics, do you?</p>

<p>If you want to start your own site selling images, then go for it. I think that you have a great idea. Why even sell image licenses. You should just let people use your images and if you catch them using it, only then would you need to be "fairly compensated".</p>

<p>Because David and Barry, there are circumstances where some idiot working for a company does something because they are stupid. I've seen it before. I know of a company where they had no idea that a fellow used an image that he found on the web for his blog. The company is a 4-person shop. Upon discovering this (from a letter from Getty), the CEO IMMEDIATELY took it down. But Getty didn't stop there. They pursued legal action against this company. That is BS. The fellow who did it didn't realize that what he did was wrong. Even our police use warnings and fix-it tickets to give people a second chance. Some people do dumb things. Some people don't even realize they're doing dumb things. And yes, ignorance is no excuse, but still, even the police give people a break to help good people learn a lesson and to not violate the law again.<br>

What Getty is doing is PREDATORY. If you can't see that, then you are part of what is wrong with our country (possibly you fellows are attorneys, you work for Getty, or you are politicians who are part of running this poor country that is now going down the drain (no idea why... heh)). And, if by chance you fellows are photographers, I highly doubt that Getty is sharing part of their bounty with you-- the $1,000+ of cash they are extorting from people? Answer... NO. They are just another example of a big bad corporation doing the wrong thing in association with a bunch of ambulance chasers trying to cash in on a quick buck (which by the way I have the utmost respect for-- not (another example of scumbags running our country into the ground)).<br>

Cease and desist (IMMEDIATELY). NEVER do it again. If you do, we will SUE YOU. It's just that simple. Nobody can argue with that. <br>

Fellows... simply follow the money. How much were the Getty Executive's bonuses last year? How much was the CEO's bonus? What percentage of revenue is coming from lawsuits? How much did the attorney's make? And, most importantly, are you fairly compensated for your work? Some of the images I've seen, some of the illustrations-- they are absolutely beautiful-- works of art. Getty doesn't pay you enough for all of your hard work. This is not an example of a corporation fighting the good fight in the name of the photographers. If it were the case, then Getty would GIVE BACK to the photographers-- from all of the MILLIONS they are getting from petty lawsuits and extortion tactics. But do they? NO. <br>

This is simply another example of a corporation taking advantage of others, in the name of a good cause, to line the pockets of the Execs and attorneys (much like what we are witnessing with our politicians and the attorneys using the people of this country to line their pockets these days). <br>

You and I fellows are nothing more than pawns in this game-- but we don't have to be sheeple.</p>

 

<p>Ima, I think you're big on words and short on logic. Getty makes plenty of money from people and companies voluntarily and willingly paying pretty high licensing fees for access to an immense library of images. They're selling mine all around the world, to companies and agencies that I'd never have access to otherwise. I'm sure that the lawsuits supplement income, but it's not a high percentage of their income, given how many times I see the Getty logo on widely published images. They're a go-to resource for many publishing companies and art directors.</p>

<p>People do not innocently steal images, just like they don't innocently steal music. Every teenager knows that it's against the law. You say, "The fellow that did it didn't realize it was wrong", so tell us what planet he's from. How could he not really know he was in the wrong? I'd bet that, if the truth could really be known, he was simply hoping not to get caught.</p>

<p>By the way, Getty doesn't preclude me from selling "products" made from my images, such as prints. For me, they add an income stream, selling to major corporations and advertising agencies around the world that I really have no access to otherwise. With notice, I can take back my rights on a prospective basis. I was afraid they'd be selling my files for next to nothing, but the charges that they collect are substantial (usually hundreds of dollars per image). I'd would like to get a higher percentage, but I don't see a competitor with similar penetration at a higher royalty rate. (I'm willing to try alternatives, if anyone has real suggestions).</p>

<p>I can't respond to absurdity so I am done with this. Wish you the best.</p>

<p>David, the crime was committed by a fellow who had never even blogged before, and didn't know what he was doing. That does happen. <br>

You don't know the truth-- but I do. And what Getty is doing is beyond you, the photographer. Again, follow the money. <br>

I come from a whole family of attorneys and judges... even one who served in the House of Representatives. I know what goes on behind the scenes. I do not agree with any of what they do-- how they use people. The star chamber is real (sadly).<br>

I'm not against Getty services, I'm against the dark part of what they are doing. Absolutely go after the real criminals... but HAMMERS AND NAILS are not the only tools in the tool chest. Everything is not black and white, and there are exceptions. People do legitimately screw up-- albeit stupidly. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right... absolutely... but in certain cases, people are just ignorant. People in this country aren't necessarily getting smarter if you haven't noticed-- when people like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus trump the news. <br>

Newbies who make a MISTAKE should be given a SINGLE pass. What Getty is doing IS EXTORTION. I wonder sometimes if the attorneys aren't playing both sides of this one. Lord knows they do in Washington-- create a problem, create a 'cause', fool the people-- so they can make money from both sides. Only naive people think that doesn't happen.<br>

As for Barry... baaaaa baaaaa. You go Barry. Keep living in the bubble. </p>

<p>Whether Ima Patriot is right or wrong, someone who joins Photo.net under a false name specifically to make a rant of this nature, conducted the way it is, on his/her first day is going to be thought of as simply vindictive. Certainly by me.</p>

<p>David, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. I, like you, am simply using my first amendment right, while it is still afforded us. I simply don't agree with Getty. I don't like what big corporations, attorneys, and politicians do to the people-- how they use people. I believe in the people and I fight everyday against corruption. <br>

Peace. In all seriousness, I wish you my very best.</p>

<p>Thank you Ima. Yes, you have the right to your opinion. Since I have a different opinion, I was merely trying to inject it into the discussion. Peace.</p>

<p>I am a photographer and got one of these demand letters for an image I used on a website and after spending many hours researching and doing a cost analysis I found a solicitor (UK) who took care of everything for me for about 10% of the amount Getty Images wanted.<br>

Since then I have started a website with free information on copyright and tips on the <a href="http://gettyimagesletters.com/professional-solution-how-to-respond/">best way to respond</a> to letters from any photo-library. If you have got one of these letters don't delay (see why on my <a href="http://gettyimagesletters.com/">website</a>) act today.<br>

Meantime just take a deep breath and remember there is a solution.</p>