phenomenology Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 That might be an accurate statement for some jurisdictions, though quite likely incorrect world-wide: for clarity, it is better to be specific, especially in this "Business Forum". WW Yes, that's for the US. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 Yes, that's for the US. It’s not really a problem. You submit the registration then you send your demand letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phenomenology Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 It’s not really a problem. You submit the registration then you send your demand letter. How many here have filed a copyright lawsuit? Most often it takes more than sending a demand letter. Very often the defendant will claim it was theirs, it was public domain, or just say "so sue me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 I have: that was one reason why I suggested that when we make statements, we ascribe specifics. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 How many here have filed a copyright lawsuit? Most often it takes more than sending a demand letter. Very often the defendant will claim it was theirs, it was public domain, or just say "so sue me." Actually I have. I was referring only to the early steps. Not having registered earlier is no barrier. You can do it the same day you send your demand letter and the copyright office will catch up by the time you’re thinking about filing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 As mentioned before: Lawyer up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 The OP joined Photo.net on the day his post was made , and has not been on the site at all since early December. You are talking to yourselves I'm afraid. Which is fine if that's what you're content to do. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Parsons Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 The OP joined Photo.net on the day his post was made , and has not been on the site at all since early December. You are talking to yourselves I'm afraid. Which is fine if that's what you're content to do. That may well be so, but the information and advice could be useful to others, on either side of the fence. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaplo-paul Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 Remove the image and/or document the day it was removed. Verify that the lawyer IS from Getty. Contact Getty directly and be conciliatory, then work out a settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 The OP joined Photo.net on the day that post was made, and has not been on the site at all since early December Correct, but thus far, the bulk of the 'new' conversation has been directed to a new member, who revived the original conversation. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgw-photography Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 HI, I got sued by a lawyer without any notice to pay for using a Getty image on my business website. I have used a photo from google that is without any watermark and Still available online. Also, I wanna mention that only a small part of the photo has been used on my website and when I use Google reverse-search on the image "the one that is on my website" nothing will show up on google. What is the best move to do? I need your help, Thanks. I hope they take you for every cent you have. You stole property, it is as simple as that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjboffoli Posted February 6, 2021 Share Posted February 6, 2021 Pinterest is a unique business model. I discussed it with my attorney and the posts there a legally considered the images of the posting members. If you send Pinterest a take-down notice, they'll honor it immediately, but they've been tested in court and found not responsible as the infringer. You probably can't find an attorney to sue them and your likelihood of prevailing is slim. Actually, it's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that gives Pinterest Safeharbor from prosecution. They are not responsible for the infringement of their users so long as they remove those infringements (in a timely manner) when they are reported to them. The thing is, if they don't take them down or miss some of them they can be used for copyright infringement. I should know...I've sued them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 Actually, it's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that gives Pinterest Safeharbor from prosecution. They are not responsible for the infringement of their users so long as they remove those infringements (in a timely manner) when they are reported to them. The thing is, if they don't take them down or miss some of them they can be used for copyright infringement. I should know...I've sued them. Just how late in taking them down would they be liable? Does the law give a time frame? Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 The OP was probably convicted and executed, thus he hasn't been back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Just to clarify, timely Registration of an image entitles the owner to Statutory Damages. You can still sue if the image is not registered, but you'll need to prove damages. Mine have all been settled before going to court. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Parsons Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 The OP was probably convicted and executed, thus he hasn't been back. That's a shame - I'll miss him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloopblop Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 that sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 I think that you should settle and never do something so stupid again. As a Getty photographer, it's interesting to note that Getty has first right to sue whenever my images licensed to Getty are infringed. Guess what they do, they try to get the infringer as a customer. Hence, while my attorney might get me $3,000, Getty gets paid 100-bucks or less and I get 20% of that. To make matters worse, they're prone to sit on an infringement for months and are reluctant to release the right to sue. Anyway, the point is, the photographer's contract with Getty probably does not allow him to sue you directly. If there were a lot of money involved, then I'd suggest contacting Getty to report the photographer and try to reach a settlement through Getty. BTW, stealing a photographer's work and then coming on a photographers' forum to ask how to get away with it shows a high quotient of ignorance. Don't EVER do it again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now