spruce_parkman

<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>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>What a photographer has to do when Getty Images, the supposed defender of photographers' rights, willfully steals his images. Trial opening in NYC:<br>

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540204/photographer-takes-on-agency-giants-at-copyright-trial</p>

<p>This thread is a stark affirmation of how deeply a certain sector of the photography world really does not wish to reasonably address and face the realities of current technology and media use. It's telling also, that as a photographer I value copyright, and that I never advocated against it in any comments here, but instead was making a case for fairness and common sense in the application of fines. Yet the responses are indignant self-righteous admonishments of moral absolutes. Stealing is stealing! Stealing at Walmart and posting an image in a blog post are morally the same. It seems like misplaced vengeance. The general public, I can speak to, because they have already made abundantly clear what they think of dealing on the consumer side with photographers. </p>

<p>I'm very surprised by the lack of proportionality and fairness. This is an image used in a blog post. There doesn't seem to be any sense of understanding for how the vast majority of people use the internet. There is this absurd discussion about the equivalency of stealing in a store to using someone else's image in a blog post by a general user, not someone who would ever consider licensing an image. Not someone where there would have ever been a sale. Not someone who would regularly license images, which they could do literally, for a few pennies from any microstock site, or for free from a creative commons source.<br>

It's telling of the level of frustration in the industry, that no one has addressed the central issue, of the exorbitant amount, that even considering punitive damages, has no relation whatsoever with reality. Why can no one admit that by any sense of fairness, this is clearly a way for a powerful corporation to go after a soft target for a random amount of money, <em>just because they can</em>?<br>

Why don't they then go after Tumblr? What would happen if Getty images started to sue the millions of Tumblr users individually who's feed is entirely made of other's intellectual property. Each instance for each image could be arbitrarily set at $8000. Why is this not happening? Because the easy pickings are made by abusing a law to go after people who make innocent mistakes. These are blog posts people. How would a billion dollar corporation, on the other hand, respond if its users, the source of its valuation, started being sued, even though the scope and level of their copyright infringement is on a scale exponentially greater than the OP's?<br>

I will tell you the general public that reads this will have an even lower opinion of the value of photographer's work in today's market. They will say, why, they really are intractable. I thought in the old days, there really was a sort of practical reason to hold on to their negatives after a wedding, and charge again for printing, and drive the hard sell for prints and fancy books. I mean, a negative is a physical thing, and printing can be quite difficult to do properly. But photographers still think like this in the digital age. Do you realize how outrageous it is for the general public to pay for a wedding and have a photographer hold the original files hostage? To put crazy restrictions on their use for sharing on social media? To watermark them?<br>

By any sense of fairness, an offense such as using an image in a blog post by the average internet user would require a take down notice if it really bothers you that they're using your image. There are degrees of copyright infringement. But the responses here, about "stealing" and "breaking the law" and the moral equivalency of posting an image from the web in a blog post to stealing from Walmart or a store, really seem to point to a misplaced anger and frustration, a misplaced vindictiveness, a lack of common understanding of how people use thee internet, a lack of proportionality, a lack of a measured response, because I guarantee that a take down letter would be sufficient in 99.9% of these cases, if the interest of Getty would be in protecting photographers and their work.<br>

Do you know that if use a template that you purchased for your website, that the images that were originally legally licensed to whoever created the template, have not been licensed to you? At least, that's my understanding. So most people would change the banner and backgrounds, especially if they're photographers. But it's my understanding that if you use it as is, you could be sued for any random amount. Let's say, how's $8000 for the banner, and $8000 for the background image? "Well, well, I'm so sorry, but stealing is stealing. I don't want to hear it. You didn't know? Who doesn't know? Do you walk into Walmart and steal? This is the same my friend. I have no sympathy for people like you who have ruined the editorial and stock photography business. It's all your fault. And if it isn't, we're still all going to gang up on you, and start calling Getty a defender of photographer's rights."</p>

If this is stealing, then what is a site like Tumblr? It is a curated agglomeration of other people' work. Why isn't basically

every one of the millions of Tumblr users being sued for copyright infringement? Has anyone here noticed what has

happened with the internet and digital technology and the market value of licensing in the last 10 years?

This thread is unfortunately reinforcing all of the negative perceptions held by the general public about the inflated self-

importance and intractability of photographers. No wonder the consumer side of the photography business is in a free fall.

 

We're talking about bloggers with personal websites. There was no sale to be made in the first place. So you don't want

someone who doesn't know any better to use your picture, ask them to take it down. I'm not talking about a major retail

outlet taking a design from a Flickr user and making curtains and window displays without licensing and compensation.

 

Give me a break people. I'm a photographer too, but just because the law allows you to sue a blogger for any arbitrary

sum because they used a picture doesn't make it right. It's good for lawyer's fees and a greedy agency. The law is on the

copyright holder's side. But really? There was no sale here, no loss, ... it's pure greed and bad PR.

I guess then since the market won't sustain editorial photographers then suing bloggers for exorbitant amounts is a

reasonable business plan. Particularly for lawyers and multinational picture agencies.

Even as a photographer, I find the responses disingenuous. These are not fair practices. It's extortion through the use of

the copyright laws, and it hurts photographers. Aren't most of these fees collected going to lawyers? How does it help

photographers' reputation when agencies and individuals go after bloggers with obscure websites for $8000 for an image

in a blog post that a few people have read? Give me a break! That' shy so many consumers who previously had to deal

with photographers are running away. Can you imagine paying for a wedding photographer, and then having said

photographer hold on to the images until you pay again for printing, etc., because the copyright belongs to the

photographer? National magazines pay as little as $200 for a cover image, how in any conceivable way, even with

punitive or sanction intentions, can you justify this sort of legal extortion? Just because it's possible?

It would be interesting to know if the image was rights managed or royalty free. Some images are licensed for pennies or

a few dollars. Also, there are degrees of misuse. Some people and agencies steal images for profit, and reprint them on

merchandise or media, etc. But most of the interned seems to be a curated agglomeration of other people's photographs.

Shouldn't everyone on Pinterest and tumblr be sued then? Plus, isn't editorial use acceptable? I'd like to know what the

licensing structure for that image would be. I don't know all of the circumstances, but this seems like a kind of intimidation

and bullying tactic to scare people who are not media buyers.