The real cost of being sued by Getty
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: NotMe on 17 Oct 2009 11:05 � 2 0 0 8 a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d ; n o p o r t i o n o f t h i s p o s t m a y b e u s e d a n y w h e r e e l s e o r a r c h i v e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/N36pVogGGAV7BTSSZRb6MLpFO7SaoPh5DMgY/OBCmMA== X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091016-0, 10/16/2009), Outbound message Cancel-Lock: sha1:1a8jC61s/qHy+O7O7J+VCl2/wR8= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: news.netfront.net alt.www.webmaster:4718 rec.photo.digital:34188 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4ad96280$0$1668$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... : Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: : >Follow-up article on that infringement case which Getty brought to : >court: : >http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty : > : >see also : >http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367 : > : >2000 GBP paid to Getty, 24000 GBP total expense : : A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague. You could say the same of tax evasion, bank fraud, theft of utility and cable service. Long time back the result of stealing chickens, corn or watermelon from a farmers field was a butt load of rock salt from a shot gun. We're very up front with new clients about copyright and trademark. If a client insist on using pinched work product we'll resign the account. End result is first a surprise that anyone would do that and second an eventual call from the former client's attorney about their current copyright problems. Sad part is many attorneys don't have a clue about copyright or how to deal with a formal complaint. There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers
From: Red E. Kilowatt on 17 Oct 2009 12:10 Bob Larter wrote: > Alfred Molon wrote: >> Follow-up article on that infringement case which Getty brought to >> court: >> http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty >> >> see also >> http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367 >> >> 2000 GBP paid to Getty, 24000 GBP total expense > > Frankly, I think they got what they deserved. They stole an image, got > caught, & they paid the price. It would have been a lot cheaper if they had paid the original demand, which wasn't that bad. It only got real expensive for the infringer after they thought they might be able to avoid paying. Once Getty started preparing a case they were determined to make an example out of the infringer. -- Red
From: Ray Fischer on 17 Oct 2009 12:54 Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Ray Fischer >> A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague. > >A good reason not to steal images. When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business with them. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 17 Oct 2009 12:57 Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Alfred Molon wrote: >> Follow-up article on that infringement case which Getty brought to >> court: >> http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty >> >> see also >> http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367 >> >> 2000 GBP paid to Getty, 24000 GBP total expense > >Frankly, I think they got what they deserved. They stole an image, got >caught, & they paid the price. They got off easy. They should have had to forfeit their entire business and turn over any 1st born sons. Right? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Alfred Molon on 17 Oct 2009 14:04
In article <4ad9f727$0$1635$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer says... > But Getty is using photos in order to extort money to pay > lawyers. In my opinion (and that's for the lawyers). That's an absurd accusation. Getty doing its best to generate cash for lawyers? Getty is a huge company and the money they retrieve through these infringement activities is peanuts if compared to their turnover. The real issue is that copyright infringement is rampant in the web and Getty loses a lot of money because people do not pay for their images. Getty is trying to do something about this. And if an infringer refuses to pay the settlement offer, the only way to enforce your rights is to bring the matter to court and for that you need lawyers. -- Alfred Molon |