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 18 Oct 2009 23:21 � 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: U2FsdGVkX18BInmrVlEgwlJ93yqpPFYIeH4e6ut0XETgePeuQpwbdQ== X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091018-0, 10/18/2009), Outbound message Cancel-Lock: sha1:DipI5x8IKzXmTyIdsCs20zX4ZUU= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: news.netfront.net alt.www.webmaster:4784 rec.photo.digital:34407 "Ray Fischer" : >> You copied my words without asking permission. You violated copyright. : >> : >> You owe me $1000. : > : >Nope. : : Hypocrite. : : > Your post is public domain. : : Just like Getty's photos. You're either ignorant of the law and due process or you're dumb as a post, likely both. Getty's copyright is REGISTERED, your post is not. Regardless quoting of your post which is much the same as a letter to the editor, comes under fair use doctrine. But since you've clearly demonstrated an lack of understanding of the basics of copyright ...
From: Frank ess on 19 Oct 2009 00:30 Ray Fischer wrote: > Frank ess <frank(a)fshe2fs.com> wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> Frank ess <frank(a)fshe2fs.com> wrote: >>>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>> michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: >>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the >>>>>>> licensable photo isn't ridiculous? >>>>>> >>>>>> Not if they only ever expected to ever catch say 1 in 100 >>>>>> copyright infringers, then no it isn't. >>>>> >>>>> Since when is one person supposed to be responsible for the >>>>> actions of others? >>>> >>>> That's not what he said. >>> >>> Yes it is. >>> >>>> Get a grip. >>> >>> Learn to read. >> >> You're wrong, Ray, > > You'll need something better than just your childish insistence. OK; it doesn't have to be very strong to match putting your fingers in your ears and shouting. (How do you do that and wave your arms at the same time?) What did your therapist say? -- Frank ess
From: Frank ess on 19 Oct 2009 00:37 NotMe wrote: > "Ray Fischer" >>>> You copied my words without asking permission. You violated >>>> copyright. >>>> >>>> You owe me $1000. >>> >>> Nope. >> >> Hypocrite. >> >>> Your post is public domain. >> >> Just like Getty's photos. > > You're either ignorant of the law and due process or you're dumb as > a post, likely both. > > Getty's copyright is REGISTERED, your post is not. Getty's items are probably registered; they do not have to be in order for Getty to hold a copyright on them. > > Regardless quoting of your post which is much the same as a letter > to the editor, comes under fair use doctrine. > > But since you've clearly demonstrated an lack of understanding of > the basics of copyright ... And a thread on Usenet is not the place to gain such an understanding. Where's Rita when you need him? I'd like to suggest you screen your previous posts in this thread for malapropisms. It'll be fun, I promise. -- Frank ess
From: Eric Stevens on 19 Oct 2009 04:18 On 17 Oct 2009 23:17:03 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >>On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief. > >Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable >photo isn't ridiculous? Not when the guy tried to steal it for nothing. You will get it at the right price if you pay the license. Eric Stevens
From: Eric Stevens on 19 Oct 2009 04:19
rOn 18 Oct 2009 07:33:07 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for >>copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically >>for damages plus court cost and legal fees. > >It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive >maliciousness. 'Punitive' is exactly the right word. It's to punish the thief for stealing. Eric Stevens |