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: Jerry Stuckle on 17 Oct 2009 14:54 Alfred Molon wrote: > In article <4ad96280$0$1668$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer > says... > >> A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague. > > A good reason not to steal images. Stealing images and posting them on a > publicly accessible site is one of the dumbest things one can do. Very true. Unfortunately, there are too many "webmasters" who either think the: 1) anything on the internet is free for their taking, or 2) if they steal it they won't get caught, or 3) if the get caught, all they have to do is take it down And in this case, one of those "webmaster's" clients got nailed. I think the original demand was very appropriate. They should have just paid it an continued to use the picture. I also think we're going to see more of this, as image theft is getting rampant on the internet. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: NotMe on 17 Oct 2009 15:08 � 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: U2FsdGVkX18nBX4/QYfvlU/gWx3Ad8aiHGKF7pw9kXuf94zb6qqWRA== X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091016-0, 10/16/2009), Outbound message Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZS7WE19gJxnQoxqfacdzK5QDUaY= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: news.netfront.net alt.www.webmaster:4729 rec.photo.digital:34218 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4ad9f75f$0$1635$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... : 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. : Forfeiting the entire business is not without precedent. Most such cases involve patent infringement but has been know to occur with copyright as well. We operate a graphic studio and are very protective of our copyright. The majority of infringements are handled at the level of a letter from our attorney. Those few that don't the proceeds, over expenses, are used for scholarships.
From: Eric Stevens on 17 Oct 2009 18:14 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. Eric Stevens
From: Eric Stevens on 17 Oct 2009 18:16 On 17 Oct 2009 16:56:07 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> >>"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. > >I am competely in support of people getting their money for their >work. But Getty is using photos in order to extort money to pay >lawyers. In my opinion (and that's for the lawyers). Would you be happier if Getty did it himself? Eric Stevens
From: Ray Fischer on 17 Oct 2009 19:17
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? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |