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: Robert Coe on 17 Oct 2009 20:02 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. Do you think Getty would notice if anybody in this newsgroup stopped doing business with them? Do you think they'd notice if *everybody* in this newsgroup stopped doing business with them? Neither do I. Bob
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 17 Oct 2009 20:09 On 2009-10-18, Robert Coe 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. > > Do you think Getty would notice if anybody in this newsgroup stopped doing > business with them? Do you think they'd notice if *everybody* in this > newsgroup stopped doing business with them? > > Neither do I. I suppose you don't vote because one vote cannot make a difference? -- Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
From: NotMe on 17 Oct 2009 21:23 � 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/e0Z3b3UD2R8kvLwyhudNzMJCPDkiB8HK7Vk2+GwGliQ== X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091017-0, 10/17/2009), Outbound message Cancel-Lock: sha1:48Z2tqKt1zk69hJAC9wuTPzUOrM= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: news.netfront.net alt.www.webmaster:4736 rec.photo.digital:34292 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4ada506f$0$1607$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... : 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? Paying $1 to $3 per hour parking fee in a major city is not unreasonable provided you pay the fee in advance. Park without paying or with the expatiation of scuffing and you get hit with a much higher free (some call it a boot fee) that can and often does run upward of $150. The principle is simple and legal, pay me now a fair and agreed upon fee or pay me later a fee determined by the court. Your choice, pick one.
From: Robert Coe on 18 Oct 2009 00:35 On 18 Oct 2009 00:09:21 GMT, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson(a)gmail.com> wrote: : On 2009-10-18, Robert Coe 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. : > : > Do you think Getty would notice if anybody in this newsgroup stopped : > doing business with them? Do you think they'd notice if *everybody* : > in this newsgroup stopped doing business with them? : > : > Neither do I. : : I suppose you don't vote because one vote cannot make a difference? Are you going for the "Non-Sequitur of the Year" award? In any case, you suppose wrong. Bob
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 00:41
Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On 18 Oct 2009 00:09:21 GMT, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >: On 2009-10-18, Robert Coe 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. >: > >: > Do you think Getty would notice if anybody in this newsgroup stopped >: > doing business with them? Do you think they'd notice if *everybody* >: > in this newsgroup stopped doing business with them? >: > >: > Neither do I. >: >: I suppose you don't vote because one vote cannot make a difference? > >Are you going for the "Non-Sequitur of the Year" award? Are you going for the "clueless idiot" award? >In any case, you suppose wrong. Do you think anybody would notice if you didn't vote? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |