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: Twibil on 18 Oct 2009 00:54 On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > > > >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? Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. Well, if the world ever starts working that way we'll be sure and let you know. But up until then: BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
From: NotMe on 18 Oct 2009 03:21 � 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: U2FsdGVkX1+pTUFCsfTU2nVgrjriHwl7l1qq4L3BAc6zRrXPA5kW8Q== X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091017-0, 10/17/2009), Outbound message Cancel-Lock: sha1:ILm1VVAbQydX0sdK6/35CpHCFDo= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: news.netfront.net alt.www.webmaster:4742 rec.photo.digital:34316 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4ada98b0$0$1613$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... : NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: : >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message : >: 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. : : That's a criminal matter. It's also not a $1700 fine. You're also : unlikely to get a ticket if the parking space isn't marked as : requiring a fee or if you're 2" over the line. Seems you've not been anywhere near Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston (TX) or New Orleans (LA) any time recently. And no those are fees paid to private entities typically the towing and booting companies for illegally parking on private property. These are civil not criminal charges. If you park illegally on the streets in New Orleans the vehicle is impounded which can happen faster then you can open the door. If parked on the street in Texas you get a ticket, don't pay the ticket and you get booted. 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. All accrue legal interest until paid, don't pay and your checking accounts get seized, your real property gets a leans placed on it and other unpleasant events happen often as a matter of course. These can eventually lead to buildings and real property being sold at sheriff sale. The only time I've seen criminal seizures, arrest and fines was by US customs for importing copyrighted/trademarked items that were counterfeit. Regardless you can rationalize the fees as fines or whatever and you can rant that the awards are exorbitant but they are typically determined in a court of law based on due process often on summery. I could be wrong but in near 40 years I've yet to see an appeal much less a reduction or reversal.
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 03:34 Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 17, 4:17�pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> >> >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? > >Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the >value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: NotMe on 18 Oct 2009 04:12 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4adac4ec$0$1634$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... : Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: : >On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: : >> : >> : >> >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? : > : >Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the : >value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. : : The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks : like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be. : Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. One party asks for more (sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. The court makes a judgment on what equitable. (That's why the guy is called a judge). I was not too long ago involved in an action against an insucne company. The demand was ~ $5K. and the case was filed under Texas Deceptive trade practices act. Judge found to our favor and awarded near $50K based on statuary rules. We settled for $30K plus cost to avoid the delay of appeals. I was frankly surprised at the award and the settlement amount. Neither our lawyer or the insurance company lawyer were at all surprised at the award or the settlement.
From: michael adams on 18 Oct 2009 07:22
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4ada506f$0$1607$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > > Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable > photo isn't ridiculous? > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net Not if they only ever expected to ever catch say 1 in 100 copyright infringers, then no it isn't. At that rate they'd still be losing money. If they set the penalty cost nearer to the normal cost then that would simply enocourage potential infringers to take a chance. That's the purpose of such punative penalties. To make it uneconomic - if only maginally so - to steal images. While any "outrage" generated as a result, will also provide welcome free publicity which can only serve to deter any other potential waverers. On the other hand whether all the actual originators of the images in the Getty archive recieved due recognition and reward for their work during their actual lifetime, is another matter. But of no relevance here. michael adams .... > |