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: michael adams on 18 Oct 2009 15:05 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4adb57dc$0$1609$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > 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? They're not. But they're all equally guilty of infringing copyright. The problem being, its more or less impossible to distinguish "unwitting" infringers, as here maybe, from the others. As deliberate infringers are just as likely to lie through their teeth, and plead innocence as well. As with eBay disputes, Getty can't really be expected to employ teams of private investigators and arbitration panels solely for the purpose of trying to dispense justice, by finally unmasking convincing liars. Or at least if they did, the customer would end up paying for it all. Given which, its assumed that all the people who use such images without paying are making the same sort of calculation. Basically they're balancing the likely penalty if they're caught, against the likelihood of getting caught in the first place. Policing the system more effectively so that there was a greater likelihood of getting caught - thus allowing lower penalties - would simply create additional costs which all users would have to pay. Rather than simply the infringers, as now. And the same applies to everybody. It's just the luck of the draw. You use your their image without their permission and take your chances. michael adams .... > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net >
From: Frank ess on 18 Oct 2009 15:10 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. Get a grip. -- Frank ess
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 17:53 NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4adb5a04$0$1632$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >: >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. >: > >: >That's your opinion. The courts differ. >: > >: >As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase >: >significantly when you do something wrong. >: >: Let's put this in concrete terms... >: >: You doubtless have music on your computer. > >Bad assumption. We do have license arraignments with various clearing >houses for the use of music for our clients. Not "your clients". You. >: Did you READ those license agreements in detail to ensure that you are >: fully in compliance? Did you make a backup of software that does not >: allow for backups? Did you install the same software on two computers >: without paying for two copies? <snip> > >In a word? Yes, most emphatically. At one time we paid an outside auditing Not "we". YOU. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 17:54 Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>> : 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. >> >> "I you don't give us ten times what we charge for the photo then we'll >> screw you over for 200 times what the photo is worth." >> >> But that's what happens when law triumphs over justice. > >That is justice. In what bizarro world is that? Tell us: Do you also insist that having ones hands chopped off for stealing is also justice? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 17:55
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> 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? > >They're not. But it is meant to discourage ALL copyright violations. You're trying to argue both sides. >If you don't violate a copyright, then you have no problems. Simplistic nonsense. >You can be honest and pay a small price, or attempt to be dishonest and You copied my words without asking permission. You violated copyright. You owe me $1000. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |