Gonz wrote: >Its an extortion scheme pure and simple. Just ignore the letters. > >http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/attorney-advises-to-just-ignore-the-getty-mccormack-letters/
Note that in the thread linked above Getty did NOT have a registered copyright on the image in question. If they do indeed own the copyright it's a whole different kettle of fish. As I mentioned before, find out first if Getty really owns the copyright. >On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Mark Roberts ><postmas...@robertstech.com> wrote: >> Darren Addy wrote: >> >>>Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but: In short, your client is screwed >>>for using an image they simply took off of the internet. As any lawyer (and >>>particularly a lawyer who is a photographer) knows, U.S. Copyright exists >>>at the moment of image creation. Getty uses sophisticated software to >>>search for images being used. They have more resources than your client to >>>keep this going and make their life hell. The truth is that companies like >>>Getty make far more money off of infringement than they do from legal >>>licensing, these days. >> >> Pretty much on the money here. I don't know if Getty actually makes >> *more* money from infringements than from stock licensing (I don't >> have access to their books!) but they do make a lot. >> >>>The only thing (probably) left to negotiate is the AMOUNT of the >>>infringement. >> >> Not negotiable. Not with Getty. They just bill what they would have >> changed for the usage in question. >> >>>If the image was NOT actually registered with the U.S. Copyright office, >>>your liability is less. >> >> If it's Getty there's about a 0% chance of the image not being >> registered. >> >>>If your client (or whoever they got the image from) cropped OFF a watermark >>>or copyright area, their liability under law is far higher. The only thing >>>you are doing now is trying to negotiate for the lowest possible settlement >>>without going to court (which would not be in your client's best interests >>>because they would LOSE). They are probably looking at 4 figures. >> >> I had Getty come after me for an image on my web site (long story but >> it turned out to be a mistake and they were good about dropping the >> whole thing when I talked to them on the phone). The payment they >> wanted was around $650.00. Going to court would have cost well into >> the 5 figures. And as I understand it, in copyright cases the loser >> pays all the legal fees of the winner, so Getty has *nothing* to lose >> by going to court if it's really their image. >> >> Your only hope is that it's one of the Public Domain images Getty has >> been selling as their own. But I wouldn't get my hopes up over that: >> Not only do those images represent just a tiny fraction of Getty's >> catalogue, Getty's currently being sued over that practice so I very >> much doubt they're pursuing payments over any of the images in >> question at this time they'll be hoping to keep the matter quiet >> until the suits are settled. >> >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia >> www.robertstech.com >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > >-- >-- Reduce your Government Footprint -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
