So I've been reading a lot of people getting caught by Getty Images and getting sued by the company because of an image they used on a website. I am just wondering if I created a website and did use a picture that was from Getty Images, but didn't host it on my website and linked to it from a website such as tinypic.com, would I still get in trouble? Or would I get away from it? Thanks
They likely won't be bothered where exactly it is hosted but rather where it is showing so even if you hosted it on TinyPic, they will still try as you was clearly still using the image in whatever way. The best way to "get away" with it is simply do not use any images you do not have the right to use.
That kind of doesn't make sense though. What if a user on a forum had an image from GettyImages in their signature, which was uploaded to TinyPic? The website would still get took to court or fined even though they might of not known anything about it.
There is a difference to someone posting on a forum where anyone can post, and then someone posting an image on lets say a blog where only one person writes an article. For the forum you could debate it was someone else and moderation will sort out issues where with the second one, you are showing you are actually linking to it yourself. The same logic applies to torrents. It would be like me writing a webpage and as long as I don't host it but link else where that it would be fine, but it isn't and you can see some websites that has got into issues in doing that.
Well, the US Congress wrote a law just to cover user-uploaded copyright infringement such as you describe. It is called DMCA. So the way it works is that the forum, with a user-uploaded image that someone is using for a signature, can become immune from liability if they follow the take-down and removal steps outlined in the law. So in your hypothetical, Getty would need to send a DMCA notice to the forum's registered agent. The forum could only be held liable if they refused to take down the infringing image. If they took it down within the time limits allowed by the law, Getty would have no legal way to go after the forum as the DMCA gives them immunity from the lawsuit you suggest could happen. They could always try to go after the user who uploaded the image. In reality, Getty would file a notice both with the forum and TinyPic, both of whom could be protected by the DMCA if they removed the image in a timely fashion.
That's true. Okay I've heard about that. Can that not be used for blog articles too though? I mean if you find an image from Google that you really like and then use it on your blog post, but not realise GettyImages hold the copyright for it, then they should send you a DMCA letter first and not go straight to robbing your money. The I could remove it or change the image.
The immunity is for OSPs (Online Service Providers) and is meant to protect those companies (web hosts) or websites that have user generated content. So if a blog owner himself uploads an image then he cannot avail himself of the protections of the DMCA. The theory is that you should be responsible for what you upload but it is very difficult to know in advance whether every image or story someone else posts is actually within their rights to post. So the law gives websites/web hsots a grace period after which they are informed there is a problem with an image to remove it. If they do that, then they cannot be held liable. There is no such grace period for the person who uploads it. Also, if the OSP does not remove the material then they can be sued for copyright infringement. It gives those companies a big reason to follow the DMCA. So if I uploaded a new movie to youtube and the movie studio filed a DMCA with youtube. Youtube could remove it and then would not be liable. The movie studio could always come after me. Same as if I posted it on my own site. Since I am the one posting it, I am supposed to know whether or not I have a right to use it. In your example, you may not know that Getty specifically is the copyright holder but you know that you are not so you really have no excuse for posting the image.
I get what you are saying here and your are correct. But I was looking into creating a blog for a music artist and posting the latest news, music and pictures on the artist daily. Let me give you an example of a similar website - http://nicki-minaj.org/photos/ Now I been told that most of those photos are from GettyImages and the admin grabbed them for free, because all it takes is to make an account on GettyImages and then you can save the pics. So I'm just wondering how they haven't been caught and if they did get caught, they would get fined over a million, because I heard GettyImages request $750 for just a single image.
It is a risky game. Lots of people speed on the freeway, few people get speeding tickets. That usually doesn't make the ones that do feel any better. I have run celebrity sites and used images gathered from the web. It is not a wise idea and although I've never received any notice from Getty, I know it is not a good way to build a business and have shifted away from those types of sites. The last thing I would do would be to sign up to Getty and then take images directly from them. Look into legally licensing the images you want to use. Many times the cost to use an image is more the week it comes out and less later on. If you are trying to build something to make money, then you really do want to do it on the up and up.
But if you look on that link, it's full of images, so it would be impossible to license them all and if you did try, you would be looking forever. What about if you had a disclaimer on the page that shows the images. Could that help with not getting fined by GettyImages? And just say GettyImages did fine that site, could the owner be looking at jail time, because there is no way they would be able to pay off the fine?
If you don't want to deal with the hassle of licensing images, then you probably want to do another type of website. As for a disclaimer, it will offer you no protection against a charge of copyright infringement. Getty is not able to force anyone to pay anything. They threaten to sue you if you do not pay, so you have an option to pay or not pay and see what they do. It generally would not be a criminal matter so I do not think you would need to worry about jail, although some copyright crimes can be criminal that would be an extreme case - not just using an image on your website. Plus, if someone threatens you with jail if you don't pay money, they are extorting you and that itself is a crime.
..moving aside from GettyImages - think we're all agreed using their content is illegal and opens you up to all sorts of risks. ..if you're looking to create a "fan-site" (wasn't clear if this was the case) for an artist or actor get in contact with their label or agent. They're becoming increasingly open these days about the power of fan sites, and although they'd set guidelines as to use and tone of the site (which you might feel impacts on your artistic freedom) it could give you the rich content you're looking for. ..I'll also add if you do ask and they say no don't then ignore them and doing it anyway. They'll be keeping an eye out and will be onto you immediately.
I've actually been trying for a while to get in touch with this artists' management, but I haven't even got a reply, yet alone a "no" or yes"
...You want to tell me who - may be able to help. Though it's a long shot ...You tried contacting them via Twitter?