1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Is "Getty" Getting You Down?

Discussion in 'Legal Issues' started by purplepixi, Sep 19, 2006.

  1. marketjunction

    marketjunction Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    183
    #21
    Is that an English law? That's interesting. In the USA, there's no law (that I am aware of) saying a company must give you the opportunity to get away with copyright infringement.
    SEMrush
     
    marketjunction, Oct 1, 2006 IP
    SEMrush
  2. SKULL

    SKULL Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    303
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Digital Goods:
    1
    #22
    Well thats what happened to me when i was younger , with infringement and it was from ebay the guy ws from USA that sent me the warning that i forgot about then got a fine.
     
    SKULL, Oct 1, 2006 IP
  3. William

    William Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,310
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    140
    #23
    There are huge differences between the US and most if not all European countries in cases like these. One such difference is that it can actually be a defence to beThere are huge differences between the US and most if not all European countries in cases like these. One such difference is that it can actually be a defence to be ignorant in many European countries as long as your not ignorant to the law but to other surrounding facts such as to the status of the picture.

    I.e.
    If you didn't know about copyright laws = No excuse.
    If you where ignorant about the true copyright status of a picture and there was a reason for your ignorance (like for example if you got a copyrighted image from a source that claimed it to be public domain) = Valid Excuse until you learn about the truth. I.e. you have to take the picture down within reasonable time after being informed about the status of the image.
     
    William, Oct 1, 2006 IP
  4. SortedGeezer

    SortedGeezer Peon

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs would be delighted to receive copies of Getty Images' illegal invoices, which are headed with a US address, posted in London, with no VAT number but charging UK VAT. It is illegal to charge UK VAT without a UK VAT number on the invoice. The department of HM Revenue & Customs that is investigating this can be contacted as follows:

    Phone: 0800 595 000
    E-mail:
    Fax: 0800 528 0506 (e.g. to fax a copy of the invoice)
    Postal address:
    Customs Confidential
    Freepost SEA 939
    PO Box 100
    Gravesend
    DA12 2BR

    The lack of a UK VAT number suggests that Getty Images in the United States (in whose name the invoices are issued) could keep the VAT and not pass it on to HM Revenue & Customs. The invoices appear to be posted from Getty Images' London office, the address of which is:

    101 Bayham Street
    LONDON
    NW1 0AG
     
    SortedGeezer, Oct 2, 2006 IP
  5. raycampbell

    raycampbell Peon

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #25
    If it makes you feel any better, J. Paul Getty once was the richest man in the world, but he's been dead a very long time. He, at least, won't be getting your money.
     
    raycampbell, Oct 2, 2006 IP
  6. marketjunction

    marketjunction Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    183
    #26
    LOL

    Classic.

    Maybe someone can stop by his grave and stick a few bucks in it. :D
     
    marketjunction, Oct 2, 2006 IP
  7. Correctus

    Correctus Straight Edge

    Messages:
    3,453
    Likes Received:
    389
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #27
    I am with Skull on this one, they should at least inform you that you are infringing copyright and then ask for money.

    P.S.: Paul Getty isn't the richest man of the world.

    IT
     
    Correctus, Oct 3, 2006 IP
  8. marketjunction

    marketjunction Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    183
    #28
    Why?

    Should the police inform you that you are driving past the speed limit first and then ticket you if you do it again---at the same exact spot?

    I'm curious as to the logic behind this thought.

    BTW, The NY Times had an article today about Getty's trust account.
     
    marketjunction, Oct 3, 2006 IP
  9. SortedGeezer

    SortedGeezer Peon

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #29
    It depends whether the driver had good reason to believe that a reduced speed limit was in force on the road. If the speed limit signs were missing or obscured, then the driver would be excused and would not be prosecuted. We're talking about something very similar here with copyright. If the defendant had no reason to believe that the image was copyright, then Getty have no case. That's why Section 97 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 exists - to protect the defendant in exactly this scenario.
     
    SortedGeezer, Oct 3, 2006 IP
  10. dastuff

    dastuff Peon

    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    18
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #30
    dastuff, Oct 3, 2006 IP
  11. Nonny

    Nonny Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    120
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    210
    #31
    In the U.S. (and I believe the EU) all creative works, including images, are copyrighted unless there is an explicit notice that they are in the public domain or licensed for copying. If someone lies to you, and says images can be distributed, you probably have a case to recover any fines or other expenses from the person who mislead you.
     
    Nonny, Oct 3, 2006 IP
  12. SortedGeezer

    SortedGeezer Peon

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    Section 97 states "Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy."

    The defendant does not have to recover any fines or other expenses from the party that misled the defendant. The law is very clear - the plaintiff (e.g. Getty Images) is not entitled to damages against the defendant.
     
    SortedGeezer, Oct 3, 2006 IP
  13. marketjunction

    marketjunction Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    183
    #33
    That's not US law. Just pointing this out for those interested.
     
    marketjunction, Oct 3, 2006 IP
  14. Pat Gael

    Pat Gael Banned

    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    68
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #34
    I belive this summarize the problem.

    Getty images when free are for personal, no-commerical purposes only. Having AdSense is making money, hence a TOS break.
     
    Pat Gael, Oct 3, 2006 IP
  15. marketjunction

    marketjunction Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    183
    #35
    Yep. From earlier in this thread:

     
    marketjunction, Oct 3, 2006 IP
  16. aeiouy

    aeiouy Peon

    Messages:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    275
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #36
    This is interesting. Getty used to be one of the more "friendly" sources in terms of dealing with these issues. They used to send letters requesting items be removed, and that was the end of it, from what I gathered in the past.

    This seems like a new era for Getty.
     
    aeiouy, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  17. Nonny

    Nonny Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    120
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    210
    #37
    For every innocent person who unknowingly makes a web site with copyrighted images, it seems like there are 10 people who know and simply don't care. They may have become tired of playing nice.
     
    Nonny, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  18. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #38
    Getty seems to have adopted a policy of being extremely aggressive in going after copyright infringement. While many companies will not bother to go after someone whom they cannot collect from, Getty seems prepared to take a loss in legal fees to make a statement. They sued someone I know in the US even though this person had very little assets - and for an amount of $6,000. They won a default judgment and sent it to collection. I don't know if they will collect anything, but it will remain on this persons credit report for 7 years.

    Getty doesn't care if you didn't know. They don't care if you removed it as soon as you were notified. You are guilty as soon as the image is placed on your website. Getty did make an initial offer to settle for a smaller amount and if I was in this position, I would make an offer to settle for as little as possible - as trying to fight something like this in court will wind up costing more in legal fees even if you were to win - which is very unlikely.
     
    mjewel, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  19. Jonnyboy

    Jonnyboy Peon

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #39
    Getty "has not filed a lawsuit against a photo thief in at least four years, according to John Lapham, the vice president responsible for legal affairs at Getty."

    Source: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112897424251164666-0mFu92_5xrCHDRrqLE9YeCOfOnI_20061015.htm

    Jonny
     
    Jonnyboy, Oct 6, 2006 IP
  20. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #40
    mjewel, Oct 6, 2006 IP