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. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #121

    Want to know why Getty has never taken a case to judgment, and why they don't want to? Because their images contain no copyright information in the IPTC Photo Metadata. That's right - their photos and images contain no embedded copyright information. Something any professional webmaster can do with tools that are freely available.

    Why would Getty deliberately exclude a copyright in the Metadata copyright field?

    Is Getty's business model ENTRAPMENT?

    SEMrush
    It's obvious you have absolutely no background in legal matters. Your posts are rambling and make no sense.

    Getty has sued people before. You seem to think it means something because the other party has folded and paid Getty large sums of money means something - it doesn't.

    Getting doesn't have copyright metadata? Are you serious? Every image has an automatic copyright upon creation. Your ignorance of the law is your defense? You're making an argument that you can steal something that doesn't belong to you because it doesn't have a notice telling you that you can't steal it. lol. What a loon. I suppose you have a big sticker on your car warning everyone that stealing your car is theft and that you can go to jail. Your lack of legal knowledge is what got you in trouble. You didn't settle or get off the hook with Getty. You think you gained something by telling a minimum wage collection agency worker off - which millions and millions of people have done before you. Getty could sue you tomorrow - and yes, they probably won't - not because they wouldn't win, but because you likely don't have a net worth that could pay for their legal fees when you lost. So consider yourself lucky that you stole something and used it for a while and won't have to pay for it.
     
    mjewel, Oct 30, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. Dave Zan

    Dave Zan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    121
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #122
    I don't know the results of the cases below. If anything, they do show Getty is
    not above suing:

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2009cv01895/case_id-341399/

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-moedce/case_no-4:2008cv01003/case_id-94239/

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nyedce/case_no-1:2008cv01972/case_id-280596/

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2008cv03641/case_id-324208/

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2008cv03563/case_id-324134/

    They're not above being sued, either. Depends how far both parties are willing
    to go.

    As stated a gazillion times, images have copyright the moment they're created.
    At least, that's how it is in the U.S. where Getty Images are based in.
     
    Dave Zan, Oct 30, 2009 IP
  3. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #123
    @mjewel, your ignorance is so entertaining. Your persistence in pushing your personal point of view, as if it is law, is really quite naive.:p

    Oh, mjewel, I'm still waiting for you to show the documentation from this post:
    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=12789035
    Where is your documentation for your claim that "'Fair use' doesn't apply to 99% of people"? Where is your documentation that Getty goes after "slam dunk" cases? Etc. Etc? You can't, can you - because you're just making things up, aren't you?

    And your insistance of " Every image has an automatic copyright upon creation". Do you know how that works? I don't think so. Do you even understand what you are writing? I don't think so. Can you explain that in legal terms? Can you give me a legal reference? I don't think so.

    Dave Zan, Thanks for your links. I've gone through them and have found some fascinating information. None of these cases went to judgment. In order:
    1. Never went to judgment. It may never have gone to court.
    2. Getty settled this out of court.
    3. Interesting case. After a five month battle, when it looked like Getty was going to lose, Getty dropped the case!
    4. Never went to judgment. It may never have gone to court.
    5. Case was thrown out of court by the judge. It appears that the lawyer for Getty might have been intentionally drawing out the case. Getty filed motions improperly, missed filing deadlines, but more important, there is no evidence that Getty was able to prove copyright ownership to the court's satisfaction. It appears that the judge finally threw Getty's case out of court because it didn't look like Getty proved anything about anything!!!

    Conclusion: Getty has never taken any of these cases to judgment. And when the case is going badly for Getty, they drop the case before it went to judgment. it does not appear that Getty has ever proven copyright ownership in a U.S. court.
     
    Corwin, Nov 1, 2009 IP
  4. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #124
    Fair use is a limited defense that applies in a very limited set of cases. If you are talking about non-commercial usage for a school project, that would be different. It is pointless to even argue about something that has nothing to do with the letter you received. Fair use has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your theft of their image - further evidenced by your immediate removal of the image you stole.

    Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
    No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created.

    Can you comprehend that? "Copyright exists from the moment the work is created" - and that comes directly from the government copyright office.

    http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html


    Now go away moron. You have been proven to be an idiot with absolutely no knowledge of the law. You stole something that didn't belong to you and are crying because you got caught and don't have any money to pay for the usage. What kind of an idiot would think they could go to a stock image website that sells images and take it for free? Unbelievable. Next time, try not being a scumbag and pay for what you steal or take your own photos. Photographers make a living off the royalties they receive. They are not in the business of taking pictures to let any loser use them without paying.

    Getty tried to "entrap" you? ROTFLMAO. I guess you didn't read the terms on the website.

    Use of the Site
    This Site and the Getty Images Content are intended for customers of Getty Images. You may not use this Site or the Getty Images Content for any purpose not related to your business with Getty Images. You are specifically prohibited from: (a) downloading, copying, or re-transmitting any or all of the Site or the Getty Images Content without, or in violation of, a written license or agreement with Getty Images; (b) using any data mining, robots or similar data gathering or extraction methods; (c) manipulating or otherwise displaying the Site or the Getty Images Content by using framing or similar navigational technology; (d) registering, subscribing, unsubscribing, or attempting to register, subscribe, or unsubscribe any party for any Getty Images product or service if you are not expressly authorized by such party to do so; and (e) using the Site or the Getty Images Content other than for its intended purpose. Such unauthorized use may also violate applicable laws including without limitation copyright and trademark laws, the laws of privacy and publicity, and applicable communications regulations and statutes.

    You represent and warrant that you will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including, without limitation, those relating to the Internet, data, e-mail, privacy, and the transmission of technical data exported from the United States or the country in which you reside.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2009
    mjewel, Nov 1, 2009 IP
  5. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #125
    Um, you've left something very important out if this, which goes to the crux of my argument against. you.

    HOW do you PROVE WHEN THE WORK WAS CREATED???

    This is why you cannot see the issue. There are rules of evidence in a court of law. You simply can't sit there and say, "We created it on such-and-such a day". It doesn't go by someone's say-so.

    I've documented original artwork by taking the artwork to the Post Office, paying for the price of a stamp, and then having the Post Office machine-stamp the artwork with the date and time. Completely acceptable in court. I know people that did this when the 2-dollar bill was reintroduced back in the 1970's to prove that they got a bill on the first day of issuance.

    THIS is why you intentionally left out the rest of the sentence, didn't you? Because the ENTIRE SENTENCE reads:

    Do you know what "fixed in a tangible form" means? It means it is something like the Post Office stamp I mentioned above.

    It does NOT mean that Getty walks into court and says "We created this artwork on July 4, 1996" and that their word is automatically taken for granted. THAT IS GETTY'S PROBLEM!

    And THAT is why you intentionally omitted the rest of that sentence, didn't' you?

    Copyright exists from the moment the work is created AND it is correctly documented! If it's not correctly documented, then it's not copyrighted from that moment of creation. Understood?

    BTW, Where is your documentation for your claim that "'Fair use' doesn't apply to 99% of people" using Getty images? Where is your documentation that Getty goes after "slam dunk" cases? Etc. Etc? You can't, can you?

    Thank You for once again demonstrating to everyone your obvious immaturity. :p
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2009
    Corwin, Nov 1, 2009 IP
  6. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #126
    So you now admit you are a moron and had no knowledge of copyright law or law in general. Thanks. The only issue was whether or not you stole an image, you took the photograph, or you have a valid usage agreement. The FACT is that you stole it. Any other bs you spout isn't relevant. You are guilty which is why you scurried like a rat to remove the image and soon as you received the Getty letter of infringement.

    You are now trying to say that you are going to argue in court that you were the creator of the image you stole? ROTFLMAO. Getty has proof of when they signed an agreement with the photographer. They have a sworn statement of the copyright holder who took the image. They have the IA to show when the image appeared on their site. They have a registered copyright on all their images. You have what? Nothing. You lose and are now looking at some jail time for perjury. Good going, Matlock.

    Sorry to tell you, but your postage stamp method isn't fail proof and certainly isn't a concrete claim of a creation date. I could mail an unsealed envelope to myself and then use it to put anything I want at a later date and claim the postmark date. Heck, I could put the November 2009 issue of Time Magazine into an envelope I mailed to myself two years ago and claim infringement from a 2007 postmark - only it is going to be laughed out of court. So much for your "proof". Even a registration isn't concrete evidence - I could send in an image I found on the net. In court, it is going to come down to who has the more reasonable argument of proof (hint, it isn't going to be you).

    Seriously, beside being a thief that likes to steal things that belong to others, it sounds like you have some severe mental problems that results in some very odd delusional rantings. You really need to get some help, and quick.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2009
    mjewel, Nov 1, 2009 IP
  7. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #127
    This is too funny. I have never seen someone less informed make a bigger ass of themselves over and over. Corwin, you are one for the ages with this series of totally ignorant posts.
     
    browntwn, Nov 1, 2009 IP
  8. Dave Zan

    Dave Zan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    121
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #128
    http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html#P56_5626

    Note the last sentence especially, and the U.S. is party to that treaty.

    When you said judgment, do you mean where the dispute was taken all up to
    the highest court level and decided where no further appeals are entertained?
    Not all court decisions reach, say, the Supreme Court or whatever its equal in
    other jurisdictions, and how far it goes depends how far both parties are able
    to go.

    Once a court makes its decision, it's rather final unless appealed. If it isn't any
    further disputed, then its "judgment" already.

    Other than paid services like pacer.org, unfortunately I can't find any decision
    or "final" judgment saying one way or the other online that's free. Unless you
    maybe found one from the cases I gave above where the parties indeed have
    settled, or a "judgment" was rendered against Getty?

    I ask because of your seeming insistence that none of them went to judgment
    or whatever. Some intellectual property lawyers I know have drilled deep into
    my thick skull that judges' decisions are "final" unless taken up the food chain,
    although very few decisions or judgments are indeed enforced if one doesn't
    do so.

    BTW, what you just described is the "poor man's copyright" itself. While this is
    not necessarily authoritative in the U.S. itself:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright

    That may work in other countries. But...not in the U.S.

    Anyway, my point here is Getty Images does sue. And mjewel's link to a case
    rather indicates Getty Images is quite capable of securing a favorable decision
    for themselves, unless the other party appeals it all the way.
     
    Dave Zan, Nov 1, 2009 IP
  9. Nonny

    Nonny Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    120
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    210
    #129
    It looks like you have to have a Pacer account to see the outcome of those cases.

    It could be that some of those cases were settled out of court before a judgment was reached. It's my understanding that that's not at all uncommon in intellectual property cases, and because those settlements are often confidential there's no way to find out the details.

    If Getty makes a strong case, many defendants may decide that the cheapest route is to just pay what they are asking for, especially when costs like attorney fees are factored in.
     
    Nonny, Nov 1, 2009 IP
  10. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #130
    I have a pacer account, but I am certainly not about to waste my time or money to show some moron he is wrong when it is already clear to everyone but him. It really does not matter if there is a judgment or not, everything he has said about copyright, lying in court, first class letters, poor man's copyright, is not just wrong but nonsensical. This was the funniest to me:

    "Do you know what "fixed in a tangible form" means? It means it is something like the Post Office stamp I mentioned above."

    Yeah, that is what fixed in a tangible form means. Thankfully this whole thread will preserved forever so we can all look back and chuckle.
     
    browntwn, Nov 1, 2009 IP
    Mia likes this.
  11. DubDubDubDot

    DubDubDubDot Peon

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #131
    Nobody is disputing that Getty owns the images, so date of creation is irrelevant.

    You and several others in this thread have the guilty criminal's mindset of getting off on a technicality. It's like that person who earlier in the thread implied that Getty's claims had no merit because they didn't include their VAT# on the invoice to UK citizens.

    This thread is just ridiculous. Eventually the people who posted stupid things here are going to look back at this and want to forget they even said it. I know I said some pretty dumb things back in the day on USENET on the webmaster newsgroups. But honestly, I don't recall being this dumb.
     
    DubDubDubDot, Nov 1, 2009 IP
  12. Nonny

    Nonny Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    120
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    210
    #132
    LOL, I missed that bit. It's like shouting out "I have no clue about copyrights"!

    For those of you playing at home, you might want to read the FAQ on the US Copyright Office's website:
    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
    "Fixed in a tangible form" refers to the copyrighted work - once a photograph is "fixed" into a form that can be copied, it's copyrighted. There is no requirement for registration or mailing a copy to yourself or anything like that. (Note that the US copyright office explicitly tells you that the so-called "poor man's copyright" gives you no special legal protection.)

    And Getty is a major stock photography supplier that licenses images to major news organizations and web sites. They almost certainly are able to contact the photographers that supply their content to get evidence they could use in court, such as the raw image files and other photographs taken during the same photography session, and likely would be able to show that the images were available for licensing from their site before the image appeared anywhere else. I would not be surprised if the images have been registered with the US copyright office, which allows them to sue you for up to $150,000 per infringing use in the US.

    I'm trying to wrap my mind around why you would even try to fight something like this in court. If you are knowingly using an image you haven't licensed you are almost certain to lose. And you can license images from Getty for as little as $5 if you go the legal route, so why wouldn't you do that rather than risk losing $1000s.
     
    Nonny, Nov 2, 2009 IP
  13. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #133
    The ignorance of the law on this thread from most of you is laughable. mjewel, your positions are so baseless that you have devolved into insults. You can't prove any of your claims: can you prove your baseless claim that Fair use doesn't apply to 99% of Getty claims? Of course not. Can you show me documentation that Getty has sued people to judgment? No, another lie you've told. Can you show me documentation that Getty has sued in "slam dunk cases"? Go ahead. Where is your documentation? Show it to me. Show me documentation of the 'slam dunk cases" that Getty has taken to court. You can't, can you?

    mjewel, honestly, calmly look at the above paragraph. Look, the reason why you've devolved into insults is because I've caught you in YOUR OWN blatant lies, about "Fair Use" and "slam dunk cases". You've embarrassed yourself so badly with your own claims that you are hoping to ignore your own B.S. - and I'll bet that you would take it back if you could. I imagine that you are reading this, right now, looking for a way to get around the mess you've put yourself into. Perhaps you'll use the word "moron" a few times (gee, I haven't heard anyone use that word since grade school - just how young are you, anyhow)? But it remains that you have made absolutely incorrect accusations about "Fair Use" and "slam dunk" cases, and that you absolutely cannot prove at all that Getty has ever taken a case to judgment in the USA.

    To further your own personal humiliation, you mislead everyone on copyright law by taking a partial sentence out of context and misleading everyone to satisfy your own sad ego.

    mjewel, admit it, your arguments are so lame that you are just making things up, aren't you? You can't back up your assertion that "Fair Use" doesn't apply to 99% of Getty cases, and you can't back up your assertion that Getty has sued in "Slam Dunk" cases, can you? And you cited copyright law out of context - you DELIBERATELY quoted only PART of a sentence, didn't you?

    And you STILL can't prove that Getty has EVER taken a case to judgment.

    THESE ARE ***YOUR4*** CLAIMS, NOT MINE!!!

    Look, you blatantly lied about copyright law and when I caught you on it, started behaving like a common street thug by throwing insults around - as if that's an intelligent answer to your own proven ignorance of the topic. YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVE YOUR OWN CLAIMS!!!

    OWNERSHIP MUST BE PROVEN IN COURT. YES, if taken to court, I have the RIGHT to ask Getty to prove that they own the images, don't I?

    What if Getty chooses to create images that deliberately do not contain copyright info on the EXIF metadata? Don't believe me? Then go to Getty's website and examine the Metadata on any of the demo images. Notice that there is no copyright info on the EXIF? Why is that?

    And let me set something straight - this is not about stealing. This is about Getty's underhanded tactics and dishonest bill collecting tactics. THIS IS ABOUT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN COURT!

    And, the more you pathetically devolve into insults, the more you prove your own immaturity and inability to deal with this subject in a dispassionate and honest manner.
     
    Corwin, Nov 2, 2009 IP
  14. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #134
    It's a waste of time to keep exposing you for the fool you are. It is obvious by the responses on this thread (including those of an attorney) that no one believes anything you have posted.

    The FACT remains that you stole something that didn't belong to you. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Getty has signed releases for every image on their site. That is evidence in court and you have nothing to show the image was yours. There is no legal requirement to put anything in the META data. You knew the image wasn't yours, so you shouldn't have STOLE it. You are a scumbag who is whining because you were CAUGHT and asked to pay for what YOU TOOK. If you don't like being asked to pay for what you STOLE, don't steal it, period.

    Whether or not Getty has taken a case all the way through the court process means nothing. The people who steal their images are usually broke scumbags like yourself who scurry like pussies when caught. Why didn't you go through the court process with Getty? LOL!!! Your answer is the reason Getty doesn't need too. Heck, you tucked tail and ran with a letter sent via first class mail. Thank goodness Getty is fighting back against thief's like yourself. More power to them.

    Now back to your delusional world where postage stamp copyrights exist as "fixed in a tangible form" - the same world where it seems everyone is laughing at you (because they really are). You have been thoroughly discredited and exposed as a bonafide idiot, thief, liar and loon.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2009
    mjewel, Nov 2, 2009 IP
  15. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #135
    I suggest that you ask your local Post Office if this is true.

    Or are you now claiming now that a canceled postal mark can't be trusted?

    this is a South Carolina website, but it references the US Postmark law:
    "(18) "United States Postal Service Electronic Postmark" means an electronic service provided by the United States Postal Service that provides evidentiary proof that an electronic document existed in a certain form at a certain time and the electronic document was opened or the contents of the electronic document were displayed at a time and date documented by the United States Post Office."

    That's a pretty daming statement about the absolute validity of a U.S. Post Office postmark, don't you think?

    Hey, here's another one: Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. For the ATF, this Federal Regulation specifies that a United States metered Postmark is considered "prima facie evidence" of a date.

    Or should I also remind you that attempting to forge a United States postmark is a federal crime, similar to counterfeiting money?

    But wait - you want Post Office law, don't you? This proves that even electronics postmarks are as legally valid as one from the Post Office! Take a look and be Embarrassed:
    "This Electronic Postmark provides evidence of the
    document's existence at a specific point in time
    , allows any subsequent
    change in the document to be identified...This Electronic Postmark is a valuable third-party validation of
    the official character of some documents
    "

    If you need further proof of the legal validity of a U.S. Postal Service postmark, I can accommodate you.

    mjewel, the more you rant, the more you prove I am right.

    Oh,
    Can you prove your claim that 99% of Getty infractions don't apply to Fair Use?
    Can you prove that Getty takes "slam dunk" cases to court?
    Can you prove that Getty has every sued someone to judgement?
     
    Corwin, Nov 2, 2009 IP
  16. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #136
    I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
    The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.

    http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what


    "NO COURT HAS EVER ACCEPTED THIS METHOD AS LEGAL PROOF OF COPYRIGHT"

    http://songregistration.com/poor_mans_copyright1.htm

    From an IP attorney:

    "Clients often ask whether they should send a sealed and certified envelope to themselves via post containing the copyrighted work to ensure that they have evidence that they created a work prior to anyone else. Priority of creation, however, does not have an effect on the validity of copyright protection in the United States. These methods may have been beneficial prior to the Copyright Act of 1976 because publication was a prerequisite to copyright protection, but they no longer serve a purpose."
    http://tcattorney.typepad.com/digit...-wellserved-to-obtain-a-copyright-regist.html

    BRIAN LEE CORBER attorney at law:

    The Myth About "The Poor Man's Copyright" and Other Myths

    "One of the questions that I am often askedabout pertains to themyth entitled “the poor man’s copyright.” In essence, this myth provides that: “…if I mail a copy of my music to myself, certified, and leave the music in the envelope, I can 1) establish the date of existence of the music as of the date on the envelope and on the certification and 2) protect the copyright embodied in my music.”

    If that was a jeopardy answer and you responded with the question: “What is a poor man’s copyright?” you win the money. If, however, that was a jeopardy answer and you responded with the question: “Is this legally valid copyright protection?” the buzzer would sound and you’d be docked the value of the question. Speaking only of copyright in the United States: there is no such animal. Pure and simple, end of story. If you do this, you have not protected your copyright legally."


    http://corberlaw.com/articles-poormans-copyright.html

    LOL, keep posting fool.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2009
    mjewel, Nov 2, 2009 IP
    browntwn likes this.
  17. Nonny

    Nonny Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    120
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    210
    #137
    "Fixed in tangible form" with regards to copyright law has absolutely nothing to do with postmarks or anything like it. "Fixed in tangible form" refers to the creation of the copyrighted work. If you create a work you don't need to get a time stamp or seal or similar to have it copyrighted - it's copyrighted as soon as the work exists. That's the point that you are missing.

    The US Copyright office has made clear that mailing yourself a copy of the work does NOT give any legal protection over and above the automatic copyright you get when you created the work. Registration of the work with the US Copyright office is the way to be able to sue for the big bucks, but is not necessary for the copyright to exist, because copyright is automatic when the work is created.

    All of the stuff you posted about the US Postal Service is beside the point, because the copyright exists whether someone does that or not. If you want added protection, register the work with the US Copyright office.

    It's really a simple issue: did you create the image? If no, did you get permission from the person who created the image to use it on your site? If no, did you obtain a license to use the image on your site? If no, you are using the image on your site without permission and that's copyright infringement.

    These cases almost always come up in the context of images used on a web site that is:
    - commercial (e.g., displaying ads)
    - using the entire image, rather than just a thumbnail
    - added to the site by someone who knew full well that it hadn't been properly licensed, and just chose not to pay the license fee

    So definitely not fair use.

    How many cases can you point to that involve Getty sending letters to people who unwittingly used a thumbnail of one of their images on a non-profit educational site?
    If you look at those links Dave Zan posted, Getty is taking copyright infringement cases to court. They'd be stupid to do that if they weren't picking the cases they were confident they could win.

    However, I'd argue that the real "slam dunk" cases rarely get filed, because people who are clearly copyright infringers are advised by their attorneys to settle before that happens.

    That's easy:
    http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367

    Maybe you aren't counting that because the case was settled. But that's what usually happens when it becomes clear that the defendant is going to lose - he ponies up some money rather than risking a much much larger fine. And paying "£1,953.31 in damages and interest over the use of the picture, plus Getty Images' legal costs" is nothing to sniff at - Getty's legal costs could be thousands of pounds in addition to the fine and the defendant obviously has had to pay his own legal fees.

    Honestly, if the defendant had a good case, don't you think his attorney would have recommended he to go to judgment rather than fork over the money?

    I realize that you are arguing this so strongly because your friend (you?) were asked for money by Getty for using images they represent and chose not to pay. It's scary to think that that could end up costing thousands of dollars. And there is certainly a chance that Getty won't sue in your case, since they clearly don't sue everyone.

    But that's a risk you should take only after understanding all the facts. What you've been claiming here about copyright and the way the legal system works has mostly been flat out wrong. If you don't believe the posters here, I would recommend consulting an attorney face-to-face who specializes in copyright cases. He can tell you whether you and your friend would have a chance fighting Getty in court. He can advise you whether settling with Getty is a good idea. Your wishful thinking about how the law works isn't going to be helpful in the long run.
     
    Nonny, Nov 2, 2009 IP
    browntwn likes this.
  18. Dave Zan

    Dave Zan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    121
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #138
    It's probably your own interpretation, but I don't know why you insist that link
    from out-law isn't a judgment when a judge or so did make a decision. They've
    settled, but that's not unusual as many are settled like Nonny and mjewel had
    said already.

    If you're indeed in the U.S., feel free to check with any competent intellectual
    property lawyer. You don't have to take any of our word for it.
     
    Dave Zan, Nov 2, 2009 IP
  19. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #139
    No, no, no, no, no, mjewel.

    mjewel, you simply don't tire of being WRONG, do you?

    Did I mention a "poor man's copyright"? Did I EVER mention MAILING YOURSELF a copy of the work? Did I?

    mjewel, the reason why your positions are so flimsy is that every time you post you make it plainly obvious that do no understand the issues. Either that, or you can't read.

    I NEVER mentioned mailing yourself a copy of the artwork and you know it. I mentioned placing the taking the artwork to a Post Office and having an official U.S. Postmark imprinted directly ON the artwork.

    And, while all my references were official U.S. government websites, you did what? - you referenced a page on the copyright .GOV website that does not apply, and the rest are blogs?????

    mjewel, the more you rant, the more you prove I am right.

    Oh,
    Can you prove your claim that 99% of Getty infractions don't apply to Fair Use?
    Can you prove that Getty takes "slam dunk" cases to court?
    Can you prove that Getty has every sued someone to judgment?

    Nonny, thank you for your intelligent response. First, of all, please re-read my original post on postmarks. The thrust of my argument on postmarks is that the postmark is NOT placed on the envelope (as in a "poor man's copyright) but on the face of the actual work itself. Yes, the work itself is "fixed in a tangible form" - as in on a piece of paper, cardboard, etc. The item is then presented to a postal employee and a postmark is placed on the face of the artwork. The item is NOT mailed.

    Nonny, yes, I agree. This is, of course, common sense. The pity here is that mjewel made a blanket statement and is unfortunately not as capable as you are in making a mature point. But the problem with your position is that you are assuming that common sense rules here.

    It is unfortunate that in the United States court system, losing cases are brought to trial with absolutely no merit. They are brought to trial for other reasons.

    Take a look at what happened to my friend Greg. If this story doesn't make you cry, then you have no heart. Greg absolutely did not owe NSTAR Electricity any money. But, if you read the article, you'll see that despite the fact that NSTAR could not produce any records at all proving that Greg owed NSTAR any money, NSTAR used the court system to attempt to extort $7,210.09 from Greg. This is extortion by lawyer and it is becoming more and more common nowadays. NSTAR intentionally prosecuted an innocent man for the sole reason of taking money from him (although the Boston Sunday Globe reported that the reason for the baseless lawsuit was that someone in NSTAR management had a personal grudge against Greg)

    Take a look at Sarah Palin. You don't have to like her. I'm not even sure I like her. But last year she was slammed with a bunch of baseless lawsuits and criminal accusations - none of which had any merit whatsoever (in one case, the DA is now under investigation for falsifying evidence against her). The intent of these legal attacks was NOT justice - it was to tie up her time in court, harass her emotionally, and bankrupt her. It succeeded.

    Does not liking someone justify abusing the court system?

    mjewel is taking the naive assumption that if someone is accused of misconduct, then they MUST be guilty of SOMETHING. He is either ignoring, or is too blindly ignorant to understand, that the court system is often used not to condemn the guilty, but to terrorize innocent people and possibly extort money out of them. I'm sure that there are cases where people brazenly took something from Getty, but their tactics and deliberate lack of copyright information on the image's EXIF metadata suggests that they may be guilty of deliberate entrapment, and that the actual legal merit of many of their cases ignore Fair Use and other legal use issues.

    But it doesn't change the fact that mjewel is totally ignorant of the issues. That's why he is constantly making a sad fool out of himself here.
     
    Corwin, Nov 3, 2009 IP
  20. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #140
    It doesn't matter if the piece itself is postmarked. It doesn't matter if it was notarized - it isn't a copyright. Yeah, who cares if the source is an IP attorney - we should be believe a scumbag thief who has repeatedly proven they are an idiot with no legal knowledge whatsoever.

    And let me get this right, you walk into the post office and put a stamp on your artwork and ask the postal worker to postmark it vs. doing a legal copyright registration? Oh priceless. The poorman's artwork, non-copyright, postmark and his roll of stamps!!! That's got to be one of the funniest things I have seen you post yet. Are you really that hard up for money? LOL - seriously, that's rolling on the floor funny. What a loser.

    FACT: You admitted the image wasn't yours.

    All your incoherent rantings are meaningless and legally without any merit.

    It wasn't your image and you are liable. As I have said several times, it doesn't make a difference if Getty has gone through the entire court process on a lawsuit. Your mental illness continues to thinks this legally means something - it doesn't, even if it is true. As you yourself proved, scumbags like yourself are the reason these cases don't go through the courts. The facts show a first class letter from Getty was enough to send you scurrying like the rat you are. Why didn't you fight them in court? You weren't even man enough to respond to their letter (because you thought they would sue you if you responded) LOL!!
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2009
    mjewel, Nov 3, 2009 IP