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. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #141
    mjewel, you are now rambling.

    Look, it's obvious that you don't understand any the legal issues involved here at all, do you? I don't know where your head is at, but your posts are getting to be more than a little bit creepy. You've made a long list of claims (fair use and slam dunk, etc) that are completely unable to back up to the point where you are ignoring what you previously posted, and your mind twisted placing a postmark on artwork into mailing something to yourself (talk about being self-centered)! And despite my official sources, your only position are constant demands that you be taken seriously, while lacing your posts with ridiculous and immature insults.

    mjewel, take a look at this entire thread. Don't you know that you come across as either very very young and angry, or extremely unstable? Doesn't make make you look sad and creepy that you need to post so quickly after I do? Don't you have anything else better to do than obsess over this thread?

    You won't even respond to politeness!

    Look, you've made it extremely clear that you do NOT understand the issues and that you feel personally threatened by people that disagree with you. Does it bother you that people can read this thread and make up their own mind? Or do you hate and insult anyone that dares to think differently than you?

    How about you allow people to make up their own minds as to which is the intelligent and mature position, and just give it a rest?
    SEMrush
     
    Corwin, Nov 3, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #142
    The problem with everything you post, is that is it wrong. This isn't the legal guess forum. Your statements about first class mail, "Fixed in tangible form", meta data, etc., have all been wrong. This has been proven over and over again. It's obvious that you have never hired an attorney, never taken a case to court, and have a seriously flawed understanding of the law. You stole a picture and didn't/couldn't pay for it. That is the scope of your experience and you have no business posting anything else on legal matters.
     
    mjewel, Nov 3, 2009 IP
  3. DubDubDubDot

    DubDubDubDot Peon

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #143
    What's amazing is that you think people view HIM like that.

    Could I ask how old you are and what country you are from?
     
    DubDubDubDot, Nov 3, 2009 IP
  4. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #144
    LOL, I was thinking the same thing.
     
    browntwn, Nov 3, 2009 IP
  5. Nonny

    Nonny Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    120
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    210
    #145
    And what I am saying is that that doesn't provide you any special legal protections. There are lots of ways a person can demonstrate that a copyrighted work was created by a certain date that don't require getting a special stamp. If a copyright holder wants to sue for copyright infringement, the normal route is to register that work with the US copyright office.

    And I have no idea how the discussion went off on this tangent, because I don't think there is any argument over the copyright of the works Getty represents. Just because you can't see the evidence Getty - and the original photographers - have doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    No mjewel is assuming there was copyright infringement in your case, because Getty sent you a notice and the image was immediately removed and the page scrubbed from the web. That looks like you/your friend knew it was an illegally used image. That says nothing about the legal system in general, just that the way you've described your involvement with Getty makes you appear to be in the wrong.
    Here is where you are totally wrong. There doesn't need to be EXIF metadata, or a watermark, or any other indication of ownership of the image. That's because the law is that an image is under copyright as soon as it is created and no one is allowed to use or copy that image without permission from the copyright holder. The default assumption you must make is that you don't have permission to make a copy.

    It doesn't matter if you don't know who made the image or when or where it was made. If you don't have a license or direct permission to use it, it's copyright infringement. That's the default assumption you have to make, assuming you are in the US or one of the countries that is party to the Berne Convention. So no, that's not entrapment if someone takes an image from Getty images without permission, any more than its entrapment if someone removes the chair from my front porch and claims it as his own because my name isn't on it.

    It has happened that people collect images without permission from the web and then sell them to the unwary. The way the law works, by using one of those images without the permission of the original copyright holder, you are still liable for copyright infringement. You can then turn around and sue the person who sold or gave you those images to recoup your losses - which is why it's a good practice to only purchase content from reputable companies or individuals.

    And you are right that big companies have an advantage in the courts, which is one of the reasons why photographers allow Getty to represent them. Many individual photographers get their work stolen on the web and don't have the means to legally go after the thieves. Getty helps them get illicit usages of their work removed from the web.

    No, actually mjewel does know the legal issues - just not the details of your case beyond what you've written here, which does make it appear that you/your friend did use a copyright infringing image. And mjewel hasn't really said much different that I have, it's just that mjewel doesn't sugarcoat any of it.
     
    Nonny, Nov 3, 2009 IP
  6. Dave Zan

    Dave Zan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    121
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #146
    I don't know about you, Corwin, but many of the things you've posted here is
    just flat-out wrong. And that's not going to help others who might be in such
    similar situations, especially in the future.

    Sure, one can be polite about it. You should see how some attorneys react if
    they see misleadingly inaccurate details like you posted, then I wonder if you
    might say the same things to them as you did mjewel.
     
    Dave Zan, Nov 3, 2009 IP
  7. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #147
    Look, just a flat-out claim about "many of the things" I've posted here are wrong is a very weak statement.

    SPECIFICALLY, quote back to me the things I wrote that you feel are wrong. Quote back the exact words from my ORIGINAL post. And please, don't flat-out lie about my positions like mjewel does, or take things out of context like mjewel has done.

    Let me remind you, that mjewel has flat-out posted lies here, lies he can't back up, and lies he continues to ignore.
    - mjwewl, can you prove your claim that 99% of Getty infractions don't apply to Fair Use?
    - Can you prove your claim that Getty takes "slam dunk" cases to court?
    - Can you prove that Getty has ever sued someone to judgment in the USA?

    The above are flat-out lies told by mjewel. He cannot back up any of it, which is why his credibility is less-than-zero on this discussion.


    EVERYTHING I have written here is completely accurate and written with the intent of helping people through Getty's many malicious prosecutions.

    Meanwhile, mjewel's main contribution has been lies and insults. Hardly a trustworthy position.

    EXAMPLE: Here's both a lie, and an insult, from mjewel:
    and here is how I got the Getty image (emphasis added):
    I later spoke to a Getty rep on the phone, and they agreed that I was not at fault at all.

    However, mjewel seems to believe that by using an image from a trusted clipart collection, that I am automatically "a thief that likes to steal things that belong to others". Is that right, mjewel? Does trusting a clipart collection in this situation automatically make me and others who use clipart a thief? Or am I entitled to defend myself??? What do you have to say about this situation, hmmm???
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2009
    Corwin, Nov 4, 2009 IP
  8. DubDubDubDot

    DubDubDubDot Peon

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #148
    Ok, fine. You bought a popular clipart collection that contained either an authorized or unauthorized Getty image, and that was good enough for them to leave you alone.

    End of thread.
     
    DubDubDubDot, Nov 5, 2009 IP
  9. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #149
    No, mjewel disagrees, he seems to firmly believe that that makes me a thief. And that anyone that receives a letter of demand from Getty is does not get a legal presumption of innocence and is "slam dunk" automatically guilty. And that Fair Use laws don't apply to Getty images.

    BTW, the clipart collection was known to Getty but it wasn't good enough - they still wanted their money from me. Does that sound fair? Does that sound like Getty plays fair?
     
    Corwin, Nov 5, 2009 IP
  10. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #150
    Corwin is a fraud, thief and proven liar.

    IF Corwin actually had a licensed image, he wouldn't have scurried like a rat to immediately remove the image, add no-index to the site, and try to remove all "evidence" he thought incriminated him. An "innocent" person doesn't behave like that.

    Getty pursues infringement on "rights managed" images - that means there is an exact record of each allowed usage. Since Corwin is a known liar, the whole CD story is probably fabricated (notice how he never mentioned this popular CD provider - which is supposed to be out of business now?) It doesn't matter even if this CD existed - Getty doesn't use stock photo CDs for "rights managed" images and a you are legally just as liable even if you did use an image of a purchased CD that was licensed. His likely fabricated story doesn't matter - and why is his talking about Getty's website not having meta data? I thought he purchased it from another company ... LOL!!

    Let's look at some of the many lies Corwin has posted:

    "I ignored the Getty image letters, and the letters eventually stopped."
    "I haven't even taken the image down from my site - I damn well paid for the right to use that image when I bought my clipart collection!"


    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=7789544&postcount=77

    Notice how he completely changes his story (he can't remember what lies he had already posted).

    "First, we removed the image from the website. Second, on the page the image was on, we set the ROBOTS meta-tag to NOINDEX, NOARCHIVE. Noarchive is very important as that removes it from the Google cache as well as archive.org."

    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=11401396&postcount=91



    Another lie:

    "...in the USA a legal notice must be certified. First Class Mail is not acceptable for a letter of legal notice. It can be legally ignored."




    "I'm probably the only person here to slip out of paying Getty images ANYTHING and I explained how I did in in a previous post."


    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=144133&page=6

    Spoken like a true thief.




    "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."

    (note, this legally means absolutely nothing - and nonny already showed how his claimed of entrapment was another loony rant without legal merit.)

    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=12797680&postcount=120

    "I later spoke to a Getty rep on the phone, and they agreed that I was not at fault at all."

    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=12836852&postcount=147


    "BTW, the clipart collection was known to Getty but it wasn't good enough - they still wanted their money from me. Does that sound fair? Does that sound like Getty plays fair?"



    Conclusion: Corwin is a thief, liar, loon.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2009
    mjewel, Nov 5, 2009 IP
  11. Dave Zan

    Dave Zan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    121
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #151
    That depends what side of the fence one is on. Then again, life's unfair as it
    is.

    Just try not to give someone an enforceable claim against you.
     
    Dave Zan, Nov 5, 2009 IP
  12. leenguyen

    leenguyen Peon

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #152
    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.
     
    leenguyen, Nov 6, 2009 IP
  13. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #153
    Pot. Kettle. Black. mjewel.

    Hands down, mjewel is the biggest liar on DP. mjewel does for lies, what Stonehenge did for rocks.

    - mjwewl, can you prove your claim that 99% of Getty infractions don't apply to Fair Use? NO!
    - Can you prove your claim that Getty takes "slam dunk" cases to court? NO!
    - Can you prove that Getty has ever sued someone to judgment in the USA? NO!
    - Can you prove that plain, U.S. First Class Mail is always a legal notice? NO!
    The above are flat-out lies told by mjewel. He cannot back up any of it, which is why his credibility is less-than-zero on this discussion.

    And, as far as my strategy with Getty, first, I left the image up. Next, I later removed the image. And finally, I picked up the phone and called Getty to resolve the issue.

    Ah. Another newbie making unsubstantiated claims about Getty.

    WHO is your friend that was sued? What was the case number? When it it happen?

    There are absolutely no documented cases of Getty ever taking a case to judgement in the USA. The above story has zero credibility. I'm one step away from calling leenguyen a liar.


    Which, in the USA, is illegal. So yes, according to leenguyen, Getty is breaking the law!

    Getty won't spend more on legal fees to win a judgment. It has already been soundly disproven on this thread that Getty will not spend thousands in legal fees to collect a small amount. The above text by leenguyen is completely false.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2009
    Corwin, Nov 10, 2009 IP
  14. Dave Zan

    Dave Zan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    121
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #154
    If, again, you mean Getty or the other party taking their case all the way to
    the U.S. Supreme Court, then I'll agree with you. But some settle as you had
    already been made aware, others voluntarily dismiss their cases, while some
    are decided without being taken up further.

    Maybe they'll settle, maybe they'll go far if they really think they can collect
    a lot from the other side, lots of maybes. Who knows?

    Now, it's somewhat reasonable to think that Getty won't take it all the way.
    But that's for the parties involved to decide that on their own, despite what
    others think.

    And I guess you've checked through those sample cases I mentioned and are
    able to see how any of them turned out? Feel free to share any link to a free
    copy of their decisions if you've found one as I've not had any luck.

    Maybe you don't have to. But it is only your opinion that Getty won't stupidly
    spend more in legal costs to take a so-called principled stand, and those folks
    are free to spend as much money as they see fit.

    One can only hope they don't find themselves in Getty's crosshairs and turned
    into a carcass to be shown to the vultures.
     
    Dave Zan, Nov 11, 2009 IP
  15. fotoB2B

    fotoB2B Member

    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    #155
    Getty images main purpose in chasing copyright infringement is not so much to make money but to warn the webmasters/designers community about the risks involved in downloading and using copyrighted material.
    The other purpose is to act on behalf of their contributors in protecting their revenues. If they weren't doing so, photographers/illustrators would simply be leaving the agency after seing their photos all over the internet but receiving no revenue from it.

    Reading this thread it seems that they are succeeding.

    I doubt they would sue the owner of a private blog about his family vacation.

    As stated above if the blog is generating revenues through ads or paid links that is a totally different story.

    You can safely buy images here: http://www.stocklib.com for only a dollar and use them in websites for ever.
     
    fotoB2B, Nov 14, 2009 IP
  16. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #156
    No. Let me repeat this for the umpteenth time:

    I have found no documented U.S. cases where Getty has ever taken one of these first-class mail copyrighted cases to judgment. That means ANY decision, by a jury or a judge.


    As I'd already mentioned, I checked the cases you mentioned (Thank You) and none of them ever went to judgment. Oddly enough, when one of the cases was close to being sent to a jury, Getty suddenly dropped the case.


    First, fotoB2B, why is that true? Because you say so?

    Second, you've got to understand that newbies like you don't have much credibility in this discussion.

    Getty is out to make money. Period. They do it with images that have no copyright watermark,and have no copyright info in the image's META EXIF data. If you don't believe me, simply go to Getty's website and check the EXIF data on any of the images (if you don't know what EXIF data is, then you don't belong in this discussion). A good case could be made for entrapment here.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
    Corwin, Nov 16, 2009 IP
  17. Dave Zan

    Dave Zan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    121
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #157
    Do you say so as well? And I really don't know why you consider that case that
    mjewel previously posted as not a so-called judgment when a judge had made a
    decision or judgment or whatever you want to call it.

    You may not consider that a judgment in your words. As far as that judge in the
    case is concerned, he made a decision the law allows him to do despite what a
    few other folks think.

    One is certainly free to state their opinion like fotoB2B did. And we can all make
    up our mind whether what we say can be credible or not, regardless of how new
    or so-called seasoned we are.

    And no, you don't get to say who doesn't belong in this discussion. This here is
    an online forum where people can give their opinion, whether you agree or not.
     
    Dave Zan, Nov 16, 2009 IP
  18. Dave Zan

    Dave Zan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    121
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #158
    Just to correct myself here that I'm actually referring to the U.S.-based ones,
    not the one mjewel previously posted that was decided and settled in U.K. I
    did find a few results from some of the cases, though I can't tell how some of
    them were judged or decided.

    At any rate, Getty will figure out on their own what to do about disputes like
    this one. Hopefully they don't have assets to make Getty think they'll be very
    much worthwhile to go after if they've got an enforceable claim.
     
    Dave Zan, Nov 17, 2009 IP
  19. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #159
    Dave, this is an issue of digital copyright, it's methods (including technical features) and the laws involved. If you've ever been in a court you know that these are not matters of opinion, but of law.

    Anyone that doesn't understand these issues risks providing bad information to the good people on this forum.
     
    Corwin, Nov 22, 2009 IP
  20. WebshoppeSolutions

    WebshoppeSolutions Peon

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #160
    I had a run-in about 4 years ago with Getty ... long story short .. they got "absolutely nothing".

    The problem with Getty at the time was that even they themselves were producing images that they had no right to produce.

    Graphics rendered 4 or 5 times by different artists who in turn, took other graphics from other people to use in their own work .. I'm sure you get the drift. (a friend of ours from Australia actually got after them for putting his work on under someone elses name .. it was a riot)

    Getty once even came after us for graphics that were created by us, in house ... totally original stuff by the way ..

    They stomped up and down and huffed and puffed, but since we own our work, we sort of just told them to take a hike ...

    Even today, we'll use stuff from third party sources and there isn't a whole helluva lot they can do about it ..
     
    WebshoppeSolutions, Nov 22, 2009 IP
    Corwin likes this.