pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Interesting site about Getty  (Read 11720 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 29, 2010, 18:30 »
0
Came across this while browsing through the latest tweets about IS:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/boycott-getty-images/
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 18:32 by cclapper »


« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2010, 18:37 »
0
Wah.  Read the signatures for some real whining: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/boycott-getty-images/signatures
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 18:40 by sjlocke »

« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2010, 18:48 »
0
I'm all for cracking down on copyright infringement. I just hope Getty passes along whatever money it recovers to the contributor whose image was used illegally.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2010, 19:09 »
0
If they're harassing people for using Flickr, now Getty, images, they're on shaky ground. What if they were marked CC at the time they were downloaded, but now should be licensed from Getty? I've used a photo I found on Flickr marked CC 'some rights reserved', and when I clicked on that, it said it couldn't be used for commercial purposes, which was fine for my use, but it also had a 'license from Getty' link, so I took a screendump of the whole Flickr page, just in case.
No wonder people can get genuinely confused.

« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2010, 19:53 »
0
All thieves use to say "they are innocent", "they didn't know anything", "they thought that is vas legit", "they thought all what is in internet is free..." Why, if so innocent, they don't pay the demand and let it to go to trial?

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2010, 19:56 »
0
I'm all for cracking down on copyright infringement. I just hope Getty passes along whatever money it recovers to the contributor whose image was used illegally.
Absolutely!  I have no sympathy for people who steal or illegally use images and are complaining because they don't like the consequences.  In this case I am glad Getty is using a big stick. 

What I don't like is when that same big stick is turned against contributors, who have done nothing more than supply images and act in good faith. 

« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2010, 20:02 »
0
I have received a fair amount for illegal usage of images from various agencies over the years.i.e. the agency collects on my behalf.  I never get any real details, just a cheque in the mail. I've not gotten a cheque from Getty but I believe they would send it if they collected money for such a thing.

« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2010, 21:29 »
0
...I just hope Getty passes along whatever money it recovers to the contributor whose image was used illegally.

AFAIK Getty is not compensating their contributors and keeps all recovered money to themselves.

Maybe Sean can shed some light on how iStock is handling copyright issues with exclusives.

Is iStock paying the contributor any money if an infringement has been settled?

I'm sure that some exclusives may have found their images on products where they were not supposed to be.

« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2010, 21:33 »
0
I have received a fair amount for illegal usage of images from various agencies over the years.i.e. the agency collects on my behalf.  I never get any real details, just a cheque in the mail. I've not gotten a cheque from Getty but I believe they would send it if they collected money for such a thing.

If you don't mind would you share with us which agencies did pay out any recovered money to you?

In Microstock I'm only aware of a case at Shutterstock where a company "unknowingly" used regular RF licensed images for merchandise that requires ELs. The company did eventually pay for the ELs and SS handed down the appropriate amounts to its contributors.

Who knows how often the agencies do recover any money and if they honestly hand it down to us?

« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2010, 21:42 »
0
Ah Getty, you little hypcrites:

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of dozens of professional photographers whose images were incorporated without their permission into Getty's new product "Premium Access."

http://www.kriendler.com/kreindler_news/news_current/2008-10-class-action-against-getty-images.html

Do as I say, not as I do.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2010, 22:04 »
0
Ah Getty, you little hypcrites:

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of dozens of professional photographers whose images were incorporated without their permission into Getty's new product "Premium Access."

http://www.kriendler.com/kreindler_news/news_current/2008-10-class-action-against-getty-images.html

Do as I say, not as I do.


I saw that also but couldn't find a date on it. Did you happen to see one? That could have been from years ago.

« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2010, 22:13 »
0
Ah Getty, you little hypcrites:

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of dozens of professional photographers whose images were incorporated without their permission into Getty's new product "Premium Access."

http://www.kriendler.com/kreindler_news/news_current/2008-10-class-action-against-getty-images.html

Do as I say, not as I do.




I saw that also but couldn't find a date on it. Did you happen to see one? That could have been from years ago.


Its from October 2008 - the URL is a clue and a google search confirms.

« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2010, 22:28 »
0
Maybe Sean can shed some light on how iStock is handling copyright issues with exclusives.

Is iStock paying the contributor any money if an infringement has been settled?

I'm sure that some exclusives may have found their images on products where they were not supposed to be.

I've never received any sort of punitive reward, aside from maybe making sure that someone bought the image, or the EL that was needed.

« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2010, 23:34 »
0
Hi All,

 Getty does not share punitive damages with their photographers in their Macro side of the business, I can't speak for their microstock side. RM which still represents 50% of all sales in stock, is just the same as RF. They will give you the original 20%-35% of the images normal sale but they keep the big chunk. It used to be they would contact a customer and offer them the chance to remove the image or pay the standard price. Their intentions then were to keep customers happy and try to bring in new ones from their open friendly approach to the problem. Maybe that way didn't work like they wanted so they have changed their policy.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2010, 00:05 »
0
Or maybe they just got greedy.

« Reply #15 on: December 30, 2010, 00:48 »
0
I have received a fair amount for illegal usage of images from various agencies over the years.i.e. the agency collects on my behalf.  I never get any real details, just a cheque in the mail. I've not gotten a cheque from Getty but I believe they would send it if they collected money for such a thing.

If you don't mind would you share with us which agencies did pay out any recovered money to you?

In Microstock I'm only aware of a case at Shutterstock where a company "unknowingly" used regular RF licensed images for merchandise that requires ELs. The company did eventually pay for the ELs and SS handed down the appropriate amounts to its contributors.

Who knows how often the agencies do recover any money and if they honestly hand it down to us?
I'm not sure what the legal terms are but you can sue for what is lost by way of the sale and also for damages. The damages, whatever they are called, can far exceed what was lost in unpaid goods. I can't really say which agencies I have received money for this but not micros. I don't expect much from them in this regard. But I think they could if they wanted to. I have received substantial payment for infringement on an RF image.

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2010, 02:21 »
0
Not to downplay the abuse but this Getty Images "Settlement Demand Letter" topic is over 2 1/2 years old. Someone just found a petition site and started piling on. Kind of like the petitions against AOL or Prodigy charging for email messages. Yeah, that's how old are those warning is.  ;D

Downloading a stolen image from Flickr, that someone else stole and posted as their own, doesn't make it legal, but Getty forgets to issue a cease and desist, which would be a suitable first step in the process. They are somehow taking the tactic of being a bully as the first line of defense, which I can't support at all.
 
The lawsuit from photographers for lowering prices is about the same age, 2-3 years old.

« Reply #17 on: December 30, 2010, 08:29 »
0
Not to downplay the abuse but this Getty Images "Settlement Demand Letter" topic is over 2 1/2 years old. Someone just found a petition site and started piling on. Kind of like the petitions against AOL or Prodigy charging for email messages. Yeah, that's how old are those warning is.  ;D

Downloading a stolen image from Flickr, that someone else stole and posted as their own, doesn't make it legal, but Getty forgets to issue a cease and desist, which would be a suitable first step in the process. They are somehow taking the tactic of being a bully as the first line of defense, which I can't support at all.
 
The lawsuit from photographers for lowering prices is about the same age, 2-3 years old.

I happened to run across this while looking through other things. I had not seen it before. If that's piling on, so be it. I call it being informed.

Yes, a cease and desist might be the first way to go, but do thieves give notice before they steal? I have always heard that when it comes to legal matters, in court, ignorance is no excuse. If the person didn't read the license before downloading, it doesn't mean they don't suffer consequences. The cease and desist is a courtesy, and a lot of times it is ignored anyway.

The part that bothers me is that when Getty does recover losses, they don't even share it with the contributors who images were stolen! We all already know Getty's a bully...that part wasn't any fresh news at all. And apparently it continues to this day.

« Reply #18 on: December 30, 2010, 10:36 »
0
...
I've never received any sort of punitive reward, aside from maybe making sure that someone bought the image, or the EL that was needed.

Thanks Sean. I would assume you are in touch with quite a number of exclusives from iStock who talk about such incidences and it appears that you haven't heard about it either.

Hi All,
Getty does not share punitive damages with their photographers in their Macro side of the business, ...
Best,
Jonathan

Thank you Jonathan as well.

So everyone knows that Getty IS getting money from unlicensed content but the photographer, whose images have been illegally used receives nothing for his/her work although money has been recovered?

 :-X

jen

« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2010, 13:36 »
0
I have the sudden urge to make every other word bold and red.

RacePhoto

« Reply #20 on: December 30, 2010, 15:30 »
0
Wasn't pointing at you for piling on, but the website is roughly 2-3 years behind the learning curve. We can't expect everyone to know everything, so nice share. It's kind of like the "Warning, warning" messages and a quick look at Snopes, shows it's a 15 year old urban myth. Whoever made the petition is out of date.

Getty doesn't share the proceeds? Where's that documented. If they don't and I was a photographer (or am I?) I'd be pissed! Getty working on my behalf, as a gun toting, shoot first ask questions later, no warning given... mob mentality collection agency and I don't get the benefits. That's terrible!

Here's some meat for the potatoes: October 30, 2008 the issue is pricing and RF sales.

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP Files Class Action Against Getty Images on Behalf of Professional Photographers.

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of dozens of professional photographers whose images were incorporated without their permission into Getty's new product "Premium Access."

According to Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, Premium Access is not a rights managed product. "Getty has shirked its responsibility as a picture archive to track the use of plaintiffs' images, and to set pricing per use in good faith on a commercially reasonable basis." As a result, photographers have lost the ability to track the uses being made of their images.

Among the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit are some of the world's leading photographers. Their photographs have been licensed by Getty to major media clients for as little as $2.08 for extensive, untracked use. According to Nelson "Getty's prices have severely undercut the market for comparable photographs, damaged the future market for these photographs, and violated both the Rights Managed Image Distribution agreements Getty signed and the Uniform Commercial Code."


and this - 2007

According to Getty Images Inc, Quarter 3-2007, Form 10-Q filing with the SEC under the Legal Proceedings section on page 23, they state the following:

    "We have been, and may continue to be, subject to legal claims from time to time in the ordinary course of our business, including those related to alleged infringements of the intellectual property rights of third parties, such as the failure to secure model or property releases for imagery we license. Claims may also include those brought by photographers and filmmakers relating to our handling of images submitted to us or to the companies we have acquired. We have accrued a liability for the anticipated costs of settling claims for which we believe a loss is probable. There are no pending legal proceedings to which we are a party or to which any of our property is subject that, either individually or in the aggregate, we believe are expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows."


http://extortionletterinfo.com/talkpoints.htm



Not to downplay the abuse but this Getty Images "Settlement Demand Letter" topic is over 2 1/2 years old. Someone just found a petition site and started piling on. Kind of like the petitions against AOL or Prodigy charging for email messages. Yeah, that's how old are those warning is.  ;D

Downloading a stolen image from Flickr, that someone else stole and posted as their own, doesn't make it legal, but Getty forgets to issue a cease and desist, which would be a suitable first step in the process. They are somehow taking the tactic of being a bully as the first line of defense, which I can't support at all.
 
The lawsuit from photographers for lowering prices is about the same age, 2-3 years old.


I happened to run across this while looking through other things. I had not seen it before. If that's piling on, so be it. I call it being informed.

Yes, a cease and desist might be the first way to go, but do thieves give notice before they steal? I have always heard that when it comes to legal matters, in court, ignorance is no excuse. If the person didn't read the license before downloading, it doesn't mean they don't suffer consequences. The cease and desist is a courtesy, and a lot of times it is ignored anyway.

The part that bothers me is that when Getty does recover losses, they don't even share it with the contributors who images were stolen! We all already know Getty's a bully...that part wasn't any fresh news at all. And apparently it continues to this day.

« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2010, 17:03 »
0
...
Getty doesn't share the proceeds? Where's that documented. ...
I understand that Jonathan doesn't run Getty but he has been with them for a number of years both as a contributor and as a partner agency.
I'm somewhat confident that he would have heard something whether Getty contributors would have received any money from recovered "damages" that Getty successfully claimed.

With the help of this community here I'd think that at least one member would have come across an article or some sort of documented case where a Getty photographer received such claimed licensing fees of a previously "stolen" image.

Quote
If they don't and I was a photographer (or am I?) I'd be pissed!
This was my point. Of course it doesn't help getting upset and angry with the world about the fact how it operates (unfortunately) but it is indeed "not nice" that IF Getty does recover damages they are not shared with the contributor whose content has been (ab)used.

Quote
Getty working on my behalf, as a gun toting, shoot first ask questions later, no warning given... mob mentality collection agency and I don't get the benefits. That's terrible!
You got it.

Now aside from Getty, I can personally only name one company that paid royalties to me that were generated by someone who infringed my copyright: Zazzle.

Whenever I found my images being offered at any given Microstock agency (except iStock - they never accepted my images on another contributor's account), they never offered nor (after asking) even considered paying me royalties that were accrued with my images.

So the agencies do make money with stolen content and even when the original copyright holder claims the royalties for those sales, we don't even receive them.

That's not right either but that's how it rolls...  :-X

RacePhoto

« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2010, 17:44 »
0
...
Getty doesn't share the proceeds? Where's that documented. ...
I understand that Jonathan doesn't run Getty but he has been with them for a number of years both as a contributor and as a partner agency.
I'm somewhat confident that he would have heard something whether Getty contributors would have received any money from recovered "damages" that Getty successfully claimed.

With the help of this community here I'd think that at least one member would have come across an article or some sort of documented case where a Getty photographer received such claimed licensing fees of a previously "stolen" image.


Ah, I think you need to re-think your argument. It's totally illogical.

You are saying that because there's no evidence that the accusation is factual, and none to the contrary, that makes it true?

The fact that no one has found either a case where Getty collected on behalf of a contributor and made a profit doing so. Or that there's no one here who received payment for a case. Neither one is proof that it hasn't happened. I may doubt it, but the proof doesn't exist to support your contention.

Also if you followed the link and read a little of the cases. It turns out that the attorneys fees were four times the settlement, which means the inflated claims are weak in the eyes of the court and not profitable to pursue. That plus the annual report from Getty that says, there are no pending cases. All of which means, we're looking at a three year old article and making assumptions, because some misguided person who didn't bother to do their research, started a petition, against something that ended years ago!

The case with the photographers came about when Getty started $50 sales and wanted to move some of these collections into lower prices and RF sales. These would be the same photographers who were screaming that microstock was ruining their sales and the model would collapse under it's own weight. They may have been right? :D

« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2011, 11:08 »
0
You are correct that I have no proof of what I "accused" Getty of doing.

Otherwise I wouldn't be making money taking pictures and rather claiming monthly settlement payments from Getty...

Joke aside.

We do know that agencies pursue copyright infringement. Do I need proof for that to continue my train of thought? I assume not.

Now, in the digital age where a lot of information is being sent allover the globe there a little amounts of secrets left and we all experienced, know or heard of stuff happening that no agency would want to be published but it's happening anyway.

There is no reference to Wikileaks but just to make this point.

What I can speak for is myself and personal experience.

I did find my content stolen, in use and infringed upon, contacted the agency and never heard back.

So what is this protective behavior towards the agencies? Aren't they the ones actually offering our content on their web servers? Aren't they "making sure" that transactions are secure? Aren't they actually in charge to protect us?

How could we, contributors, make such business practices more safe? We can't. It's the agency's or agencies' job and not mine.
That's why they take their part of the commission.

Long story short, we're sitting at the short end of the stick. The agencies are in control over basically everything.
And the agencies won't let us have a look behind the scenes of what is happening with any copyright infringement pursuits and how much they made off of that.

A couple more things. It doesn't make sense for a company to keep going into litigation if the result is always losing money. That would be poor business practice IMO. Therefore I strongly "suspect" that such losses are easily covered with the out-of-court settlements that Getty became famous for.

« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2011, 13:11 »
0
They could still choose to lose money on the litigation end of things if they think it intimidates enough people into paying for images. (the litigation is a net loss but they think overall it is better for the company). I've seen how lawyers can pad the books, they could just say that the litigation loses money so that they don't have to kick any settlements back to the artists.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3257 Views
Last post October 17, 2009, 09:15
by sharpshot
82 Replies
12574 Views
Last post May 05, 2012, 17:35
by luissantos84
7 Replies
4687 Views
Last post June 07, 2012, 17:13
by Karimala
1 Replies
1065 Views
Last post September 29, 2013, 15:37
by Ron
15 Replies
2714 Views
Last post May 12, 2015, 15:11
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors