MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Interesting site about Getty  (Read 11719 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.

« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2011, 13:19 »
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.

True in two ways.

- Litigation does deter people from infringing (to an extent at least - I would think).

- the justification of not paying the artist due to high legal costs.

However, I still have this hunch that the out of court settlements are more than the litigation costs.

« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2011, 18:27 »
0
Hi All,

 Here's an example that isn't quite the same but this happened with a shot of mine that Getty was representing. It was used by " The Onion " ( online political satire ) in a way that totally violated the contract and hurt my neighbors beyond belief, one of the big reasons I don't shoot friends and relatives anymore. Getty contacted " The Onion " and had them remove the image immediately with no damages because they wanted to keep the customer relationship strong, this is what I was told by my editor.
 These days it appears they would most likely take it more seriously from what I am reading here on this forum. The image was removed within the week but not before our neighbors college daughter was the laughing stock of her school ( word got out, poor girl ). Really kind devout christian family that was truly hurt by the use of the image and the article that ran with it. Worst of all they just cut her head out of my original shot of Mom and daughter in the kitchen having fun. At the time I  appreciated the actions Getty took so fast to handle the problem and understood their wanting to keep their client base strong. As much as it hurt the family after the fact, Getty handled it very well. That was 9 years ago. My two Cents!

Best,
Jonathan

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2011, 20:49 »
0
Jonathan, I find the examples you post really helpful. though in this case, I'd be happy if my image was used by The Onion. It's so obviously satirical that I'm not sure why anyone would feel they were being misrepresented. Is there any other way to be portrayed by The Onion other than misrepresentation?

As for the topic; So--Getty is the agent, and it's the license that has been abused. the licensing rights are owned by Getty. therefore if they litigate over an infringement, I can't decide if that means the artist should receive trickled down damages too--other than fulfillment of the proper licensing. I know in two cases iStock has requested an EL on my behalf with a client that purchased the wrong type of license. If some misused an image and they litigated over the incorrect usage, they're not protecting my work, but instead their license. So am I entitled to any of the damages? wouldn't the contributor in turn have to sue the agency?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 14:03 by SNP »

« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2011, 13:12 »
0
Hi SNP, 

 Yes, I love the Onion but the character of this family was not in the same mind. It was just after the Lewinsky/Clinton ordeal and they made her out to be another Lewinsky ( in graphic detail ) with a government official, just about the worst topic for such a devout christian family. I cannot say for sure if they will split damages with you if they win but in my 13 years in stock and I know quite a few shooters and none of them have received portions of punitive damages. I can only go by the 60 or so photographers I am close to that have sold through Getty for years but with the volume these photographers produce I would expect there to be one example. I have never heard of an example of sharing punitive damages with the photographer so my guess is educated but it is not carved in stone. I hope they share then I would feel more secure and on an equal platform with my resellers. Thanks for  : )

Best,
Jonathan

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2011, 14:07 »
0
well, for the record, my example was hypothetical. re-reading it, it sounds like a real scenario...but it isn't. I've not yet (knock on wood) experienced a misuse of an image. hope I don't have to deal with that. but I was curious what would/should happen. too bad for the family in question. in fact, didn't you start a thread about that when it happened? it sounds familiar, or perhaps it was another contributor. unfortunately people really need to understand that when they model and sign a model release, they have little to no control over the usage of the photos they appear in. I make sure my models know this clearly. I also model for some fellow contributors and I understand that this could occur. But like I said, I would probably be cool with the Onion. that is an unfortunate use for your models though given their sensibilities. too bad for you too, must have been embarrassing for you.

rubyroo

« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2011, 14:17 »
0
It's because of stories like that that I don't use models at all.  The thought of negatively impacting someone's life like that is too much for me to bear.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2011, 14:34 »
0
I don't think there's anything to bear...just be sure your models understand the terms. Even seasoned models will at times dislike usage of their images, but such is the nature of modelling. that's one  of the benefits of exclusivity. if an image is used in a situation that goes against licensing--like Jonathan's example--there is some opportunity for recourse if you're exclusive (or if your image is exclusive at some agency).

rubyroo

« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2011, 14:47 »
0
I think it's subjective.  A matter for each person's own conscience.  I'm just saying that my own conscience couldn't bear it.  Each to his own.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: January 02, 2011, 14:53 »
0
Hi SNP, 

 Yes, I love the Onion but the character of this family was not in the same mind. It was just after the Lewinsky/Clinton ordeal and they made her out to be another Lewinsky ( in graphic detail ) with a government official, just about the worst topic for such a devout christian family.

The Onion did it again with an iStock photo of a very young girl, making her out to be the object of sexual fantasy of a male teacher, (also a stock photo, but not iStock). The photographer complained and iStock issued a cease and desist, and The Onion took it down. No further action was taken by iStock, and of course, the damage was already done.

@Stacey The thing is, not everyone knows about The Onion. I'd never heard of it until someone gave me a link to an excellent article there just after 9/11. After that I looked a few times but found subsequent articles to be very puerile, and paid no attention to it until I read about the iStock issue on the forums there.
It is interesting, and disturbing, that the stock agencies won't, in general, take action against abuse of images, i.e. contrary to their t&c. So basically an end user has nothing to lose by breaking the t&c and can just hope they won't get caught.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: January 02, 2011, 14:59 »
0
This is from the iStock ASA:
10.3
"The Supplier agrees that  iStockphoto shall have the right to determine whether and to what extent to proceed against a licensee or other third party (an "Infringer") for any violation of the Content License Agreement, or other license agreement or alleged infringement of other rights of the Supplier. The Supplier hereby releases iStockphoto from any and all claims the Supplier might have, either directly or indirectly, arising out of or in connection with a determination by iStockphoto to proceed or not to proceed against any Infringer in any instance. iStockphoto hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal or enforcement action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate iStockphoto for lost licensing fees or statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery (including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by or on behalf of iStockphoto in connection with such action, be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above. In the event iStockphoto elects not to proceed against an Infringer, the Supplier shall have the right to proceed against such Infringer for such license violation or infringing action. The Supplier hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate the Supplier for lost licensing fees or include statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery (including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis), be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above. "

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #35 on: January 02, 2011, 15:07 »
0
Hi SNP, 

 Yes, I love the Onion but the character of this family was not in the same mind. It was just after the Lewinsky/Clinton ordeal and they made her out to be another Lewinsky ( in graphic detail ) with a government official, just about the worst topic for such a devout christian family.

The Onion did it again with an iStock photo of a very young girl, making her out to be the object of sexual fantasy of a male teacher, (also a stock photo, but not iStock). The photographer complained and iStock issued a cease and desist, and The Onion took it down. No further action was taken by iStock, and of course, the damage was already done.

@Stacey The thing is, not everyone knows about The Onion. I'd never heard of it until someone gave me a link to an excellent article there just after 9/11. After that I looked a few times but found subsequent articles to be very puerile, and paid no attention to it until I read about the iStock issue on the forums there.
It is interesting, and disturbing, that the stock agencies won't, in general, take action against abuse of images, i.e. contrary to their t&c. So basically an end user has nothing to lose by breaking the t&c and can just hope they won't get caught.

yes, that's the one I was thinking of. I don't disagree Sue. though I think ultimately the onus is on the photographer to explain the model release to models. having said that, even with a model release in hand, if a model kicked up a fuss about their images and those images were not best-sellers for me, in most cases I would be as conciliatory as possible. but I try to explicitly explain the model release when I shoot. this is always a risk with working with any models. no matter what the ASA/model releases say. there's always a potential for models to dislike the use of their likeness. I think it's important to stand by our rights as photographers too. we can't be expected to remove photos we've paid to shoot and that are used within legal limits just because someone doesn't like it.

« Reply #36 on: January 02, 2011, 19:01 »
0
 Hi SNP,

 This was quite a ways back for us and we just didn't think clearly. It was one of those many lessons learned along the way and that's why we now make it super clear to even professional models that their images might end up supporting products or opinions they don't agree with. It seems to just depends on the model, most people don't seem to care they just are interested in making some money and having fun at the same time but occasionally their are issues.
 In RM the photographer has the choice as to how their images are used. If the model doesn't want them in a tobacco or liquor product then that can be added to the image, or the photographer hires a different model. Even a political view point can be added to the image if the photographer decides so. That is why some large modeling agencies will not let some of their models shoot for RF.
 Thank goodness after all these years that is one of only two times one of our images came back to haunt us. I hope it stays that way :)

Best,
Jonathan

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #37 on: January 02, 2011, 20:12 »
0
thanks Jonathan. I know a lot of modelling agencies won't work with stock photographers at all. but obviously there are a lot of great models that don't have a problem working in stock images. hopefully these types of issues are few and far between. other than these two examples, I've actually never heard of it--first-hand--happening to a colleague. the example I always use is the Friends episode where Joey models for a poster company and his likeness is used on posters for venereal disease.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: January 02, 2011, 20:27 »
0
thanks Jonathan. I know a lot of modelling agencies won't work with stock photographers at all. but obviously there are a lot of great models that don't have a problem working in stock images. hopefully these types of issues are few and far between. other than these two examples, I've actually never heard of it--first-hand--happening to a colleague. the example I always use is the Friends episode where Joey models for a poster company and his likeness is used on posters for venereal disease.
From iStock, there was the one of the family being used in a British National Party (fascist/racist political party) flyer, a girl being used in posters for a more moderate Northern Irish political party - cleverly and amusingly, a rival party used the same image on their posters, with a slogan saying something like, "I changed my mind!" (both against the ASA), the old man outside the shed, and the woman in a restaurant used to illustrate an article on call girls, very unfortunately published in the city where the woman, an educator, lives, but not with a comment like 'posed by a model', which is required. (Content License Agreement 4.7(b).

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #39 on: January 03, 2011, 01:07 »
0
those are some great examples. models need to know that could happen. even though a cease and desist might be issued eventually, the ads are already public by then.

Microbius

« Reply #40 on: January 03, 2011, 08:24 »
0
Getty's "heavy handed" actions on copyright violations are just about the only measures that have done anything to educate the public at large about the issue.
I have had several conversations with people from various industries outside of stock that have consisted of them bitching about Getty sending threatening letters to them or the company they work for. Yeah they bitch, but they also finally know that they can't just take whatever they like off the internet without paying and they won't be doing it again in a hurry.
Nothing else works, so I'm all for it.

« Reply #41 on: January 03, 2011, 08:47 »
0
Getty's "heavy handed" actions on copyright violations are just about the only measures that have done anything to educate the public at large about the issue.
I have had several conversations with people from various industries outside of stock that have consisted of them bitching about Getty sending threatening letters to them or the company they work for. Yeah they bitch, but they also finally know that they can't just take whatever they like off the internet without paying and they won't be doing it again in a hurry.
Nothing else works, so I'm all for it.

Exactly. I've had very similar conversations. When offenders (read: thieves) get that letter, after a quick change of underwear, they immediately remove the image and replace it with a proper licensed one or one of their own.

« Reply #42 on: January 03, 2011, 13:52 »
0
Hey SNP,

 That was a great show and a good way to explain to most people because most of us saw that episode.

Cheers,
Jonathan

« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2011, 16:11 »
0

lisafx

« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2011, 17:13 »
0
Apparently you have to join the group to see the message ^^. 

« Reply #45 on: January 03, 2011, 17:23 »
0
Sorry:

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Getty/Picscout copyright claims


In a message dated 1/3/11 9:44:27 AM, digicana@... writes:


> When Getty goes after infringers and recovers money, it shows up in
> your sales report as a sale.  With Getty, there is no way to know when
> a sale is actually a recovered infringement, unless you as a
> photographer were the one who pointed out the infringement to Getty --
>

What Ryan said is exactly what happens. I have reported a few infringements
and when they actually recovered each infringement it showed as sales in
the report. However, sometimes it takes a few month to recover some
infringements due to the nature of those cases.

Hisham Ibrahim
www.PhotoV.com

« Reply #46 on: January 03, 2011, 17:28 »
0
Yep, I think I'll stick to wildlife and nature.

lisafx

« Reply #47 on: January 03, 2011, 17:34 »
0
Thanks for posting that Sean :)

Looks like good news.  At least on the Getty site, photographers get paid when money is recovered from an infringement.  Hopefully it works the same at Istock?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: January 03, 2011, 20:04 »
0
Thanks for posting that Sean :)

Looks like good news.  At least on the Getty site, photographers get paid when money is recovered from an infringement.  Hopefully it works the same at Istock?
Presumably Stacey knows, since she didn't originally get her EL for her Time magazine cover photo.

« Reply #49 on: January 03, 2011, 20:12 »
0
Hi All,

 My experience has been Getty pays you your normal cut for the infringement once it is collected they just don't share punitive damages, within my own experience. They also remove sales from our statements that for some reason did not go through or were rejected before payment was closed. That is why as a third party owner of a stock agency I do not pay out to our contributors until the money is actually collected, that way they never get stung. Many smaller agencies work this way.

Best.,
Jonathan

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #50 on: January 03, 2011, 21:56 »
0
Thanks for posting that Sean :)

Looks like good news.  At least on the Getty site, photographers get paid when money is recovered from an infringement.  Hopefully it works the same at Istock?
Presumably Stacey knows, since she didn't originally get her EL for her Time magazine cover photo.

they contacted TIME and I got the extended license after the fact. so it was good.

« Reply #51 on: January 04, 2011, 16:07 »
0
SNP,

 You got your extended license paid but did you receive any punitive damages? Through my experience and many others I have asked over the years they do not share the 10k ( or whatever the amount ) they made from suing or settling out of court with the company at fault. That was my only point, they will pay you once they collect just not any of the money they collected from the punitive damages. This is my experience from my career, it might be completely different with Istock I cannot say.

Best,
Jonathan

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #52 on: January 04, 2011, 16:55 »
0
there was no suit....they asked, I got paid. the end ;-)

« Reply #53 on: January 04, 2011, 17:33 »
0
Paying the contributor for the license that should have been downloaded is good.

But if there was copyright infringement, to the extent that a lawsuit was needed (which I would assume means that the image was used in some sort of huge way), wouldn't that also mean that the actual copyright holder had been infringed upon and the punitive damages should be shared? Rhetorical question...I already know the answer. But it's certainly not right. The image holder suffered damages just as much as Getty did. In fact, more so, IMHO.


 

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