pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Interesting site about Getty  (Read 22105 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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 the feedback : )

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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5762 Views
Last post October 17, 2009, 09:15
by sharpshot
82 Replies
27854 Views
Last post May 05, 2012, 17:35
by luissantos84
7 Replies
8453 Views
Last post June 07, 2012, 17:13
by Karimala
1 Replies
3283 Views
Last post September 29, 2013, 15:37
by Ron
15 Replies
5611 Views
Last post May 12, 2015, 15:11
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors