Author Topic: Licence Infringement - photos.com - Getty (Read 2706 times)

MSBS · « **on:** November 21, 2009, 08:08 »

Hey

about 3 months ago, i found one of my images being sold on a Licence Plate (vehicle) in the US. The image had never been purchased under an EL, so i contacted the vendor, who told me they had bought the image through photos.com.

So i contacted Stockxpert. They then contacted jupiter/photos.com, and then it went off to Getty to investigate.

3 months now, getty ignore my emails, stockxpert cant get hold of the getty people.... and the licence plate is still being sold with my image on, without the correct licence.

What would you do...?

lisafx · « **Reply #1 on:** November 21, 2009, 13:05 »

Well, as mentioned in your other thread, Getty is not likely to be too helpful. If you think it is worth pursuing you should talk to a lawyer. But that's expensive.

Other choice it to just live with it. Up to you which one you choose.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #2 on:** November 21, 2009, 16:53 »

Quote from: MSBS on November 21, 2009, 08:08

Hey

about 3 months ago, i found one of my images being sold on a Licence Plate (vehicle) in the US. The image had never been purchased under an EL, so i contacted the vendor, who told me they had bought the image through photos.com.

So i contacted Stockxpert. They then contacted jupiter/photos.com, and then it went off to Getty to investigate.

3 months now, getty ignore my emails, stockxpert cant get hold of the getty people.... and the licence plate is still being sold with my image on, without the correct licence.

What would you do...?

I think that right address to get info from is at istock due to that they have all administrative rights regarding StockXpert, JUI and Photos.com ;-)

Good Luck!

P.S. I really doubt that they will do anything to help you - it don't makes them any money ;-)

MSBS · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2009, 18:38 »

Think I'd prefer to spend my legal fees taking stockxpert/Getty to court out of principle rather than chase $30!

It's wrong that they should be able to get away with just washing their hands of it.

ap · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2009, 18:50 »

i think getty will get involved if they think it's an ironclad case, especially for their macro stuff. http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-ge

but since this is being funneled through so many different agencies, it's hard to even determine who's responsible. however, there's always small claims court. you should have an ironclad case there. what i don't understand is if you can sue the company when the contract they signed is with the stock agency or if you have to sue photocase directly.

cclapper · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2009, 07:45 »

however, there's always small claims court.

Unless something has changed drastically in the last few years, this is an even bigger waste of time. I've been through small claims court. Even when you are right, have all the documentation, the other party doesn't show up and you get a ruling in your favor, the next step is to track the person down and actually collect the money. At that point, there isn't much help from the court system. Sure, you can file the paperwork, but Vinny the Collector doesn't go over and get the money for you.

MSBS · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2009, 14:58 »

Got an update for you....

Still nothing from Getty, so i contacted the purchaser of the image, who stated that they had settle with a chap at Jupiter Images in Sept 09 (no-one told me) and more shockingly, they were told that their standard licence covered the distribution of my image on their product for resale - contrary to Jupiter's T&C - Extended Licences (EL):

'E3: Physical items for resale - Limited run

By obtaining this license you may use the Image on items for resale such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, coffee mugs, calendars or similar, even if they contain the Image in a dominant way. You may print up to 10,000 items of each category. If you exceed that amount, you must purchase this license again. All other restrictions from the Prohibited uses section of the Standard license terms still apply.'

The purchaser wrote to me originally stating that Jupiter had advised them that the purchase only required a normal licence, so i reckon this is some sort of cover up, hence no-one saying anything to me (other than the purchaser).

Any thoughts?

KB · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2009, 15:07 »

It's not easy to keep track of all the various sites and licensing differences.

But IIRC it seems that one of the big gripes contributors (legitimately) had with photos.com sub sales through StockXpert was that they gave away EL licenses with sub sales.

So my memory seems to agree with what the purchaser stated; sorry!

RT · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2009, 15:08 »

Quote from: MSBS on November 23, 2009, 14:58

Any thoughts?

You could have made more money creating more images in the time you've spent pursuing this and the examples that you've mentioned in other threads than you'll ever get from the extra commission for an EL.

I'm not saying it's fair but then business and life in general isn't fair, you're a non-exclusive contributor - the sites don't care about you, face the fact and move on otherwise you'll be the only one who loses out in the end.

MSBS · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2009, 15:36 »

Quote from: RT on November 23, 2009, 15:08

Quote from: MSBS on November 23, 2009, 14:58
Any thoughts?

You could have made more money creating more images in the time you've spent pursuing this and the examples that you've mentioned in other threads than you'll ever get from the extra commission for an EL.

I'm not saying it's fair but then business and life in general isn't fair, you're a non-exclusive contributor - the sites don't care about you, face the fact and move on otherwise you'll be the only one who loses out in the end.

Who said its about the money? Its principles, and they for me are worth fighting for. And I love a fight.

Problem is when you have a roll over attitude, it sets the precedent. Times like this make you release that a stock trade union would be a good idea.

RT · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2009, 17:44 »

Quote from: MSBS on November 23, 2009, 15:36

Problem is when you have a roll over attitude, it sets the precedent. Times like this make you release that a stock trade union would be a good idea.

It's nothing to do with having a roll over attitude, it's having a realistic knowledge of how the industry and running a business works, if a buyer is determined to get out of paying for something they will, you will not set a precedent despite your good intentions you will only end up alienating yourself with the agencies and the buyers. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating the practice and fortunately the vast majority of buyers do stick within the license terms, as the old saying goes time is money if you feel you can spend the time chasing something like this for no return then good for you.
From the agencies point of view what advantage is it to them to chase something like this, as I said you're non-exclusive so there's no loyalty involved on either side, it would cost them more money in manpower than they'd get back in return.
By the way about your comment re RM on your other thread, I sell a fair bit on Alamy and two of my RM this month (well reported this month) were for UK national papers (The Sun) which both netted me less than $8 in commission and one was front page, I'd get more with a RF EL sale on microstock!
And there is a (kind of) stock trade union, but they are powerless and always will be because we are self employed and nobody who is self employed is going to be dictated to by a union because I and you will make our own decisions on how we sell our product.

MSBS · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2009, 17:53 »

Quote from: RT on November 23, 2009, 17:44

Quote from: MSBS on November 23, 2009, 15:36
Problem is when you have a roll over attitude, it sets the precedent. Times like this make you release that a stock trade union would be a good idea.

It's nothing to do with having a roll over attitude, it's having a realistic knowledge of how the industry and running a business works, if a buyer is determined to get out of paying for something they will, you will not set a precedent despite your good intentions you will only end up alienating yourself with the agencies and the buyers. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating the practice and fortunately the vast majority of buyers do stick within the license terms, as the old saying goes time is money if you feel you can spend the time chasing something like this for no return then good for you.
From the agencies point of view what advantage is it to them to chase something like this, as I said you're non-exclusive so there's no loyalty involved on either side, it would cost them more money in manpower than they'd get back in return.
By the way about your comment re RM on your other thread, I sell a fair bit on Alamy and two of my RM this month (well reported this month) were for UK national papers (The Sun) which both netted me less than $8 in commission and one was front page, I'd get more with a RF EL sale on microstock!
And there is a (kind of) stock trade union, but they are powerless and always will be because we are self employed and nobody who is self employed is going to be dictated to by a union because I and you will make our own decisions on how we sell our product.

You talk alot of sense. (i take it is was Alamy's UK Newspaper Scheme? - a similar purchase from PL would have netted much more).

Thanks. Just so frustrating though isnt it.

RT · « **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2009, 18:21 »

Quote from: MSBS on November 23, 2009, 17:53

You talk alot of sense. (i take it is was Alamy's UK Newspaper Scheme? - a similar purchase from PL would have netted much more).

Thanks. Just so frustrating though isnt it.

Thanks but don't tell anyone, and yes it was part of the newspaper scheme, but I'm glad to say one of the images has made me a lot of money so it's a case of taking the rough with the smooth.

I'd be wrong to say it isn't frustrating but it's something that I've regrettably accepted, I sell thousands of images each month, one or two might get misused, do I care - yes of course, do I do anything about it - yes I spend my time trying to make as much money as I can, if that means losing $20 on one sale to make a $100 on another so be it (in reference to my first reply).

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #13 on:** November 28, 2009, 01:08 »

Subscription getty unlimited use 2.1 Getty Images grants to Licensee a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, worldwide right to Reproduce the Licensed Material identified in the Invoice an unlimited number of times during the term of Creative Express subscription as identified in the Invoice ("Term") in any and all media for all purposes other than those uses prohibited under Section 3 of this Agreement.

http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseAgreements.aspx

Quote from: MSBS on November 23, 2009, 14:58

Got an update for you....

Still nothing from Getty, so i contacted the purchaser of the image, who stated that they had settle with a chap at Jupiter Images in Sept 09 (no-one told me) and more shockingly, they were told that their standard licence covered the distribution of my image on their product for resale - contrary to Jupiter's T&C - Extended Licences (EL):

'E3: Physical items for resale - Limited run

By obtaining this license you may use the Image on items for resale such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, coffee mugs, calendars or similar, even if they contain the Image in a dominant way. You may print up to 10,000 items of each category. If you exceed that amount, you must purchase this license again. All other restrictions from the Prohibited uses section of the Standard license terms still apply.'

The purchaser wrote to me originally stating that Jupiter had advised them that the purchase only required a normal licence, so i reckon this is some sort of cover up, hence no-one saying anything to me (other than the purchaser).

Any thoughts?