MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images' take on copyright issues  (Read 10649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« on: January 13, 2010, 08:04 »
0
Copyright Issues: Photographer POV


This has one of their legal people and two photographers talking about copyright issues, business costs, and money lost.

 


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2010, 21:04 »
0
Thanks Paulie,

 I am glad that Getty is concerned with the growth of stolen imagery. With the broader use by undereducated buyers who do not understand the process or legal issue in licensing an image, this is becoming a growing issue. I think we will see more effort towards this subject as dollars get thinner and agencies start to suffer from lost sales. At least I hope so.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2010, 21:38 »
0
The issue really gets complicated. Someone links my Flickr photo to his website and gives me a photo credit. It is a use without permission. However, because people will have to click on the link and view the photo on Flickr, so it is a grey area.

vonkara

« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2010, 21:44 »
0
Hahaha flickr... "Developed his skills there" Thank god they have very good teachers there that comment "amazing" "mervelous" on every images they see.

He might be a good photographer. But since the flickr partenrship is less than 6 months old, he's not with Getty for more longer. That part was a nice add for their flickr partnership Sigh... I dislike hidden publicity

« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2010, 22:13 »
0
Well, that was sort of nice... but I never heard them actually say that stealing a photo is an infringement of copyright and against the law.

I think Getty was playing softball on this one.  I would have liked them to hammer home the point that stealing an image can cost much more than just licensing it in the first place.

I do think the lousy economy is party to blame though...

Today I was talking with a dear old friend who owns a courtroom translation business.
She is currently two months behind on her mortgage payment. See, she is a licensed courtroom interpreter, and charges accordingly. The courts here have gone on the cheap and are hiring unlicensed interpreters instead of coming to her.


« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2010, 22:33 »
0
 if any site is really "concerned" about contributors' interest. they would have done what many contributors here have done, ie. use whatever software to track their images and find the thieves.

do you know of any site who actually did that to ensure no one has actually stolen from contributors?  i am sure there were enough cases of theft. it's been taking over this forum many times, so i am sure the agencies all know it is happening.

but do we see any of the say, Big 6 , coming in on our behalf to charge in like a knight on a silver stallion to say, "hey, you don't have to do this on your own, we are now getting our legal team to surf the web to make sure this never happens again".
noooooooo, up to now, we have hear (...... listen) *silence*

another thing, i remember someone once mentioned that when stock images were more expensive, pilfering of images or copyright infringement were less prevalent.  this was due to the fact that whoever paid bucks for stock images
actually really meant to use them, and they know the agreement and are aware of the copyright laws,etc..

but as subs came into the picture, every tom dick and harry can literally pick up tons of images at woa, as advertised by every site "get as many as you like and pay as little as possible"
this gives the impression that woa, i get all these images for so little. and then some dude comes in to get all these subs priced images and he puts in on a cd and sells the cd.  just like anything else, music, movies,etc.. and they think hey,
i paid for these images from xxx stock sites, you know. i didn't steal them,
i bought them , so like i paid for my cd i have the right to put these music on the web .

well, sounds familiar?  hey, it's royalty free. 
so, i bought it, and now i can use them anyway i please without paying any "royalties" .

so, really. i think the sites are partly responsible for this.
there has been a gross misinterpretation of what "royalty free" really meant.
i have seen even editors of magazine or contributing writers for equipment magazines misinterpreting "royalty free" as well.

so, if these contributing writers who write regularly for magazines don't understand the implication, is it no wonder the common person doesn't either?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2010, 22:40 by PERSEUS »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2010, 22:41 »
0
Well, that was sort of nice... but I never heard them actually say that stealing a photo is an infringement of copyright and against the law.
I think Getty was playing softball on this one.  I would have liked them to hammer home the point that stealing an image can cost much more than just licensing it in the first place. I do think the lousy economy is party to blame though...

Today I was talking with a dear old friend who owns a courtroom translation business.
She is currently two months behind on her mortgage payment. See, she is a licensed courtroom interpreter, and charges accordingly. The courts here have gone on the cheap and are hiring unlicensed interpreters instead of coming to her.

I think Getty did a pretty effective job of pursuing infringements. That campaign they did where they sent legal correspondence with invoices scared the crap out of a lot of people. It got the word out not to mess with Getty's images and that copyright ignorance is no excuse.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2010, 22:51 »
0
if any site is really "concerned" about contributors' interest. they would have done what many contributors here have done, ie. use whatever software to track their images and find the thieves.

do you know of any site who actually did that to ensure no one has actually stolen from contributors?  i am sure there were enough cases of theft. it's been taking over this forum many times, so i am sure the agencies all know it is happening.

but do we see any of the say, Big 6 , coming in on our behalf to charge in like a knight on a silver stallion to say, "hey, you don't have to do this on your own, we are now getting our legal team to surf the web to make sure this never happens again".
noooooooo, up to now, we have hear (...... listen) *silence*

another thing, i remember someone once mentioned that when stock images were more expensive, pilfering of images or copyright infringement were less prevalent.  this was due to the fact that whoever paid bucks for stock images
actually really meant to use them, and they know the agreement and are aware of the copyright laws,etc..

but as subs came into the picture, every tom dick and harry can literally pick up tons of images at woa, as advertised by every site "get as many as you like and pay as little as possible"
this gives the impression that woa, i get all these images for so little. and then some dude comes in to get all these subs priced images and he puts in on a cd and sells the cd.  just like anything else, music, movies,etc.. and they think hey,
i paid for these images from xxx stock sites, you know. i didn't steal them,
i bought them , so like i paid for my cd i have the right to put these music on the web .

well, sounds familiar?  hey, it's royalty free. 
so, i bought it, and now i can use them anyway i please without paying any "royalties" .

so, really. i think the sites are partly responsible for this.
there has been a gross misinterpretation of what "royalty free" really meant.
i have seen even editors of magazine or contributing writers for equipment magazines misinterpreting "royalty free" as well.

so, if these contributing writers who write regularly for magazines don't understand the implication, is it no wonder the common person doesn't either?

I don't think any of "The Big 6" are going to waste their time chasing after infringements. If they do it'll be a one-time "please take it down and sign up for our service" notice. Beyond that forget it. Are they going to have a lawyer chase after a $1-$25 image? Probably not.

Getty on the other hand can recover hundreds or thousands of dollars per offense. And they did use tracking software to find infringements.

And I don't think anything that's for sale should have the word "free" associated with it. Royalty Free automatically gives the impression it's free for the taking. Whoever came up with that missed marketing or business 101.

« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2010, 22:59 »
0
I don't think any of "The Big 6" are going to waste their time chasing after infringements. If they do it'll be a one-time "please take it down and sign up for our service" notice. Beyond that forget it. Are they going to have a lawyer chase after a $1-$25 image? Probably not.

Getty on the other hand can recover hundreds or thousands of dollars per offense. And they did use tracking software to find infringements.

And I don't think anything that's for sale should have the word "free" associated with it. Royalty Free automatically gives the impression it's free for the taking. Whoever came up with that missed marketing or business 101.

No one thinks Fat Free means you get the fat for free, or that the product is free because it's got the word free in it. Or that smoke free means the proprietors are giving away smokes. People who think that Royalty Free is just another way to say Free are simply attempting to justify their theft and appear innocent.

ETA: Never forget that 1% of the population are psychopaths.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2010, 23:13 »
0
I don't think any of "The Big 6" are going to waste their time chasing after infringements. If they do it'll be a one-time "please take it down and sign up for our service" notice. Beyond that forget it. Are they going to have a lawyer chase after a $1-$25 image? Probably not.

Getty on the other hand can recover hundreds or thousands of dollars per offense. And they did use tracking software to find infringements.

And I don't think anything that's for sale should have the word "free" associated with it. Royalty Free automatically gives the impression it's free for the taking. Whoever came up with that missed marketing or business 101.
No one thinks Fat Free means you get the fat for free, or that the product is free because it's got the word free in it. Or that smoke free means the proprietors are giving away smokes. People who think that Royalty Free is just another way to say Free are simply attempting to justify their theft and appear innocent.

ETA: Never forget that 1% of the population are psychopaths.

What you're saying is a bit different in that it's not a cost associated with free. If a product said "cost free" what would you think that means? It's free! I don't think the word free should be put next to a word that implies cost. Royalty is a cost. So therefore it's easy for the uninformed to assume it's free.

I think a lot of infringement is ignorance. People think everything on the internet is free so hey those images must be too. The average person using Google images probably knows nothing about copyright.

« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2010, 23:50 »
0
if any site is really "concerned" about contributors' interest. they would have done what many contributors here have done, ie. use whatever software to track their images and find the thieves.

do you know of any site who actually did that to ensure no one has actually stolen from contributors?  i am sure there were enough cases of theft. it's been taking over this forum many times, so i am sure the agencies all know it is happening.

but do we see any of the say, Big 6 , coming in on our behalf to charge in like a knight on a silver stallion to say, "hey, you don't have to do this on your own, we are now getting our legal team to surf the web to make sure this never happens again".
noooooooo, up to now, we have hear (...... listen) *silence*

another thing, i remember someone once mentioned that when stock images were more expensive, pilfering of images or copyright infringement were less prevalent.  this was due to the fact that whoever paid bucks for stock images
actually really meant to use them, and they know the agreement and are aware of the copyright laws,etc..

but as subs came into the picture, every tom dick and harry can literally pick up tons of images at woa, as advertised by every site "get as many as you like and pay as little as possible"
this gives the impression that woa, i get all these images for so little. and then some dude comes in to get all these subs priced images and he puts in on a cd and sells the cd.  just like anything else, music, movies,etc.. and they think hey,
i paid for these images from xxx stock sites, you know. i didn't steal them,
i bought them , so like i paid for my cd i have the right to put these music on the web .

well, sounds familiar?  hey, it's royalty free. 
so, i bought it, and now i can use them anyway i please without paying any "royalties" .

so, really. i think the sites are partly responsible for this.
there has been a gross misinterpretation of what "royalty free" really meant.
i have seen even editors of magazine or contributing writers for equipment magazines misinterpreting "royalty free" as well.

so, if these contributing writers who write regularly for magazines don't understand the implication, is it no wonder the common person doesn't either?

I don't think any of "The Big 6" are going to waste their time chasing after infringements. If they do it'll be a one-time "please take it down and sign up for our service" notice. Beyond that forget it. Are they going to have a lawyer chase after a $1-$25 image? Probably not.

Getty on the other hand can recover hundreds or thousands of dollars per offense. And they did use tracking software to find infringements.

And I don't think anything that's for sale should have the word "free" associated with it. Royalty Free automatically gives the impression it's free for the taking. Whoever came up with that missed marketing or business 101.

I don't think anything that's for sale should have the word "free" associated with it. Royalty Free automatically gives the impression it's free for the taking. Whoever came up with that missed marketing or business 101.

phew, finally someone came right out to say it.
i thought i was the only one thinking ROYALTY FREE was the silliest thing anyone can call intellectual property. 

YES, YES, YES,... any Business or Marketing student would have laughed in your face when you use the words FREE, CHEAP, LITTLE, TAKE ALL YOU WANT FOR AS LITTLE...
i could go on forever. but ... i am too tired already.

thx Paulie.

« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2010, 04:36 »
0
The issue really gets complicated. Someone links my Flickr photo to his website and gives me a photo credit. It is a use without permission
Is it?   :-\

« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2010, 14:10 »
0
I agree Paulie,

 I think the word free should have never been used for Stock images, it sends the wrong message to the ignorant of this industry. Bad marketing plan but it wasn't Micro that just started it. Another group a decade back made that marketing mistake. I hope the term some day gets changed.

Best,
Jonathan
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 18:20 by Jonathan Ross »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4081 Views
Last post December 15, 2006, 17:13
by yingyang0
12 Replies
4704 Views
Last post January 30, 2009, 03:11
by SoftDux
10 Replies
3224 Views
Last post October 13, 2010, 14:24
by traveler1116
1 Replies
3475 Views
Last post April 15, 2011, 12:44
by Jo Ann Snover
989 Replies
92423 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results