That's excellent news.

Thats what we call in Holland: Een koekje van eigen deeg.

Its a good thing these companies who think they are untouchable get hit where it hurts them most, the balance sheet. A few more of those million dollar fines and they might even go bankrupt. On the other hand, they might just even claw it back by lowering their royalties.

I don't know where you get that from Paulie. This was a guy who was on the spot at the time of a major disaster, uploaded some shots to Flickr and had them stolen by the Agence France Presse news outfit who then recycled them via Getty (they have a standard arrangement with GI to host their old Press photo stock).

If it was a "new model" for stock, then it is the model of news agencies stealing new pictures from the internet and selling them to subscribers without recognising or paying the photographer who shot them (and threatening and bullying anyone who dares to complain about the behaviour of the corporation involved). It's the "everything on the internet is free" model that some people argue for. Only, fortunately, this turned out not to be a free ride, to the tune of $1.2m .... I just wish the fine had been 100x that to make people really sit up and think before thieving.

My guess would be that AFP will pay more than half of the fine - and what's a $600,000 loss to companies of this size? It will just mean the chairman's next yacht has to be a metre shorter than he expected.

I don't know where you get that from Paulie.

Maybe Paulie meant to post in this thread:
www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-moments

There was a piece on the news yesterday where all the major and minor news agencies, from CNN to AP to NBC, CBS, ABC and others (some 40+) sent a petition to the White House complaining about restrictions on theirs and other photojournalists.  Seems photojournalists are being restricted from decent access to the president and the agencies are forced to rely on sub-standard images or only use the "official" images handed out by the government.  During an interview with one such agency, he admitted that they were oft times forced to use images from social media such as Twitter, Facebook and others.  He indicated they just plucked what they needed off of social media and used them wherever they were required.

Except, of course they are not "forced" to do anything, they choose to steal because they want to stay ahead of the game and they reckon they are too powerful for anybody to dare take them on.
It's corruption, pure and simple.
It's actually exactly the same syndrome that is about to put a pile of News International hacks (as in Editors) in the UK behind bars, where they belong. The idea is that if I break the law, then my media group gets a "scoop" but if I stick to the law, the enemy media might get the (illegal) scoop. So we have a right to ignore everybody's rights and the law of the land because media competition "forces" us to do it.
And let's face it, how many pictures of the American President does the world really need? Love him or loathe him, he's been photographed enough.

He indicated they just plucked what they needed off of social media and used them wherever they were required.

Without even checking if they have been released under CC or similar?

5

5

5

What I find interesting is it seems that the old saying about having your copyright "registered" with a government office to get statutory damages no longer apply which is great if that is the case. Anyone would like to comment on this...

Would the $1.2 Million be considered an 'EL' 

I think it is more "sensitive use"