Of course RT is wrong. The copyright symbol does mean owner of the IP in many countries. But why getting worked up over it? iStock/Getty ask to release the copyright by contract. Then just dump then. Nothing is easier.

@AttilaTheNun - Hi! Since you asked,  "But why getting worked up over it?"  I'm happy to answer you.

Though you and I, among others, are aware of the       � agency name     situation at that agency, and pulled our ports, there are thousands of contributors, particularly non-exclusives, who might not be aware of it, or perhaps not see the implications as significant, and so will not pull ports because of it.

The contributors' lack of a legal union once again is a boon for the agency.  Wouldn't the agency be quite pleased if the only fallout from their     � agency name    lie was having some small percentage of dissatisfied contributors simply pull their ports, and quietly go away....  

I �  do  � not  � want �   � agency   name  � to  �  become  � "the norm" -
where more agencies, emboldened by what the first one pulled off, consider doing the same.

That's why.

RT, though I respectfully and strongly disagree, I do own a domain name that should work in this situation (and which absolutely does not lead to my editorial photography site, LOL).  So...    

put � StinkStock.com  next to all your images, and I will happily forward your info to anyone who inquires

And once StinkStock becomes famous enough, we can shorten the copyright notice to  � StinkStock  

 

Sorry you seem so upset about it, I didn't mean to offend you I was just pointing out that they're not doing anything illegal.

P.S. perhaps we should just agree to disagree about the illegal part

When I "agree to disagree" with an attorney, on legal issues, it's a safe bet the attorney is right and I'm wrong.

@ Ann - it's not a problem we all vent at some time or another, sent you a PM

There are, of course, also questions of jurisdiction and different copyright laws in different places. Is TS governed by Canadian law or US law? If we supply iS, which is Canadian, and it sends our images to companies registered in different countries all over the world, whose law applies? I don't know.

If I submit an image to a company that has terms based on Canadian law, can it then bind me to the terms of US law simply by insisting that I have to allow it to sell my images via a US company?

I suppose the lawyers resolved this one long ago, but I have no idea of the answer.

There are, of course, also questions of jurisdiction and different copyright laws in different places. Is TS governed by Canadian law or US law? If we supply iS, which is Canadian, and it sends our images to companies registered in different countries all over the world, whose law applies? I don't know.

If I submit an image to a company that has terms based on Canadian law, can it then bind me to the terms of US law simply by insisting that I have to allow it to sell my images via a US company?

I suppose the lawyers resolved this one long ago, but I have no idea of the answer.

There's very rarely black and white answers to any of these questions. The internet creates a whole set of jurisdictional questions that haven't really been relevant before. In the past it was difficult for a company to create contractual arrangements with so many different people from diverse jurisdictions, both buyers and sellers, without having a physical presence in those countries. Aside from the purely contractual issues, there's statutory laws relating to copyright, privacy, sale of goods, consumer transactions or even unfair contracts that can't just be side-stepped by defining a jurisdiction in a contract. Ask a lawyer the same question in Australia, France and the US the same question, and you'll get 3 wildly different answers all of which may well be right.

The answer here will be that TS and iStock are goverened by the laws of every country that they seek to create legal relationships in to some extent. How many of those laws are relevant depends very much on the exact issue you're talking about, and even how one of the parties aims to go about seeking remedies.

Quote from: ann on November 04, 2011, 07:06

And when it uses/requires:   � agency name     agency is openly claiming copyright on millions of photos it does not own copyright to, so a competent copyright lawyer could have a field day with this one.

Actually a competent copyright lawyer would just point out that the copyright symbol ( � ) just specifies that the work is copyrighted, not that they're claiming ownership of that copyright, the purpose of having a name after � is just so that anybody who wants to enquire about the identity of the copyright owner then has a point of contact, and if you want to be really technical all that Getty (or any agency come to that) would have to do to justify them putting there name there would be to show the the contributor (or any contributor) uses a different pseudonym at different agencies, to go even further, take your own name (assuming it's not a unusually unique one) and search the web to find out whether there's anybody else in the world that has a photo displaying the same name as yours - and there's your answer and the reason why Getty would win before it even went to court.

I'm not justifying them not using our names (and I'd rather see my own because it links to my website) just explaining why they can do it, not that they legally have to display any copyright anyway. To be honest, from a protection point of view, unless you do have a truly unique name it's probably better having Getty/Thinkstocks name after the � than your own.

Alternatively they might note that the historical origin of the practice was a statutory requirement to enforce copyright in many jurisdictions, including the US prior to those countries adopting the Berne Convention, and that this practice dictated that the � symbol be followed by the name of the copyright holder and the year the work was created. It was never just to provide a contact point - maybe you can provide some authority for that proposition?

A "competent" lawyer might also note that this is a continuing requirement in jurisdictions that haven't adopted the convention, and provides a procedural advantage even in many of those countries that have, so the name of the actual copyright holder is absolutely relevant. The adoption of a pseudonym itself is also irrelevant seeing as copyright statutes themselves envisage this and allow for a different expiration period for copyright (ie. 70 years from the date of publication rather than 70 years from the date of the death of the copyright holder).  

Sorry but there are legal, ethical and moral reasons why this should be a concern for contributors.

Alternatively they might note that the historical origin of the practice was a statutory requirement to enforce copyright in many jurisdictions, including the US prior to those countries adopting the Berne Convention, and that this practice dictated that the � symbol be followed by the name of the copyright holder and the year the work was created. It was never just to provide a contact point - maybe you can provide some authority for that proposition?

No it's never historically had to be the "name of the copyright holder" , as I said earlier historically it had to be the copyright identity, which was legally defined as being either the name, pseudonym, publisher or agent of the copyright holder - or in other words something by which they can be identifiable, or to put it in layman's terms - 'a point of contact' - I wrote that so people weren't confused into thinking 'identity' meant their name.. (I presume you've sourced your info from a site that's fallen foul of the common misconception of the word identity)

Now for me it's a pointless waste of any more time discussing how historically things used to be, let's deal in the present shall we.

A "competent" lawyer might also note that this is a continuing requirement in jurisdictions that haven't adopted the convention, and provides a procedural advantage even in many of those countries that have, so the name of the actual copyright holder is absolutely relevant. The adoption of a pseudonym itself is also irrelevant seeing as copyright statutes themselves envisage this and allow for a different expiration period for copyright (ie. 70 years from the date of publication rather than 70 years from the date of the death of the copyright holder).  

A "competent" lawyer (or ex) wouldn't get mislead over common legal definitions. 

Sorry but there are legal, ethical and moral reasons why this should be a concern for contributors.

Sorry but I disagree and have pointed out that there are no legal concerns over this issue, you may not like it but unfortunately the law on this matter is not subject to your personal agreement. And as someone else has pointed out earlier, Getty's legal team seem to agree with me.

As for ethical and moral reasons, please read my first statement, I'm in favour of having our name or pseudonym next to our work, although personally it's a minor issue and it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over, so they're using their name after the � instead of mine - I'm pretty sure it's just a marketing strategy on their behalf.

I think people have got too hung up over this particular issue and I imagine a lot of it is because they are being forced to have their work included in Thinkstock against their wishes, looking at the bigger picture Getty as a company is world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, to me that's the most important factor.

Having said all this, in the past companies such as Getty have bowed to contributor pressure so if people really feel the urge to battle over what appears after the � then go ahead and contact them, just don't accuse them of breaking the law - that's my advice.

Quote from: holgs on November 04, 2011, 22:30

Alternatively they might note that the historical origin of the practice was a statutory requirement to enforce copyright in many jurisdictions, including the US prior to those countries adopting the Berne Convention, and that this practice dictated that the � symbol be followed by the name of the copyright holder and the year the work was created. It was never just to provide a contact point - maybe you can provide some authority for that proposition?

No it's never historically had to be the "name of the copyright holder" , as I said earlier historically it had to be the copyright identity, which was legally defined as being either the name, pseudonym, publisher or agent of the copyright holder - or in other words something by which they can be identifiable, or to put it in layman's terms - 'a point of contact' - I wrote that so people weren't confused into thinking 'identity' meant their name.. (I presume you've sourced your info from a site that's fallen foul of the common misconception of the word identity)

Now for me it's a pointless waste of any more time discussing how historically things used to be, let's deal in the present shall we.

Quote from: holgs on November 04, 2011, 22:30

A "competent" lawyer might also note that this is a continuing requirement in jurisdictions that haven't adopted the convention, and provides a procedural advantage even in many of those countries that have, so the name of the actual copyright holder is absolutely relevant. The adoption of a pseudonym itself is also irrelevant seeing as copyright statutes themselves envisage this and allow for a different expiration period for copyright (ie. 70 years from the date of publication rather than 70 years from the date of the death of the copyright holder).  

A "competent" lawyer (or ex) wouldn't get mislead over common legal definitions. 

Quote from: holgs on November 04, 2011, 22:30

Sorry but there are legal, ethical and moral reasons why this should be a concern for contributors.

Sorry but I disagree and have pointed out that there are no legal concerns over this issue, you may not like it but unfortunately the law on this matter is not subject to your personal agreement. And as someone else has pointed out earlier, Getty's legal team seem to agree with me.

As for ethical and moral reasons, please read my first statement, I'm in favour of having our name or pseudonym next to our work, although personally it's a minor issue and it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over, so they're using their name after the � instead of mine - I'm pretty sure it's just a marketing strategy on their behalf.

I think people have got too hung up over this particular issue and I imagine a lot of it is because they are being forced to have their work included in Thinkstock against their wishes, looking at the bigger picture Getty as a company is world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, to me that's the most important factor.

Having said all this, in the past companies such as Getty have bowed to contributor pressure so if people really feel the urge to battle over what appears after the � then go ahead and contact them, just don't accuse them of breaking the law - that's my advice.

Maybe you could point out where I accused anyone of "breaking the law"? My point is that a formulation where naming the copyright owner is omitted isn't in out best interests, isn't in keeping with the spirit of the contributor supply agreement and doesn't accord with standard notices of copyright.

Actually, the Thinkstock agreement contemplates naming photographers:

5.3 Photo Credit. All Licensed Material used in an editorial context, must include the following credit line adjacent to the Licensed Material: "[Photographer's Name]/[Collection Name]/Thinkstock" or as otherwise shown on the Thinkstock website. If Licensee omits the credit, an additional fee in an amount up to one hundred percent (100%) of the Licence Fee may be payable by Licensee, at Thinkstock�s sole discretion. The foregoing fee shall be in addition to any other rights or remedies that Thinkstock may have at law or in equity.

So the problem appears to be with actually identifying us on the site. It isn't an issue on Photos.com - so in all likelyhood its not even a deliberate policy.

You seem to be arguing this on the basis of supposed legal definitions that don't appear anywhere except from the top of your head.

Quote from: RT on November 05, 2011, 08:45

Oh @cclapper - As Lisa later pointed out, Ann's question was to Lisa about me not to me, but I suggest in the future you never assume, I had answered Ann's question in a PM to her, you can check if you want.

Well, first of all I didn't ASS-U-ME anything. I asked a question. To which I don't see where you have actually answered straight up. You keep talking legalese, as though you were or are an attorney. If you are, good for you. If you're not, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me. I don't really care if the question was addressed to Lisa or to you, I was asking the question TO YOU also.

Please explain how I can check a PM.   I could ask Ann, but why would I ask her when I asked you?

But no matter that you haven't answered directly because I already handled the whole issue myself by NOT contributing anymore at all to istock or stinkstock.

Quote

I think people have got too hung up over this particular issue and I imagine a lot of it is because they are being forced to have their work included in Thinkstock against their wishes, looking at the bigger picture Getty as a company is world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, to me that's the most important factor.

For me, it doesn't have anything to do with being forced into Thinkstock, since I am not. It has to do with what's right and what's wrong. Not legally, ethically. And Getty might be world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, but istock and thinkstock most certainly are NOT. And to me that's the most important factor.

But thank you for speaking to me like I'm a child, Mike. Let me hang my head and cower into the corner because a man has admonished me.    

 

PS Here's what I wrote the first time around, guess you didn't actually read it:

Quote

RT didn't answer Ann's question...are you a copyright attorney? If so, then I totally defer to what you say about copyrights. But just being an attorney doesn't necessarily mean you know everything about copyrights. If you are a family law attorney, for instance, you may have touched upon copyrights at some point in your studies/career. But typically if one asks a family law attorney about copyrights, the family law attorney would refer you to a copyright attorney.

"Well, first of all I didn't ASS-U-ME anything."

"RT didn't answer Ann's question...."

Yes I had answered it, as I had said in a PM, so therefore you did ASS-U-ME something, and you assumed it wrongly.

If it makes you really happy no I'm not a copyright attorney, I'm a full time photographer, but I was an IP attorney before that. Are you happy now - probably not but I don't really care, this whole pathetic argument started over me replying to Ann's initial comment about them putting Thinkstock after the � and pointing out not it wasn't illegal, sorry for trying to help.

Oh and my name isn't Mike and I had no idea you're a woman, so I don't know why you felt the need to write "Let me hang my head and cower into the corner because a man has admonished me." I admonished you because you assumed I hadn't done something, which I had, I wasn't aware of using any gender specific terminology or undertones in my reply to you.

@ holgs - You're right I made it all up off the top of my head, please accept my appologies, I suggest in the future everyone listens to an ex employment lawyer, such as yourself, who seems to understand IP law so well.

 
 

I don't like this but would Getty risk getting this wrong?  They have made some big mistakes but this would be disastrous.  Other sites have done something similar in the past and there was something being done about it but I didn't get involved and haven't heard the outcome, if there was one.  Does anyone know what happened about this?
www.microstockgroup.com/pixmac/pixmac-dubious-contributor-maybe-stolen-images/