The real cost of being sued by Getty

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Ray Fischer
says...

A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.

A good reason not to steal images. Stealing images and posting them on a
publicly accessible site is one of the dumbest things one can do.

Very true. Unfortunately, there are too many "webmasters" who either
think the:

1) anything on the internet is free for their taking, or
2) if they steal it they won't get caught, or
3) if the get caught, all they have to do is take it down

And in this case, one of those "webmaster's" clients got nailed.

I think the original demand was very appropriate. They should have just
paid it an continued to use the picture.

I also think we're going to see more of this, as image theft is getting
rampant on the internet.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
: Bob Larter wrote:
: Alfred Molon wrote:
: Follow-up article on that infringement case which Getty brought to
: court:
: http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the...-sued-by-getty
:
: see also
: http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367
:
: 2000 GBP paid to Getty, 24000 GBP total expense
:
: Frankly, I think they got what they deserved. They stole an image, got
: caught, & they paid the price.
:
: They got off easy. They should have had to forfeit their entire
: business and turn over any 1st born sons.
:

Forfeiting the entire business is not without precedent. Most such cases
involve patent infringement but has been know to occur with copyright as
well.

We operate a graphic studio and are very protective of our copyright. The
majority of infringements are handled at the level of a letter from our
attorney. Those few that don't the proceeds, over expenses, are used for
scholarships.

On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Alfred Molon wrote:
Ray Fischer

A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.

A good reason not to steal images.

When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from
people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business
with them.

The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief.



Eric Stevens

On 17 Oct 2009 16:56:07 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

NotMe wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
: Alfred Molon wrote:
: Follow-up article on that infringement case which Getty brought to
: court:
: http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the...-sued-by-getty
:
: see also
: http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367
:
: 2000 GBP paid to Getty, 24000 GBP total expense
:
: A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.

You could say the same of tax evasion, bank fraud, theft of utility and
cable service.

I am competely in support of people getting their money for their
work. But Getty is using photos in order to extort money to pay
lawyers. In my opinion (and that's for the lawyers).

Would you be happier if Getty did it himself?



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Alfred Molon wrote:
Ray Fischer

A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.

A good reason not to steal images.

When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from
people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business
with them.

The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief.

Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable
photo isn't ridiculous?

--
Ray Fischer

On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
: Alfred Molon wrote:
: Ray Fischer
:
: A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.
:
: A good reason not to steal images.
:
: When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from
: people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business
: with them.

Do you think Getty would notice if anybody in this newsgroup stopped doing
business with them? Do you think they'd notice if *everybody* in this
newsgroup stopped doing business with them?

Neither do I.

Bob

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
: Eric Stevens wrote:
: On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
:
: Alfred Molon wrote:
: Ray Fischer
:
: A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.
:
: A good reason not to steal images.
:
: When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from
: people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business
: with them.
:
: The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief.
:
: Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable
: photo isn't ridiculous?

Paying $1 to $3 per hour parking fee in a major city is not unreasonable
provided you pay the fee in advance. Park without paying or with the
expatiation of scuffing and you get hit with a much higher free (some call
it a boot fee) that can and often does run upward of $150.

The principle is simple and legal, pay me now a fair and agreed upon fee or
pay me later a fee determined by the court. Your choice, pick one.

NotMe wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
: Eric Stevens wrote:
: On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
:
: Alfred Molon wrote:
: Ray Fischer
:
: A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.
:
: A good reason not to steal images.
:
: When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from
: people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business
: with them.
:
: The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief.
:
: Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable
: photo isn't ridiculous?

Paying $1 to $3 per hour parking fee in a major city is not unreasonable
provided you pay the fee in advance.

That's a criminal matter. It's also not a $1700 fine. You're also
unlikely to get a ticket if the parking space isn't marked as
requiring a fee or if you're 2" over the line.

--
Ray Fischer

On 18 Oct 2009 00:09:21 GMT, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
wrote:
: On 2009-10-18, Robert Coe wrote:
: On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
: : Alfred Molon wrote:
: : Ray Fischer
: :
: : A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.
: :
: : A good reason not to steal images.
: :
: : When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines
: : from people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do
: : business with them.
:
: Do you think Getty would notice if anybody in this newsgroup stopped
: doing business with them? Do you think they'd notice if *everybody*
: in this newsgroup stopped doing business with them?
:
: Neither do I.
:
: I suppose you don't vote because one vote cannot make a difference?

Are you going for the "Non-Sequitur of the Year" award?

In any case, you suppose wrong.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
On 18 Oct 2009 00:09:21 GMT, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
wrote:
: On 2009-10-18, Robert Coe wrote:
: On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
: : Alfred Molon wrote:
: : Ray Fischer
: :
: : A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.
: :
: : A good reason not to steal images.
: :
: : When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines
: : from people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do
: : business with them.
:
: Do you think Getty would notice if anybody in this newsgroup stopped
: doing business with them? Do you think they'd notice if *everybody*
: in this newsgroup stopped doing business with them?
:
: Neither do I.
:
: I suppose you don't vote because one vote cannot make a difference?

Are you going for the "Non-Sequitur of the Year" award?

Are you going for the "clueless idiot" award?

In any case, you suppose wrong.

Do you think anybody would notice if you didn't vote?

--
Ray Fischer