The real cost of being sued by Getty

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
: 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.

Seems you've not been anywhere near Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston (TX) or New
Orleans (LA) any time recently. And no those are fees paid to private
entities typically the towing and booting companies for illegally parking on
private property. These are civil not criminal charges. If you park
illegally on the streets in New Orleans the vehicle is impounded which can
happen faster then you can open the door. If parked on the street in Texas
you get a ticket, don't pay the ticket and you get booted.

In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for
copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically
for damages plus court cost and legal fees. All accrue legal interest until
paid, don't pay and your checking accounts get seized, your real property
gets a leans placed on it and other unpleasant events happen often as a
matter of course. These can eventually lead to buildings and real property
being sold at sheriff sale.

The only time I've seen criminal seizures, arrest and fines was by US
customs for importing copyrighted/trademarked items that were counterfeit.

Regardless you can rationalize the fees as fines or whatever and you can
rant that the awards are exorbitant but they are typically determined in a
court of law based on due process often on summery. I could be wrong but in
near 40 years I've yet to see an appeal much less a reduction or reversal.

NotMe wrote:
In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for
copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically
for damages plus court cost and legal fees.

It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive
maliciousness.

--
Ray Fischer

Twibil wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:17*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:


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?

Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the
value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't.

The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks
like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be.

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
: Twibil wrote:
: On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
:
:
: 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?
:
: Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the
: value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't.
:
: The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks
: like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be.
:

Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. One party asks for more
(sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. The
court makes a judgment on what equitable. (That's why the guy is called a
judge).

I was not too long ago involved in an action against an insucne company.
The demand was ~ $5K. and the case was filed under Texas Deceptive trade
practices act. Judge found to our favor and awarded near $50K based on
statuary rules.

We settled for $30K plus cost to avoid the delay of appeals. I was frankly
surprised at the award and the settlement amount. Neither our lawyer or the
insurance company lawyer were at all surprised at the award or the
settlement.

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...

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

--
Ray Fischer



Not if they only ever expected to ever catch say 1 in 100 copyright infringers,
then no it isn't.

At that rate they'd still be losing money.

If they set the penalty cost nearer to the normal cost then that would simply
enocourage potential infringers to take a chance.

That's the purpose of such punative penalties. To make it uneconomic
- if only maginally so - to steal images. While any "outrage" generated
as a result, will also provide welcome free publicity which can only serve
to deter any other potential waverers.

On the other hand whether all the actual originators of the images in the Getty
archive recieved due recognition and reward for their work during their actual
lifetime, is another matter. But of no relevance here.



michael adams

....

Ray Fischer wrote:
NotMe wrote:
In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for
copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically
for damages plus court cost and legal fees.

It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive
maliciousness.


That's your opinion. The courts differ.

As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase
significantly when you do something wrong. But that's the way they
should be - otherwise there is no deterrent. People would pay only if
caught, and then they would only pay what the original price would be.

The bottom line is - don't steal pictures. And if you do, don't get caught!

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
NotMe wrote:
In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for
copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically
for damages plus court cost and legal fees.

It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive
maliciousness.

That's your opinion. The courts differ.

The courts are about upholding the law, not about dispensing justice.

As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase
significantly when you do something wrong.

That's the lawyer's argument.

--
Ray Fischer

NotMe wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
: Twibil wrote:
: On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
:
:
: 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?
:
: Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the
: value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't.
:
: The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks
: like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be.

Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. One party asks for more
(sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. The
court makes a judgment on what equitable.

"I you don't give us ten times what we charge for the photo then we'll
screw you over for 200 times what the photo is worth."

But that's what happens when law triumphs over justice.

--
Ray Fischer

michael adams wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

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

Not if they only ever expected to ever catch say 1 in 100 copyright infringers,
then no it isn't.

Since when is one person supposed to be responsible for the actions of
others?

--
Ray Fischer

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
NotMe wrote:
In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for
copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically
for damages plus court cost and legal fees.

It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive
maliciousness.

That's your opinion. The courts differ.

As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase
significantly when you do something wrong.

Let's put this in concrete terms...

You doubtless have music on your computer. Did you pay licensing fees
for EVERY bit of music? If not then you could be sued for $1000 (or
more) for each $0.90 song you didn't pay for. You could be sued for
thousands for each bit of software you didn't pay for.

Is THAT justice?

Did you READ those license agreements in detail to ensure that you are
fully in compliance? Did you make a backup of software that does not
allow for backups? Did you install the same software on two computers
without paying for two copies? Did you transfer music from one
machine to another without making sure that you had permission to do
so?

--
Ray Fischer