The real cost of being sued by Getty

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
--

Alfred Molon

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.

--
Ray Fischer

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.
--

Alfred Molon

On 17 Oct 2009 06:21:52 GMT, (Ray Fischer) 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
:
: A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.

Depends on which side you're on, doesn't it? If you sell photos through Getty,
you may be less likely to get ripped off by infringers.

It's like with lawyers. Everybody hates the tough, intransigent lawyer that
practices in their town until they need a lawyer themselves.

Bob

"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.

Long time back the result of stealing chickens, corn or watermelon from a
farmers field was a butt load of rock salt from a shot gun.

We're very up front with new clients about copyright and trademark. If a
client insist on using pinched work product we'll resign the account.

End result is first a surprise that anyone would do that and second an
eventual call from the former client's attorney about their current
copyright problems.

Sad part is many attorneys don't have a clue about copyright or how to deal
with a formal complaint.

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

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.

It would have been a lot cheaper if they had paid the original demand,
which wasn't that bad. It only got real expensive for the infringer
after they thought they might be able to avoid paying. Once Getty
started preparing a case they were determined to make an example out of
the infringer.

--
Red

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.

--
Ray Fischer

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).

--
Ray Fischer

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.

Right?

--
Ray Fischer

In article , Ray Fischer
says...
But Getty is using photos in order to extort money to pay
lawyers. In my opinion (and that's for the lawyers).

That's an absurd accusation. Getty doing its best to generate cash for
lawyers?

Getty is a huge company and the money they retrieve through these
infringement activities is peanuts if compared to their turnover.

The real issue is that copyright infringement is rampant in the web and
Getty loses a lot of money because people do not pay for their images.
Getty is trying to do something about this.

And if an infringer refuses to pay the settlement offer, the only way to
enforce your rights is to bring the matter to court and for that you
need lawyers.
--

Alfred Molon