# $321,433.00 -  Whoopsie



## KmH (Apr 25, 2014)

Or -  How To Kill a Home-Based Veterinarian and Veterinary Clinic Website Design Business - in 1. easy. lesson.

Court Awards Maximum Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement | Photo Attorney


----------



## runnah (Apr 25, 2014)

Copyright is serious business kids.

That being said, **** Getty.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 25, 2014)

someone would have to be really stupid to keep using the same images after repeat notifications not to because of copywrite.  I can see someone doing it, couple warnings, they take them down. Maybe a small settlement. But being warned repeatedly and still doing it for YEARS with the same images. well duh..


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 25, 2014)

A site that creates websites just for vets? that's a new one to me, but continuing to use photos they didn't have rights to? Duh is right. 

They could have hired photographers to take photos of pets for use on their site and avoided the whole mess. Double duh.

Getty, aren't they making enough money as it is? sheesh Can't say I care for their terms etc. but I guess in this case the copyright violation continued on so long this seems to be justified.


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 25, 2014)

runnah said:


> Copyright is serious business kids.
> 
> That being said, **** Getty.




Agreed!


----------



## bribrius (Apr 25, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> A site that creates websites just for vets? that's a new one to me, but continuing to use photos they didn't have rights to? Duh is right.
> 
> They could have hired photographers to take photos of pets for use on their site and avoided the whole mess. Double duh.
> 
> Getty, aren't they making enough money as it is? sheesh Can't say I care for their terms etc. but I guess in this case the copyright violation continued on so long this seems to be justified.



i wonder if it was just a little guys images the court would have cared so much or the settlement would have been as big. Maybe if it was someone other than Getty it would have been fiver grand instead of 300 k


----------



## runnah (Apr 25, 2014)

Just like every other company out there, they can screw you as much as they like but the moment you even think about doing something they come at you guns a blazin.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 25, 2014)

runnah said:


> Just like every other company out there, they can screw you as much as they like but the moment you even think about doing something they come at you guns a blazin.



spoken like a anti corporation mainah...


----------



## runnah (Apr 25, 2014)

bribrius said:


> spoken like a anti corporation mainah...



I am pro business, just not pro bullying corporations with massive legal teams.


----------



## KmH (Apr 25, 2014)

bribrius said:


> someone would have to be really stupid to keep using the same images after repeat notifications not to because of copywrite.


Copywrite doesn't mean squat. Worry about copyright.

Dude! Get your shift key fixed. lol - Or make your high school English teacher proud and use it.

Getty likely filed suit on behalf of the copyright owners.


----------



## usayit (Apr 26, 2014)

runnah said:


> I am pro business, just not pro bullying corporations with massive legal teams.



This is an oxymoron.   Corporations and business are not people.... they dont bully.  What they do is operate according to what they are designed to do which is protect their business interests and make money.  If the actions of a corporation seems unfair or if there are issues with ethics, then the only entity that bares blame is the legal legislation that should have protected others from such actions.   It failed to do so.  

You cannot claim to be pro business and yet be critical of a business entity protecting its interests LEGALLY.   If the tables were turned you would be cheering for the small business... well thats just prejudice.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 26, 2014)

yeah, but some call it bullying .... (in the bicycle industry, a trademark "bullying" case)
Specialized's disastrous trademark case is unnecessary to defend the brand - VeloNews.com

all ended up well though as Specialized actually was a licensee of the trademark name.  Another company owned the worldwide rights, and told them to back down.  lol

but in the aforementioned copyright case above .. those cats look like Tight Knot's cat photos !!  :lmao:


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 26, 2014)

_[In addition], the defendants failed to end their infringement despite repeated notifications of their infringing use and opportunities to settle the matter swiftly with Getty. . . . Getty first informed the defendants of their infringing activity in 2007, but they continued to infringe images licensed exclusively to Getty, even after the lawsuit was instituted in 2013. _


----------



## Braineack (Apr 26, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> _[In addition], the defendants failed to end their infringement despite repeated notifications of their infringing use and opportunities to settle the matter swiftly with Getty. . . . Getty first informed the defendants of their infringing activity in 2007, but they continued to infringe images licensed exclusively to Getty, even after the lawsuit was instituted in 2013. _



god, Getty is such a bully.


----------



## usayit (Apr 26, 2014)

Do we expect Getty to "overlook" the situation just because they are too big?  :-/

I think Getty did diligence to inform them before action was taken.   Honestly, I'm surprised at the reaction since we are all photographers who would theoretically do the same if someone used our images without permission.  This is suppose to be a big win for photographer (or however owns the image) rights.   

Seems very hypocritical.


----------



## usayit (Apr 26, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> yeah, but some call it bullying .... (in the bicycle industry, a trademark "bullying" case)



People use the term incorrectly to personify the business entity.  Its easy to vilify a person as if the entity should have some sort of moral cause.   Every time see this reaction, its obvious the general public lacks in the understanding of the business world.  

Def of Bully

Bully | Define Bully at Dictionary.com

n. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

NOTICE: "person" "people".


These situations (including the one you linked) is regardless of the size of the entity that isn't a person.  An entity that has one purpose.  The only obvious abuse I see from big business in US is when their access to resources are used to leverage/change the law placing the interest of THE PEOPLE second to their own business entity.


----------



## Overread (Apr 26, 2014)

I suspect they thought they were small fry enough that they could ignore the warnings or that if they ignored them they'd go away; or maybe they thought Ghetty would just file a takedown order (although most who operate like that just start up again). 

I agree this isn't Ghetty being a bully, they are doing exactly what anyone holding copyright who wants to protect it would do. The also appear to have given the people a very long time before taking it to court. They had all the warnings, they had all the chances and they got stung because they ignored them all.


----------



## otherprof (Apr 26, 2014)

So Getty defends the value and protects the ownership of photographs and that makes them the bad guys . . . on this site? I don't get it. BTW, I saw a great exhibition about Queen Victoria and Photography, as well as some other very interesting photography, at the Getty Center last week. Admission charge: $0 (And please enjoy the magnificent gardens as well. Free parasols provided for those who find the sun too strong.)


----------



## otherprof (Apr 26, 2014)

So Getty defends the value and protects the ownership of photographs and that makes them the bad guys . . . on this site? I don't get it. BTW, I saw a great exhibition about Queen Victoria and Photography, as well as some other very interesting photography, at the Getty Center last week. Admission charge: $0 (And please enjoy the magnificent gardens as well. Free parasols provided for those who find the sun too strong.)


----------



## JimMcClain (May 26, 2014)

usayit said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I am pro business, just not pro bullying corporations with massive legal teams.
> ...



My apologies for reviving an old topic, but I couldn't let this one go. Getty Images has been badgering me, off and on, for over 6 years because of my use of a 80x80px avatar image. They want over $7,000.00 (their first demand was for about 2,500.00).

I wrote an article for forum members (I manage 2 forums) about the use of avatars. In the article, I explained that there are websites specifically for finding just the right avatar. I searched out such sites and posted an example from each of four websites and included a link to them. The 4 I used were free avatars and the copyright information on each site indicated to me that they owned the rights to those images. I am very strict about copyright law, even had a post I made on another forum about it plagiarized into an article on a webmaster forum (I notified the owner and it was taken down). I have fired staff over repeated copyright violations and "fired" a client over it.

My server host was not notified, nor was I. Getty sent a demand for payment notice. In it they indicated even removal of the image would not free me from their demand for compensation. I did take the article down on the originating website. A few years later, I put the article on another site (my personal blog linked to above - I hope that isn't against the rules), but without the offending image. But every couple of months I would get another demand from Getty telling me they want their money or I would be sued.

I finally called Getty Images and spoke to several different people, since until then, my snail and e-mails were never replied to. I explained the situation and kept getting shuffled from one person to another. The last person got an earful. I insisted the demands for payment cease and they either believe me or take me to court. I didn't hear from them again for over a year, then the demands returned, this time about once a year. Last one was about 6 months ago for the 7+ grand. I took everything I had to an attorney acquaintance and she said she would take care of it. I haven't heard from her or Getty since, but I still think I might get another notice in about 6 months.

Yeah, **** Getty! In my opinion, they are bullies. Their demands are intimidating and threatening in an attempt to make the reader think the judicial system will be in their favor. I'm sure these tactics may work on some people. And I believe there are cases where there has been an obvious wrong perpetrated on Getty, as in the case presented by the OP of this topic. But in my case and I'm sure many others, Getty uses their considerable legal expertise to prey on people who had no idea they were violating copyright law - and Getty doesn't care.

Jim


----------



## The_Traveler (May 26, 2014)

It's not clear why the Getty is suing you about an avatar unless it is their copyrighted image.

Even so, this seems like it would easily fall under the 'Fair Use'   - U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

If I had been you, I would consider getting an attorney to reply to their letter stating how the use of the avatar falls under the Fair Use Doctrine and, additionally, Getty did not comply with the provisions of the DMCA by notifying the server host, thus allowing you the opportunity to assess the situation and correct it by giving attribution in your article.


----------



## JimMcClain (May 26, 2014)

Sorry, maybe I failed to clarify that Getty claimed to be the owner of the image/avatar. Although I think they over-stepped the boundaries, I don't think they lied about ownership. I assumed at their first notification that the site I obtained the image from, did so illegally. I immediately removed the image, as well as the link (over the years, the other websites I linked to disappeared, so I removed those links too).

I might have also failed to make clear that Getty has not sued me. They have only sent threatening payment demands and none via certified/registered mail. It's a mild form of harassment, if nothing else.

After I received the first notice, I searched and found quite a number of similar issues, all relating to Getty. I came to some conclusions:

I had been given a very poor health prognosis and was convinced I would be long gone before they could do anything about it - and I was quite depressed and didn't care anyway.
My financial condition became just as bad as my health, so there wasn't anything to sue for.
My financial condition is only slightly better, but I would opt to spend money on driving to any court they want to sue me in and stand before the judge with my story and the notifications my attorney friend has.
If I lose, I lose what? My bank balance can't be attached because it's only source of income is military pension - not even the government can take it.
It's not my intention to turn this topic into my own. I only wanted to shine a little light on what I feel is a case of corporate greed and intimidation and yes, bullying tactics, counter to what usayit claimed. Although the case brought to our attention in the first post appears to be clearly in favor of Getty, many are not.

Jim


----------



## hamlet (May 27, 2014)

As an animal owner, i find it very strange that the veterinarians didn't give free service to people in exchange for photographs of their animals? You could hire a photographer and have your clients bring their pets for a photoshoot for their websites. If they asked me i would have brought Poof no problem.

*




*


----------



## KmH (May 28, 2014)

runnah said:


> Copyright is serious business kids.
> 
> That being said, **** Getty.


Getty Images makes 35 million images free to use » British Journal of Photography


----------

