| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/07/2008 03:49:05 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by karmat:
because getty may be trying to collect on an image that wasn't theirs at the time it was initially uploaded? |
That's not really important in the absence of any other licensing agreement with the preceding licensing agent. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:59:05 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by eqsite:
... a bill from Getty Images for the use of the image.... |
How much is the bill for? |
The bill is for $1,400 USD (-15% discount = $1,190 USD). It's not enough to break either of us, but it's not exactly painless either (but I guess most good lessons involve a certain amount of pain).
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:00:06 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
because getty may be trying to collect on an image that wasn't theirs at the time it was initially uploaded? |
That's not really important in the absence of any other licensing agreement with the preceding licensing agent. |
Yeah, my gut feeling is that even if it wasn't managed through Getty at the time, it was most likely managed somewhere else. I just didn't understand such things back then the way I do now. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:13:35 PM · #29 |
| Exactly, whether getty had it or not, it was still someone else's image. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:23:28 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
because getty may be trying to collect on an image that wasn't theirs at the time it was initially uploaded? |
That's not really important in the absence of any other licensing agreement with the preceding licensing agent. |
I didn't say it was. You asked why the date mattered, and I was asking (note the "?" at the end), would it have made a difference. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:46:09 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
because getty may be trying to collect on an image that wasn't theirs at the time it was initially uploaded? |
That's not really important in the absence of any other licensing agreement with the preceding licensing agent. |
I didn't say it was. You asked why the date mattered, and I was asking (note the "?" at the end), would it have made a difference. |
I really wasn't trying to argue with you. Sorry. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 06:17:28 PM · #32 |
Well, I take my hat off to you for admitting it and not trying to act all hard done by.. but that bill... sheesh!!
good luck, maybe if you ring them up and try to negotiate a lower rate, saying you didnt really understand the full copyright infringement yadda yadda yadda and see if you can come to some agreement, however, since you have linked to the image from here, there is every chance they will see a certain amount of traffic from this site (easy to see in webstats) and will see this thread..
I would definitely try to negotiate a lower rate.. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 06:18:37 PM · #33 |
| Not perfect but you might try the Wayback Machine internet archive to look at the Getty site as of the time of the suspected infringement. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 08:31:12 PM · #34 |
I think the lawyer idea was a good one. I'm a bit bothered whenever someone tries to collect something too fast. But there is also the issue of who is actually libel for any infringement. That may come down to who owns the website where the image was. I would also want something signed from Getty that says that whatever you pay covers the full cost for whatever infringement was done. You don't want them coming back later and saying we did not realize how long you were using the image so we want and extra $1,000. You also should be protected against them saying well we got our money for the last four years now you also owe this other company for the previous four years. A lawyer may also tell you not to admit wrong doing on your part, but rather word an agreement to say you are paying for use of the image for the relevant time period.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 08:43:08 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Simms:
maybe if you ring them up and try to negotiate a lower rate, |
Perhaps what I thought but did express...haggle? is that the term? I have heard it on the news lately. Maybe it was on someone's site as stock when you got it but not at such a steep price. Perhaps it was on their site at the time but not such a popular image so not drawing such a high commission and when Getty acquired it they boosted it just out of practice. I would think it would be worth some discussion, if possible, with Getty. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:26:32 PM · #36 |
| Seems like both Getty and Corbis are using a new tool to catch infringers. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:36:20 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...
Also, once you pay the royalty/usage fee, you should be able to post it again. |
Actually, the bill is very clear in this regard. Once the bill is paid we would need to negotiate additional licensing before using it again. |
You probably could find a similar photo on one of the cheap stock sites now for a buck, unlimited usage. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 03:38:40 AM EDT.
