Quote:
Originally Posted by HalBaumbach
I have a lot of photos on my web sites and also spent a lot of time drawing a map. Every once is a while I find my photos and the map on other web pages. I never try to come down hard on them for a couple of reasons. First I am not in the photo business. And, second, I don't actually know where they got the photos from. So many people have used my photos without asking my permission that they may have taken the photo from someone else's web page. They may have even received permission from the owner of that web site to use my photo.
So how does Getty Images know that a particular person actually got the photo from them? With their photos on Google Images, like hundreds of mine are, they could have got them from someone four or five generations down the line and most of them may not of know where the original photo came from.
How can I prove the person actually took the photos from my web site when so many people are using my photos?
I don't think Getty Images can prove that you actually took the photo from them either, and they would probably have trouble collecting their ridiculous fees in court. That is one of the main points, their fees are outrageous which makes it look like extortion.
Since you stopped using the photos immediately after they notified you, you did the right thing, and that should be the most that they can demand of you.
I think that Getty Images' demanding payment, with no other way to satisfy them, for the use of photos looks too much like extortion to me. If Google were notified that Getty Images is using those tactics, they may want to remove all of their photos. Google probably wouldn't want to get in the middle of problems like Getty Images is creating.
|
First, Getty Images undoubtedly has an embedded digital watermark in all their images. I know I do, and I'm just a one man operation (so to speak).
There are programs and plug-ins designed to read these digital watermarks. If you make your living using other people's photography, you owe it to your clients to be able to read these digital watermarks and make sure that every image they are asking you to use is obtained legally.
Second, the only one who "owns" the image is the copyright holder, usually the photographer. When you "purchase" an image from a stock photography supplier you are actually licensing the use of the image. It is very much like a software program: You may purchase a copy of Windows Vista, but you don't own the program and you can't legally make copies and distribute it, for fun or profit. And I bet, if someone offered you a pirated copy of Windows, you'd know it wasn't a legal copy, regardless of whether you accepted the disk or not.
So it doesn't matter how many "generations down the line", the image is still owned by the copyright holder and anyone using it without paying the fees is using pirated product.
On the other hand, if the use of the image was paid for by the user, s/he could produce the invoice showing just who they paid. Many royalty free images are purchased by designers and used in more than one client project. If the invoice proves that the derivative work is legitimate and covered under the original license the designer obtained, the copyright holder would abide by the terms of that license.
As for "extortion"... I don't necessarily agree with Getty Images' tactics. However, I'm sure their lawyers have seen to it that the information is posted on the Getty Images website.
As for your own photos and map, you are not required to enforce your copyrights. However, regardless of how or where these other sites obtained them, the images are still yours and you have certain rights. Seems to me, you should at least insist on a one-way incoming link to the site where the original image resides. Couldn't you use the additional traffic? Maybe even a boost to your position in the search engine results pages? After all, these sites are profiting (one way or another) off of your intellectual property.
-ACross