Quote:
Originally Posted by davidk
originally posted by Matt Quinn
"Getty Images and Corbis...................when they do bill them. £2000+ a pop!"
For your information Getty have never ever sent out billings for images. They send a notification of how much they want in return for using the image. Some people have had letters and threats of court action from Getty's legal people, but they cannot take action on an unpaid debt if there was no debt or evidence of debt in the first place.
Whilst no-one wishes to abuse the IP laws what Getty and Corbis are doing borders on extortion.
A thread was started last year on the FSB Small Business Forum ,you may care to read that before jumping the gun.
|
Actually;
YOU may care to read it properly.... Go back through it a bit... I'm only too well aware of the thread... And if you understood the law on copyright you'd realise why what you've just written is nonsense. Any court action WON'T be for the
debt; 
it will be for
copyright infringement.
The issue of a demand/invoice is a secondary issue to that. They only go through that process to entrench their case. And the reason any threatened infringement action hasn't come to court is that no lawyer CAN advise a client to try and defend the indefensible... Thus these things are settled out of court with, generally, an NDA gagging both parties. After all; would YOU hire a designer disreputable and incompetent enough to have been 'done' for copyright infringement?
As someone who is trained and practised in IP rights management (over almost three decades!) and actually TEACHES matters of IP law at a legitimate academic institution I can tell you one or two things about that thread. Firstly, it's dominated by one character who, in my professional opinion,
is not trained or competent to comment on what he chooses to pontificate on and seems hell bent of pursing a personal agenda which is (again; in my professional opinion) dangerous to all who align themselves with it.
Secondly, all attempts that I have seen by people who might have some legitimate knowledge of the topic are bawled down; even edited by the moderators to the point where their essence is lost. The only comment from the legally qualified that's allowed to stand goes along the lines of "call me; and I'll sort it out"..... It's akin to a gaggle of turkeys trying to convince themselves that people won't eat them at Christmas!
That thread is one of the main reasons why I'm NOT an FSB member. As far as I'm concerns it draws the entire FSB into disrepute. Quite apart from the nonsense that's allowed to stand in their name the FSB lawyers should have really shut this issue down two years ago. The law IS very clear!
We now refer students to that thread for self study as an example of how 'barrack room law' can drive clients down some very dark and dismal holes.
I don't agree by any means with what Getty and Corbis are doing. And for that reason withdrew my own images from their catalogue about 18 months ago; and wouldn't supply them again. But I
almost wish someone WOULD be stupid enough to let themselves be taken to court on this..... It would be the modern day equivalent of a severed head on a stick; but if that's what it takes....
Taking Photo's of brands/Copyright etc
