SVPhotography

Lives in Canada Toronto, Canada
Has a website at www.svphotography.ca
Joined on Jan 29, 2014

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

SVPhotography: Just re-read the lawsuit and I think I know what's going on.

Corbis had a distribution agreement for all of Zuma photos from before
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/blog/2011/03/01/corbis-continue-move-to-news-with-zuma-partnership/

Corbis was purchased by a Chinese group (VCG) in 2016
http://www.bjp-online.com/2016/01/bill-gates-sells-corbis-to-getty-via-chinese-consortium/

But VCG promptly announces an exclusive distribution deal with Getty for all of Corbis's images. Was it really Getty buying Corbis's library for cheap...

If you go to any Corbis links - they have all been redirected to Getty's
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/27/this-is-what-getty-images-founder-had-to-say-about-the-sale-of-corbis-images/

So, the key to the case will be the distribution agreements between Zuma and Corbis and the purchase and sale agreement between Corbis and VCG - did those agreement address changes in ownership structures and what would happen to existing distribution deals.

Well, I think its a little late for the Zuma photographers as they already found themselves working for Corbis after Zuma sub-licensed their work to them in the early 2000. I was interested in the photographer to Zuma agreements because I wanted to see what clauses there were for lawsuits and recoveries.

But its Zuma who seems to be upset that Corbis was acquired by someone else who in turn sub-licensed Zuma photographer's photos to Getty. As Corbis and VCG are private companies – it will be hard for us to know what method was used to acquire the assets of Corbis.

But if Getty’s lawyers were on the ball – I am sure they would have put in an Indemnity clause for situations such as this – someone claiming that VCG didn’t have the rights to sub-license them to Getty. So any legal costs or damages that Getty will be on the hook for will be paid by VCG.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 15:02 UTC
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

SVPhotography: Just re-read the lawsuit and I think I know what's going on.

Corbis had a distribution agreement for all of Zuma photos from before
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/blog/2011/03/01/corbis-continue-move-to-news-with-zuma-partnership/

Corbis was purchased by a Chinese group (VCG) in 2016
http://www.bjp-online.com/2016/01/bill-gates-sells-corbis-to-getty-via-chinese-consortium/

But VCG promptly announces an exclusive distribution deal with Getty for all of Corbis's images. Was it really Getty buying Corbis's library for cheap...

If you go to any Corbis links - they have all been redirected to Getty's
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/27/this-is-what-getty-images-founder-had-to-say-about-the-sale-of-corbis-images/

So, the key to the case will be the distribution agreements between Zuma and Corbis and the purchase and sale agreement between Corbis and VCG - did those agreement address changes in ownership structures and what would happen to existing distribution deals.

Yes - one would think that the Zuma attorneys would have reviewed the distribution agreements between Zuma and Corbis in detail - which is why I find it odd that no mentioned of any of these agreements are referenced in the lawsuit.

To me - it would indicate that it was not clear what would happen on a change of ownership situation or had clauses that did not support Zuma's claims.

If there were clauses that supposed Zuma's position - wouldn't they make reference to them as Exhibits in the lawsuit?

As for the Photographer contracts with Zuma - it references them as Exhibit B but I couldn't find it in the link provided.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3004304/Zuma.pdf

Do you have another link where you saw the sample Photographer contracts?

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 14:54 UTC
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

SVPhotography: This does look interesting - Stock agency vs. Stock agency.

Wonder when someone is going to ask the photographers themselves if they signed an exclusive distribution license deal with any one of these agencies.

The way the lawsuit reads, it implied that Zuma Press owns the copyright or has exclusive licensing deals with the photographers for all 47K photos...they also seem to be asking for statutory damages but show no proof of copyright registration in their legal filing...

Wonder if the photographers will see any of the money if there is a settlement or award?

I didn't know that - good to know.

But I don't see many DMCA claims being successful...

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 20:49 UTC
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (68 comments in total)

Just re-read the lawsuit and I think I know what's going on.

Corbis had a distribution agreement for all of Zuma photos from before
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/blog/2011/03/01/corbis-continue-move-to-news-with-zuma-partnership/

Corbis was purchased by a Chinese group (VCG) in 2016
http://www.bjp-online.com/2016/01/bill-gates-sells-corbis-to-getty-via-chinese-consortium/

But VCG promptly announces an exclusive distribution deal with Getty for all of Corbis's images. Was it really Getty buying Corbis's library for cheap...

If you go to any Corbis links - they have all been redirected to Getty's
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/27/this-is-what-getty-images-founder-had-to-say-about-the-sale-of-corbis-images/

So, the key to the case will be the distribution agreements between Zuma and Corbis and the purchase and sale agreement between Corbis and VCG - did those agreement address changes in ownership structures and what would happen to existing distribution deals.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 20:43 UTC as 9th comment | 6 replies
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sannaborjeson: Can't wait seeing Getty under administration.

Doesn't look like you have to wait too much longer. Their leveraged buyout of 3.3 billion in 2012 is coming back to haunt them.

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.ca/2016/02/getty-images-gets-infusion-of-cash-from.html

Of course, the guys with lawsuits better settle and collect before Getty declares chapter 11 or even chapter 7.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 15:21 UTC
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

SVPhotography: This does look interesting - Stock agency vs. Stock agency.

Wonder when someone is going to ask the photographers themselves if they signed an exclusive distribution license deal with any one of these agencies.

The way the lawsuit reads, it implied that Zuma Press owns the copyright or has exclusive licensing deals with the photographers for all 47K photos...they also seem to be asking for statutory damages but show no proof of copyright registration in their legal filing...

Wonder if the photographers will see any of the money if there is a settlement or award?

This does look like ultimately a fight about the exclusivity clauses between the photographers and the stock agencies.

If it turns out that photographers are submitting work to multiple agencies that they have signed exclusivity clauses with it will not be good for them...

Funny how all these agencies all make a big point about the photographer keeping their copyrights but demanding exclusivity. Once you sign an exclusivity clause - your copyright isn't worth much anymore.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 14:51 UTC
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (68 comments in total)

This does look interesting - Stock agency vs. Stock agency.

Wonder when someone is going to ask the photographers themselves if they signed an exclusive distribution license deal with any one of these agencies.

The way the lawsuit reads, it implied that Zuma Press owns the copyright or has exclusive licensing deals with the photographers for all 47K photos...they also seem to be asking for statutory damages but show no proof of copyright registration in their legal filing...

Wonder if the photographers will see any of the money if there is a settlement or award?

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 21:19 UTC as 29th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

SVPhotography: Here is the actual legal document if anyone is interested...

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2999596/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0.pdf

Interesting that they are using the DMCA portion (specifically - Integrity of copyright management information portion) to sue. I suspect that the usual attack path of copyright infringement is not possible as she placed her photos in the public domain.

Here is one person's analysis of that portion of law and what protection it gives to the Moral rights holder of the work.
http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal%20Issues/Volume%2030/Issue%201/Ginsburg.pdf

If you read her court filing - she is suing using DMCA portion of the copyright law - which to me means she put her photos in the public domain and not a license arrangement with the Library of congress.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2999596/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0.pdf

She is basically suing to enforce her Moral rights using the DMCA portion of the law because she cannot sue them for copyright violations.

Also according to the Library of congress - her photos are public domain photos.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 08:24 UTC
In reply to:

Tariag: She didn't have much damage... Reputation? Hard to value...
Those who have had damage, are those who paid the licence to use pictures that should have been free.
Getty should refund them. Period.

Trying to claim Moral rights via DMCA - not going to be easy according to this article.

http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal%20Issues/Volume%2030/Issue%201/Ginsburg.pdf

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

SVPhotography: Getty's business is playing the middle man. They license photos from photographers and sub-license them out to other people for a fee.

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=2719

So the big unanswered question is: Did Getty license these photos from a photo stealer or did Getty "find" these photos on their own.

Also she put these photos in the public domain.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

I am not a lawyer but it will be hard for her to sue for copyright violation after putting all her photos in the public domain.

This is not the first time that stock companies charge for public domain photos.
http://uk.pcmag.com/photo-editing-reviews/45646/opinion/stock-photos-will-drive-photoshop-use-into-the-ground

Its not as strong as her letter back to Getty and company :-)
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2999596/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0.pdf

They are both playing a game of chicken - in both situation, no one wants to go to court - they are looking for a quick settlement.

She is looking for a jury trial - which usually mean her case cannot stand on its legal merits and copyright law is pretty complex so you would think you would want a judge but a case where a private company is selling photos in the public domain for profit is just right for a jury trial - its just doesn't feel right to people even if it is legal.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 16:17 UTC

Here is the actual legal document if anyone is interested...

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2999596/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0.pdf

Interesting that they are using the DMCA portion (specifically - Integrity of copyright management information portion) to sue. I suspect that the usual attack path of copyright infringement is not possible as she placed her photos in the public domain.

Here is one person's analysis of that portion of law and what protection it gives to the Moral rights holder of the work.
http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal%20Issues/Volume%2030/Issue%201/Ginsburg.pdf

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 07:26 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

SVPhotography: Getty's business is playing the middle man. They license photos from photographers and sub-license them out to other people for a fee.

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=2719

So the big unanswered question is: Did Getty license these photos from a photo stealer or did Getty "find" these photos on their own.

Also she put these photos in the public domain.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

I am not a lawyer but it will be hard for her to sue for copyright violation after putting all her photos in the public domain.

This is not the first time that stock companies charge for public domain photos.
http://uk.pcmag.com/photo-editing-reviews/45646/opinion/stock-photos-will-drive-photoshop-use-into-the-ground

Not sure what letter she got but from the sample demand letters found on the web, Getty never claims rights of authorship or ownership - only that the user doesn't have a license with Getty for usage rights.

http://innovationtoprofits.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Getty-Images-Demand-Letter-REDACTED.pdf

Plus claims of Authorship and Attribution are Moral rights and the US has never really wanted to offer protection over Moral rights in their copyright laws. Europe and Canada have more Moral rights protection in their copyright laws that the US laws.

Of course, reselling of public domain assets is just bad PR in general.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 06:59 UTC

Getty's business is playing the middle man. They license photos from photographers and sub-license them out to other people for a fee.

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=2719

So the big unanswered question is: Did Getty license these photos from a photo stealer or did Getty "find" these photos on their own.

Also she put these photos in the public domain.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

I am not a lawyer but it will be hard for her to sue for copyright violation after putting all her photos in the public domain.

This is not the first time that stock companies charge for public domain photos.
http://uk.pcmag.com/photo-editing-reviews/45646/opinion/stock-photos-will-drive-photoshop-use-into-the-ground

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 02:47 UTC as 52nd comment | 5 replies

I think Slater is approaching this all wrong. He should do what book publishers have been doing for years for public domain works. They add notes and commentary and translations to works in the public domain and claim copyright over their EDITION of the work. The original work is still in the public domain but new EDITION enjoys copyright protection.

So in this case, the raw unedited photo is in the public domain because as Wikimedia states animals cannot claim copyright but Slater's edition with his cropping and post processing is copyrighted by Slater. Anyone can use his unedited photo for free but not his edited one. All he has to do is make sure his raw unedited photo never makes it to the Internet.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 03:11 UTC as 227th comment
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14