Rdefen

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
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.

" I think its a little late for the Zuma photographers. "

I was making a point generally to the photographers here concerning the absence of such provisions meaning you can't control who winds up exploiting your work under a license.

Yes, Zuma is the aggrieved party here but it looks like it may be hoisted by its own petard.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2016 at 19:09 UTC
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

decipher1: Getty Images are 'Money Suckers'! About 12 years ago I had a website designed by a professional and after eleven years (Last year in 2015) they sent me a letter demanding over $AU1,200.00 as the image was ostensibly belonged to them. Imagine, they were after me after 11 years! In their letter there was no proper address and only a PO BOX and a 1300 number. When I called them one woman answered and even reduced the 'so called cost' down to $AU500.00 and stated that there was still a room for negotiation! I declined and told them that the website was designed in 2004 but after a few phone calls they must have given up.

There have been very bad publicities about Getty Images and they hardly ever do the things right. Just go to google and find out yourselves, if interested in getting more and accurate feedbacks.

I don't have any rights in your website image nor do I understand what the statute of limitations is. And I'll let you use it for $2. Please send me cash. Thanks.

More seriously, you need to make certain when you hire someone that any content they supply they have rights to it. In practice, it means doing biz with reputable companies, getting representations in writing and being satisfied they have sufficient resources to indemnify you if and when someone comes out of the woodwork claiming infringement. Keep records. Also helpful to do biz through an entity not as yourself.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 23:07 UTC
On article Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

mister rainer: Getty Images is a cancer. They most aggressively sue all they claim to infringe on their rights and like a predator steal and betray. Hope the court cases will put them in their right corner.

Cancer sounds pejorative.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 23:02 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.

"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."

If you have concerns about assignment of agreements you don't do a "purchase and sale." You could do a reverse subsidiary merger. Solved. :-)

You don't commonly see a change in control provision that would thwart it.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 23:00 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.

1. Photographer agreement grants exclusive rights to ZUMA and "its sub-agents."

2. Silent on assignment by ZUMA (Licensee).

3. No change in control provision.
4. Disputes are arbitrated in CA. No explicit choice of law provision.

5. I don't have a link because I downloaded it from the court filings.

My Two Cents:

While I believe it is true that in the US if an IP licensing agreement is silent that more states than not do not allow Licensee of IP to assign the agreement without your consent, if you care about "who you are in business with" then you should explicitly prohibit assignment of your agreement and for this to have any teeth you must also include the right to terminate the agreement in the event of a "change in control" of the Licensee.

I realize in the real world the contracts are often take it or leave it. So don't be surprised if one day you wake up and you're working for Getty.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 21:08 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.

You would think Zuma attorneys reviewed agreements between Zuma and Corbis (and any other Zuma agreements relating to use of Zuma content at issue) before filing.

Incidentally, someone else asked if photographers would get anything if Zuma prevailed. The example agreement between Zuma and photographer attached to the complaint says Zuma and photographer split any recovery related to unauthorized use of photographers images in the same percentage they do licensing/sales of such images, after deducting costs and attorney fees.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2016 at 07:00 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?

"...they also seem to be asking for statutory damages but show no proof of registration in their legal filing...""

Registration is (for "United States work") required to sue for infringement. Not for DMCA claims.

A timely registration (prior to infringement or within three months of first publication) is required (for all works) to seek statutory damages for infringement. It's not required to seek statutory damages for the DMCA claims.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 20:12 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Frankly, neither the original claim nor Getty's response make much sense. At least not in the sound bits presented by both sides. Before publicly crucifying either, could we just wait to see what transpires in any legal settlement or dismissal of same?

"Frankly, neither the original claim nor Getty's response make much sense. "

Agree.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 04:01 UTC
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: What is the fuss about? Are Getty being sued for seeking damages from alleged copyright violator who actually used public domain work?

Getty is being sued for removing her credit information from her photos and/or adding misleading credit information.

People are probably generally pi$$ed about the alleged fraudulent type conduct concerning copyright ownership though the copyright law is IMO weak in protecting against fake claims as to copyright ownership. Anyone that has had a false take-down notice filed against them will probably agree with me on this.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 03:57 UTC

This dpreview article is based on misconceptions. She is not suing "over the company's [Getty] alleged infringement of her photo copyrights."

She is suing based on claims under the DMCA related to her "copyright management information" (e.g., removing her copyright notice, placing false copyright information).

It's unclear whether she placed her photos into the public domain or she merely made them available to the public to reproduce (her argument). Exhibit B to her Complaint may indicate the former. And the LOC page concerning her collection of photos says "Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain."

https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

Should a court find the relevant photos are in the public domain then her specific DMCA claims are not as strong given they require a violation of her CMI rights with "intent to facilitate infringement."

It will be interesting to read Getty's Answer.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 03:42 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

BerDov: If there are lessons to draw from this case, it is that a) images have value and b) photographers must be more vigilant to protect their rights and, in the case of many pros, their livelihood.

The truth is that most photographers take pictures because of the urge to create. They would happily except less for a normal license than more in a court room. Unfortunately, they are given little choice in the matter when faced with such attitudes as Catch Me If You Can, or Might Is Right.

Hopefully, this case will generate enough publicity and become a "teachable moment" for photographers and potential infringers.

You're drawing lessons from a complaint. Fantastic.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 02:17 UTC
In reply to:

Skyscape: She better be sure to mention what everybody says when they're suing people or companies for outrageous sums of money:
"This lawsuit is not about money. It's about justice" Yeah, I'm sure.

I also wonder how she arrived at that figure of one billion dollars. Naturally, it was meant to increase the virility of the lawsuit, but it went so far that it's just plain stupid.

Shorty, one detail : it's not the alleged willful violation that allows the court to award treble damages if the court considers it just (that might help the courts decision as to whether it would be "just"). It's the fact that it's a repeat violation of 17 USC 1201-1202 within 3 years after final judgement was entered against the person for another such violation. Hence, the reference in her complaint to the Morel photographer case which I presume satisfies the time period.

The relevant statute for treble damages rule is 17 USC 1204

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 01:31 UTC
In reply to:

WoodWorks: It appears that the panoramic Boundary Warp feature is also not available in the standalone LR 6.4 version, only with CC. At least it doesn't show up for me. Can anyone else confirm? I see no mention of this omission here or anywhere on Adobe support forum.

Didn't Adobe state at some point that with CC you get feature additions as and when they are made but with standalone you don't get them ? I always thought they intended to migrate all users possible to CC while not (yet) explicitly killing the standalone product and these more frequent feature additions yet another tool to make the CC product more attractive. For me, if and when they kill off the standalone I may find another product.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2016 at 02:59 UTC
In reply to:

WoodWorks: It appears that the panoramic Boundary Warp feature is also not available in the standalone LR 6.4 version, only with CC. At least it doesn't show up for me. Can anyone else confirm? I see no mention of this omission here or anywhere on Adobe support forum.

Mr. Butler, that's ludicrous.

However, assuming someone "who's worked in senior tech roles" has lost their mind they may file a form 8-K with the SEC every time they add new features between whole dot releases. Problem solved.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

dwl017: I played with the Sony RX 100 m4 today in my local store and the camera felt very cheap in the hands to me. I do own the original RX100 and see no reason to upgrade at all. Im also still using my Oly ZX1 and Sammy EX2F. By the way my EX2F is built like a army tank :-)

I don't own it or any version of the rx100 but I played around the the mkiv version in a store and it is a solidly built little camera. I think a lot of camera comments on this site are absolutely bonkers.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2015 at 03:00 UTC
On article Past and present: NYC's changing streetscape (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

Al Valentino: Joe's Pizza, the best slice in NYC. Always went out of my way to stop buy and eat, standing up, packed together. All part of the experience. Then the rents skyrocketed and, well you know...

"Well you know..." might read like you can't get the same exact pizza anymore. They have another location close by. And since closing that location they opened a second location up on 14th as well.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2014 at 20:49 UTC
On article Chicago-based Calumet Photographic closes U.S. stores (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

Spunky8: This is not at all surprising. I'm surprised that Calumet lasted so long.

In Los Angeles, the Calumet store was virtually empty every time I went in; the sales staff had a superior attitude.

There was nothing inviting about the place.

I say: Good riddance.

Agree. Same experience in NYC and bewilderment that they could stay in business.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 20:36 UTC
On article Backstory of Phantom Flex4K video shot at 1,000 FPS (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: Reading the comments below this outstanding piece of cinematography provides further evidence of how somehow, DPreview's 'readership' has altered from calm intelligent professionals and prosumers to imaginationless unintelligent types who are either too young or otherwise inappropriate for a forum like this.

To call the slow motion 'boring' when in fact it superbly conveys the resolution as well as providing the viewer more time to take in what is going on. No doubt, unboring would be human carnage and exploding cars. For that, suggest you try another site or DPreview needs to up it's game when deciding who should be able to signup and comment. Now I know why membership only clubs exists, to maintain a level of decorum.

Amazing film and a great showcase for what the sort of quality we'll be watching at home by the holidays 2015.

I only made it 44 seconds in. I found it quite boring. Sorry if I don't meet your expectations you pompous a$$. When technology is used as an end in itself, which is what it is here -- for me -- I quickly grow bored. Interesting, that you think this is somehow different in kind from blowing things up because I put them in the same category of boring.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2013 at 05:18 UTC
In reply to:

Arn: I wonder if they will give Lightroom 5 the "Camera Shake Reduction" feature to remove camera shake motion blur, or they will keep it restricted to only Photoshop CC, to rip photographers off? This, if ANY feature is relevant for photographers and would be appropriate for Lightroom.

I think they said not for LR5.

So just try to hold the camera steady or up the shutter speed.

I'm not feeling much love for Adobe around here. Where's the love ?

Link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 07:42 UTC

For my own interest I took a brief googly into the "you sat on your ass" defense -- aka laches defense -- in the Copyright infringement context. Keep in mind Copyright infringement has a statute of limitations.

What I find is, we don't need no stinkin' Laches when there's a statute of limitations.

At least in some Circuits.

The Circuits split on whether they allow it as a defense to infringement. Some don't (4th Circuit) . Some do (9th Circuit).

This photographer sued in the 6th and the 6th appears to split the baby, they will in (very) rare cases allow the defense but only so far as to preclude an injunction, you still can get money damages.

This guys bigger problem is apparently not registering before infringement occurred.

Also, this isn't exactly new news : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50890656

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2013 at 21:14 UTC as 13th comment
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »