••
Fines for the
misuse of a copyrighted photo are too
high, critics say. Though agencies deserve
a fair fee, negotiating with users is
preferable to big penalties.
••
Oscar
Michelen, a New York attorney who focuses
on damages claims by Getty and Corbis,
called four-figure fines "a legalized form
of extortion." •••"The
damages they're requesting aren't equal to
the copyright infringement," he said,
adding that "there's no law that says
definitively what images are worth in the
digital age." •••Getty,
for one, doesn't see it that
way.
••"This
level of damages is supported by the cost
we incur," said Lisa Willmer, corporate
counsel for Getty Images. "What we're
asking for is supported by the facts." •••She
said Getty typically factors in the
original licensing cost of a photo and how
long the copyright infringement lasted, as
well as the company's expenses in pursuing
a damages claim. Most such claims, she
said, range from $1,000 to $1,200. •••Willmer
acknowledged that this level of damages
was also intended to send a message to
actual and would-be copyright
violators. •••"The
message is that you need to respect
copyright law," she said. "You're much
better off licensing an
image."
•
02. More
/
•A
thousand bucks in damages seems more than
a little harsh for such a situation. •• •But
I can also appreciate the importance of
making sure that whoever created that
photo is compensated for his or her work,
and the need to deter people from ripping
off copyrighted photos willy-nilly on the
Web.
•• •The
answer here is flexibility. Before people
like Formella dig in their heels at paying
a sky-high damages claim, they should
contact the photo company and make a
good-faith effort to pay a reasonable sum
-- say, two or three times the original
licensing fee.
•• •Fair
is fair, after all.
•• •For
their part, Getty and Corbis should ease
up on the legal rough stuff and adopt a
more conciliatory approach, especially in
what are clearly minor cases of copyright
infringement, probably resulting from a
case of mistaken identity.
•• •They
should open with a realistic demand for
damages -- say, five times the original
licensing fee -- and then be willing to
negotiate a lower amount that more
accurately reflects the circumstances of a
case.
•• •In
more egregious infringement cases, of
course, the companies should go after the
violator with legal guns blazing. It's one
thing when some blogger inadvertently uses
a copyrighted image to illustrate a
posting. It's quite another when someone
deliberately steals dozens or hundreds of
images from Getty's or Corbis'
catalog.
•• •Getty's
Willmer said it's a full-time job keeping
up with copyright infringement in the age
of the Internet.
•• •"I
liken it to the game Whac-A-Mole," she
said.
•• •Well,
there it is: You can't win that game. The
moles will keep popping out forever.
•• •A
mallet isn't very effective in such
situations.
03h
/• Getty
says it finds about 42,000 examples of
copyright infringement a year. For its
part, Corbis says it uncovers about 70,000
violations annually.
•• •"When
we're made aware of an infringement, we
seek an amount that's in line with the
cost of licensing the image," said Claire
Keeley, senior corporate counsel for
Corbis. In many cases, she said, that can
mean damages of as much as 10 times the
original licensing cost. In other words, a
photo that costs $50 to license could
result in damages of $500 if the copyright
is violated.
•• •"We
need to make sure the damages serve as a
deterrent," Keeley said. "For businesses
like Corbis or Getty to continue, we need
to make sure people are taking the
legitimate route."
•• •Michelen,
the attorney, said he doesn't disagree
with that goal. He just believes that any
damages related to violating a picture's
copyright should be commensurate, more or
less, with the photo's online market
value.
•• •"There's
no rationality for their pricing,"
Michelen said. "And in many cases, people
have no idea that they're even infringing
on someone's copyright."
•• •I'm
sympathetic to both sides in this matter.
I believe Formella, the travel agency
owner, when he says he didn't know that
one of the photos on his website was
controlled by Getty. Once he found out, he
did the right thing and immediately took
it down.
•
04Blog
Replies
/
Related Articles:
More
Stealing Published
Copyrighted Images is Easier than
Ever.
Re: LA Times Report in consumer column
dated:
September 13, 2009
"Post a photo, pay the penalty," Sept. 13,
2009.
•• •
•• •
Leif Skoogfors of Lansdale,
California says: "As a photographer,
my income comes from licensing my
intellectual property. It is called
property because it belongs to
someone,like an auto or a house. It is
made by an artist, a photographer or other
creator using imagination, talent and, in
most cases, hard work.
•• •
But it seems that with intellectual
property, the morality of negotiating and
agreeing between equals has changed. With
the increasing ease of swiping work on the
Internet, many people seem to think, "If I
see it, if I want it, I can have it,
without paying the person who legally owns
it." - Leif Skoogfors, Lansdale
•• •
Rick Smith of Laguna Beach
replied to the LATimes: "The amount
you suggest as a penalty for failing to
pay for an image -- "five times the
original licensing fee" -- is not much of
a punishment and doesn't compensate the
company for the theft of intellectual
property. That low of a punishment would
only encourage more theft. The
small-business owner who was fined by
Getty Images should have gone back to the
Web designer and got the money from them
or taken them to small claims court. Rick Smith, Laguna Beach.
•
113s
-Google KnowledgeRush tvinews+
113.09GettyCopyrightUsers - They
Said Copyrighted
Photo •
TVINews • Index • Daily •
Weekly CLICK
Google Search FOR MORE TVInews
STORIES.
•
ClickFor
| 
