Getty caught me
- Started
- Last post
- 279 Responses
- MrD0
i thought Apple was the choice of facists
- Sickman0
most photographers i know love stock sites. they can make cash off images that would otherwise be doing nothing.
and if it weren't for vigilant legal departments nobody would pay for anything that would going onto the web(low res)
having said that 7g's for a 160x160 image is lots of cash - but that doesn't matter to them - your in the wrong.
and who knows maybe that image in that comp brought you in 7 grand worth of work to your studio
- ladyboy0
I hear ya sickman - but no the image brought no revenue for me. I'm fulltime freelance at one of (probably the) largest webdesign firm in new york. The image went up sometime around late Dec or Jan. I haven't gotten any freelance work off that personal site since october - so no it didn't get me any cash.
I'm still in the wrong - I know. but not 7 grand in the wrong.
they're fuckers -
- grantmacdonald0
GETTY/HITLER WAR CRIMES LAWSUIT GOES FORWARD
Grant MacDonald is filing a $22 billion lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against the Getty Oil Company benefactors; based on J. Paul Getty's support for Hitler in WWII. All assets based on judgment would go to Allied Forces Veterans’ foundations. 43,000 people killed in UK by the Nazis while J. Paul Getty was in Berlin shipping oil to Hitler. FBI reported that Getty was still shipping oil to Hitler; June, 1941 ... nine months after London was being bombed ... five months before Pearl Harbor. It is Grant MacDonald’s evaluation of the situation that the late Jean Paul Getty participated in genocide while collecting artifacts from executed Jews and should have been tried at Nuremberg and hanged for participating in crimes against humanity & treason. J. PAUL GETTY; FBI FILE 100.1202, JUNE 26, 1940: ESPIONAGE.GRANT MACDONALD FOR WORLD WAR II VETERANS AND VICTIMS
- v. -
J. PAUL GETTY TRUST, J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM, GORDON GETTY, ANN GETTY, RONALD GETTY, J. PAUL GETTY II TRUST, MARK GETTY, GETTY IMAGES INC,
ANNE GETTY EARHART, CLAIRE GETTY PERRY, CAROLINE GETTY, PAUL PELOSI, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI, ISOLEP ENTERPRISES,
SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM, BILL A. NEWSOM AND PLUMPJACK MANAGEMENT GROUP.DEFENDANTS. :
:INDICTMENT
Jean Paul Getty’s mother; Catherine Risher was German. Dec. 20, 1940 ... the New York Daily News wrote about Getty’s involvement with espionage at the Pierre Hotel in New York City. 2003 documents declassified by UK Warfare Ministry reveal that Oct. 1941 the pro-Nazi Jean Paul Getty employed and lodged Nazis at his Pierre Hotel in New York City; Nazis who were involved in spying on and sabotaging Allied Forces’ war production plants.
- Sickman0
true - i am sorry to hear your situation. getting a 7g bill from a monster of a company like getty can't feel good.
- ********0
ive seen getty tagged on some sicko music videos
- MrD0
man Pond5 has very open ended illegal use
--
Licensee shall not use the Licensed Content in a manner which violates any applicable law in effect within the jurisdiction of use of the Licensed Content.
--say you used this for the web, which has global usage, you are fucked if somewhere someone fines it to be illegal.
- ladyboy0
Thanks MrD - I better look a little closer at pond5
I used tons of that stuff - paid for all of it.
I could be however opening myself up to another case of infringement.
I just trust that shit and never read the legal.
- MrD0
the thing is that Getty has very specific legal
where as most of the other sites have very open ended. it can be interperated in very different ways.
i mean, its tough when you dont have stock rep and art buyer to check on the legal verbabge.
also, did you know that if you are using istock, you are not transferring rights to client?
so if you have an image from istock that you used in the comp, and you got the client to buy the design, the client must buy the image them selves.
per istock legal, you are not allowed to transfer rights of the image if you are the sole buyer.
- mg330
what was the photo of?
What was the photo of?
what was the photo of?
If it was some totally standard everyday item that you could have taken a photo of yourself...
- version30
I'm fully willing to pay and have told Getty this. My problem is the amount they're asking which is totally unreasonable.
ladyboy
(Jul 25 07, 09:17)based on that statement there are jpgs all across the webernetz for free, why do you charge so much to someone that wants one to print or display one online.
even textpad and notepad are free and used to write code.
where is your justification in charging for a jpg hosted on a website?
you're neither the host nor the registrar, nor the printer for that matter.
- M0NEYCIDE0
i bet ladyboy is trolling on behalf of getty to scare people like the riaa do when they scare everybody with stories of people getting in trouble for file sharing then are perfectly willing to settle for a few thousand dollars
- ladyboy0
the image was of a crap white truck - it didn't have to be a white truck. it could have been any truck and yes I certainly could have shot it myself.
it wasn't special in any way but was owned by getty and rights managed.
in my design which was 160x160 I composited a face in the foreground. truck was in the back. the actual getty images was probably 60x60 but that doesn't matter I know
My photog friend who's top notch and very successful said it should be a classic cease and decist. Happens all the time but not that kind of fine.
- grumpymonkey0
Has anyone found a way to block the IP address of getty's bot? Not allow them to crawl your site?
This is stuff I've found:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/se…
http://www.webmasterworld.com/se…
and an article on .htaccess
http://www.javascriptkit.com/how…
- monkeyshine0
per istock legal, you are not allowed to transfer rights of the image if you are the sole buyer.
MrD
(Jul 25 07, 11:50)gulp
- mrseaves0
per istock legal, you are not allowed to transfer rights of the image if you are the sole buyer.
MrD
(Jul 25 07, 11:50)gulp
monkeyshine
(Jul 25 07, 12:28)x2...
- material-10
per istock legal, you are not allowed to transfer rights of the image if you are the sole buyer.
MrD
(Jul 25 07, 11:50)gulp
monkeyshine
(Jul 25 07, 12:28)gulp
- MrD0
it means that if you sold it to the client with istock image in it, and client didnt buy it but you bought it because it was only a dollar, your client can be sued by istock because legally, they did not purchase the image.
---
per istock legal, you are not allowed to transfer rights of the image if you are the sole buyer.
MrD
(Jul 25 07, 11:50)gulp
monkeyshine
(Jul 25 07, 12:28)gulp
material
(Jul 25 07, 12:30)
- OSFA0
and...
- OSFA0
200!