Forum Moderators: not2easy
Maybe 6 years ago, he used this picture on one page of his web site.
Now he received a letter from gettyimages.de.
It turned out that the outer part of the photo was taken from gettyimages, while only the center part of the photo had been changed by the graphican.
How is it with the copyright of a photo, wehere most parts have been changed to a new content?
Any chances to reducde from over 1500.-EUR?
I wonder how on earth they can possibly a) be confident that it was one of theirs in the timeframes you mention and didn't belong to another library, and b), based on what you say, spot a background as being theirs in an image that has been manipulated.
Do they offer any proof to back up their claims that the master image is indeed theirs?
Syzygy
be confident that it was one of theirs in the timeframes you mention
Do they offer any proof to back up their claims that the master image is indeed theirs?
They never offer any proof and the only time they have commented on this they say that will offer proof when they take you to court. They NEVER take anyone to court at this level so it doesn't matter what they say. This is a money making scheme that is verging on extortion and nothing else. AFAIK Getty, Corbis and Jupiter amongst others are all at it and they are doing it worldwide.
It has already been featured in the UK media.
See [ft.com...]
and
[guardian.co.uk...]
how do they spot a background as being theirs in an image that has been manipulated.
They use an Israeli company called Picscout to find the images for them. Picscout have developed technology that can do this and they take a cut of the ill gotten gains.
However, I sincerely doubt that their technology has gotten that good and am sceptical that they have the capabilities to identify content that was in use online before their tracking tools were applied.
They never offer any proof and the only time they have commented on this they say that will offer proof when they take you to court. AFAIK Getty, Corbis and Jupiter amongst others are all at it and they are doing it worldwide.
I did also comment on this many moons ago, when I heard straight from one of the originators of these evil pursuits. I recall fondly the lunches they used to take me out for and miss them still. That though, as I'm sometimes still coming to terms with, was another life... :-)
If there is no proof then call their bluff. The cards (or images) are in the hands of the beholder.
Syzygy
They write in the FAQ, somebody should have at last 30.000 photos.
I have about 3000 photos in the internet.
I have maybe 5 requests a year from honest publishers wanting a license for one of my photos.
I have no idea about the rest.
Maybe some of them are fans of my ideas using my photos.
Maybe a few want only make business with my photos.
But even when the first group is only 100 violations a year,
where I tell them, that they have to make a link to my site
- linkware - my AdSense income should increase, because of
so much higher link popularity.
But the main question is the cost of picscout.
