Jump to content

Rudy Umans

Members
  • Content Count

    608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rudy Umans

  1. 14 minutes ago, MJD Graphics said:

    One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that the photographer posted the same image on her Instagram without watermark for her to use, so there is no way anyone can sue anybody. The photographer, who also writes children's books, has grabbed this to get free publicity.

    The image in question as posted by the OP has watermarks

    Who is talking about suing? That will never work with the amount of money involved. We are talking about how to go about recovery in cases like this (not necessarily just this case)

  2. On 1/30/2020 at 11:18 AM, Starsphinx said:

    The thing is even the humourous if pointed response SS made garnered negative reactions from her fan base.  While a quiet polite letter as you suggested may have got a licence fee I rather expect that the higher ups at SS calculated that a public response and no licence would garner them far more in advertising that the cost of the licence fee.  The higher ups are not going to considering the difference a couple of dollars makes to a contributor they are going to be considering a few dollars in their account compared to a level of publicity that would cost 10s of thousands in advertising.  The quiet letter you suggest may also have backfired if she decided to take exception to it and share it to her fans claiming being victim (I am not for one moment suggesting she would - but).  If some of her fans are going to kick off when no redress was sought can you imagine what they would do if if she complained? 

    Well I didn't say the letter (invoice rather) had to be quiet and friendly. That's what SS response was, friendly (I called it sissy in my first post about this) and I don't think I would have been that friendly. I have also no problem if SS announces to the world there are consequences on little hat tricks like this. Maybe not on Social Media though, that's too risky in my opinion. Too many uneducated and opinionated "experts"

    Having said that, I know there is a way to be firm and demanding without being either too friendly(sissy)  or too nasty. Been in that position many times in my other life.

  3.  

    16 hours ago, MSPhotographic said:

    Amen.  Shutterstock needs to sue her for every possible penny allowed under law.  That and ONLY THAT will put an end to the idea that our work is free for the taking.  So what if it pisses a few thieves off.  

     

    2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

    What if it pisses off or alarms big customers like, oh I dont know, record companies?  Or even lots of little customers like the people who actually choose the images and happen to be fans of Gaga so they go and persuade their employers to switch to a different stock company?

    There is a fine line between being firm and being a bully.

    A number of years ago, Getty Images tried to be a bully. Not sure how all that ended, but it didn't end well for Getty I don't think

    Now, I do think that what Getty did was a little extreme and not very smart, but there must be a way in between acting like a best friend and an outrageous  demand letter. Maybe something like the cost of the highest license and a legal/administrative cost, which comes out at maybe a few hundred dollars. Of course the contributor (the victim) should get his/her share then of the highest license cost.  That way, SS still gets their point across without drawing too much negative attention. But hey, what the hell do I know?

    http://kelleykeller.com/the-getty-images-demand-letter-fighting-the-copyright-bully/

    http://kelleykeller.com/wp-content/uploads/Getty-Images-Demand-Letter-REDACTED.pdf

  4. 1 hour ago, Crowing Hen said:

    There's lots of misinformation about copyright online but knowing what is actually protected where you live and how that applies to digital files is a whole different kettle of fish than reading a few forums.

     

    Yes, too many experts. Especially when international law is concerned.

    (There is no such thing as International law. There are no International or global law books and no global organization that could or would police that. It is not yet possible in today's world. There are treaties instead, Like WIPO)

    Quote

    The EU is doing some good work in this area, like requiring big companies like google and FB to remove images not used with permission, but this doesn't apply outside to most of the world outside of the EU.

    Not just the EU, but every country that is part of the " World Intellectual Property Organization" (WIPO) and that is a lot of countries, including the Russian Federation.

    As a result of their WIPO participation, the US implemented the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) in 1998.  Every member of WIPO is required to have similar measures as the DMCA in place. Those measures include provisions for the take down of unauthorized use of images by search engines Like Google and Yahoo. It also requires that these search engines have a so called Copyright Agent where people can file a complaint. Here are the guidelines of Verizon, who owns Yahoo, as an example. All other search engines have something similar in place, incl Google. https://www.verizonmedia.com/policies/us/en/verizonmedia/ip/index.html

    So, the EU is not doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts, but only because they are required to do so and they have the decency to abide by the rules of the WIPO treaty The WIPO is in place since 1996, so until now, each individual EU member country was responsible, but I guess (not sure) that under the latest EU guidelines, treaties like this will be handled/negotiated/implemented by the EU as an organization

     

     

    I wrote this, but I am not sure why.

  5. 58 minutes ago, Alexander Moskovskiy said:

    Google embedded my 54 images of 360 panorama. I do not give permission, and I send Google e-mail.  Pay + sign additional agreement with me or remove my content. Criminals from Google remove images from Google Earth site only.  But continued to embedded on other 3 web Google sites including school.google.com  As you know Google charge for educational program.

     It is copyright infringement

     

    Not necessarily

    For educational uses (and some other uses) there is this doctrine in the US Copyright law that is called "Fair use"

    https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

  6. 4 hours ago, Charles Lewis said:

    Although I love taking photos of markets, I would never take close-up shots of individual products (check my port!). For me, it is all about the atmosphere of markets.

    Crooks don't care about atmosphere, unless the walls are plastered with dollar bills. Then they go "Hey Nice atmosphere"!

  7. 21 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

    So what you are saying is that there is consensus but nobody is willing to enforce it because it isn't worth it to them or because it might ruffle inter-governmental relationships. So, essentially, it comes down to the impossibility of enforcing copyright law.

    Interestingly, when I was working with WIPO, the USA was trying to take them over. That was in the 1990s. My involvement was essentially on the IT side.

    That pretty much sums it up as far as treaties goes (unless that case is huge as said or in case of National or international security or something like that)

    SS is in a position to do something in a foreign country if they want and they have an office there.

  8. 7 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

    I know WIPO; they were my client when I worked in Geneva. The impossibility of enforcement is a function of the lack of consensus.

    No it is not. There is consensus for the most part.  There is no enforcement, because enforcement can have consequences in big cases and no impact is small cases. Nobody is going to mess with an international relationship for a few dollar or a few million dollars.

    Also, International law is mainly determining what law of what country will prevail. In case of a potential trial, what country do you go? Do you go to them or do they come to you? That's the question nobody wants to bother with unless it is a huge case that could impact everybody. And even then.......

    I was involved with UNIDO for a few years and learned a lot. (I had an agreement with them)

  9. 6 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

    Trying to get international consensus on copyright law is probably impossible.

    No, it is not. There is an International copyright treaty managed and monitored by the  "World Intellectual Property Organization" (WIPO). The US DMCA act is a direct result of that. (like a local chapter so to speak)

    What is impossible is  enforcing it and filing international claims. The things is, there are no such things as International Laws. They don't exist. What we do have are treaties like the WIPO one, but there is no real international enforcement for those.

    In our case, we have (or should have rather unfortunately) SS to look after our world wide affairs. 

  10.  

    16 hours ago, Thijs de Graaf said:

    If Shutterstock would prohibit search engines from passing on our photos, Shutterstock would remain unknown and you would not sell much.

    The search engines in itself are not the problem and I assume that you specifically refer to Google Images. having said that, of course, they would sell a lot without that feature, as a matter of fact, they would sell more. Shutterstock was around, and growing fast, way before Google Images became an issue or was even a Google feature.

     

  11. Even Ansel Adams's first love was music. As a very talented pianist, he almost became a full time professional musician and it was only because he didn't like the politics and the business side of the music industry that stopped him and made him concentrate on photography, which was just a hobby for him until then.

×
×
  • Create New...