I agree with Stan - because all those images that Getty has are images
also owned by the photographer who
is in the stock agency, whether or not Getty has put a photographers
name on the image as a watermark.
ann
On 10/24/2017 10:55 AM, Stanley Halpin wrote:
On Oct 23, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Daniel J. Matyola <[email protected]> wrote:
Getty is among those who profit from innocent use of their copyrighted
images.
A client of mine posted on her site an image forwarded to her by a
customer, them was sued by Getty for having the image on her site for less
than two days.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
So, your client used an image on her site whose provenance she did not know or
question? I wouldn’t consider that “innocent use”, I would consider it
carelessness or stupidity.
Getty is in the business of selling images. Of course they should sue for
misuse of their property, usage of their images without permission. They are
foolish if they do not protect the source of their income. They should be able
to profit from ANY use of their images, whether “innocent” or not. Saying that
they “profit from innocent use” paints a rather dark, and in my opinion, a
rather biased view of Getty.
stan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
