Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

TheBlackAdder

(29,981 posts)

18. These firms often use file scanning software to detect a photo's use on a website.

Reply to Volaris (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 11:13 PM

Jul 2016

.

I doubt Getty had any handling of the image in question, which negates the "handling charge" claim.

They might be looking for cases to file claims with, or have ambulance chasers look for claims on commission.

.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Photographer sues Getty Images for $1 billion after she's billed for her own photo [View all] Liberal_in_LA Jul 2016 OP

Fuck that company. Volaris Jul 2016 #1

These firms often use file scanning software to detect a photo's use on a website. TheBlackAdder Jul 2016 #18

As has been discussed on other photo forums, progressoid Jul 2016 #2

Here's a wiki snip. Wilms Jul 2016 #5

What sort of argument can their cutthroat lawyers make? Getty can't charge her for her using pnwmom Jul 2016 #6

Right. progressoid Jul 2016 #9

But the letter accused her of "copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act" muriel_volestrangler Jul 2016 #11

Exactly -- they are claiming copyright infringement as a COA obamanut2012 Aug 2016 #20

If you have good enough lawyers awoke_in_2003 Jul 2016 #14

They are a vile and devious company How they think they can charge for public domain content Monk06 Jul 2016 #3

re: "How they think they can charge for public domain content is unbelieveable " thesquanderer Jul 2016 #12

This is what you get ... nikto Jul 2016 #4

Sad but true! 2naSalit Jul 2016 #7

What pisses me off, is how Ancestry.com and newspapers.com SoCalDem Jul 2016 #15

That should be taken back from the $$$ Interest$, IMO nikto Jul 2016 #16

Whoa PatSeg Jul 2016 #8

Something similar is going on at YouTube Wednesdays Jul 2016 #10

Thank you, for that scary, but honest and informative post nikto Jul 2016 #17

what is legal and what is just is often completely separate dembotoz Jul 2016 #13

Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2016 #19