Quote:
Originally Posted by ortforshort
The big image houses are going to gather up every image and make you pay. The big boys want to monetize everything on the web and make it theirs,
|
It's true, Getty may be further emboldened by this new legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ortforshort
In the past, if you weren't making money on an image or it wasn't something that they were making money on, what could they really sue you for? Wasn't worth it. Now at $30,000 a pop, it will be more than worth it for any image posted on the web.
|
$30,000 "a pop" is not entirely accurate. Within
the Act in question, § 1504.e.1.A.ii.I specifies a maximum of $15,000 per work infringed, and § 1504.e.1.A.ii.II clarifies that if a work is not "timely registered" under
17 US Code § 412, the maximum is $7,500 per work infringed, up to $15,000 in any one hearing. Further, § 1504.e.1.D sets a maximum of $30,000 per "proceeding" not per work (or "pop").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Narum
Look here where it describes "Copyright enforcement and controversy" - that information is consistent with my experience. No need to prove damages, only use. No more reliance on "cease and desist" letters, just instant damages. This is a way to cash in on things that otherwise have little value to anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images |
While existing copyright provisions such as those previously used by Getty will remain unchanged, this Act (linked above) does not allow for their decade-old tactic of rushing to the courthouse, or to the debt collector. In order to enforce any of the permissible remedies in the copyright sections, there is a notice-response-hearing process clearly defined in § 1505.a.1, § 1505.a.2. § 1505.b.1.A, and § 1505.b.1.B.
Even so, I'm sure there will be an exploitable loophole or weakness in the system that will be tested early on.