Copyright Infringement Cases
The Infuriating Tale of Two Cites:
Citation #1. Unauthorized Use
Citation #2. Settlement Demand Notice
As their stack of copyright
infringement cases grows, Getty cleverly yet with very questionable
ethics, selectively uses just bits and pieces of the US Internet
Copyright Laws to charge unsuspecting victims with abusing copyright on
the internet rules that smacks of extortion.
Yes indeed, it's your favorite friendly super cyber whiz (again with
the third part of this heart-stopping tale), Gnomely, Webmaster
Extraordinaire, here to remind you (quite emphatically) DO NOT, under any circumstances
what-so-ever, let the big corporate guys bully you!
That's what they are!
Sue started learning all the
ins and outs about copyright infringement
She slowly and carefully studied the unauthorized use letter and the
settlement demand notice she had received from Getty Images.
Then spent oodles and oodles of time researching.
It was essential to learn the real answers to the frequently
questions on internet copyright laws she had received in the packet
sent to her by Getty.
Fortunately, once the panic subsided her brain cells started to work
again Sue realized that she would have no way of knowing whether the
visitors who uploaded the graphics to her site owned a licensed to the
images or not.
Lucky for Sue, she had included submission guidelines
that included reference to copyright on the internet rules that
visitors had to agree to before submitting their information.
In my infinite wisdom, I knew that this precaution might
actually work to help protect her from the Getty Images threat of a lawsuit:
As Sue continued to carefully study the wording and the tone of the
letter she became angrier and angrier.
Getty Images sure made it sound like she was not only accused but
charged, tried, judged, convicted and had an arbitrary sentence imposed
upon her all in the space of eight pages.
Sue became quite enraged at this point. Who wouldn't?
How dare they?
Clearly Getty was cleverly using just selective bits and pieces of the
US Internet Copyright Laws to conveniently twist them into an
monetizing model that I mentioned earlier.
Basically, it all amounts to an all out deliberate extortion scheme.
So Sue rolled-up her sleeves and decided to take a swipe at the big
She sure wasn't going down as one of Getty's copyright
infringement cases without a big, nasty fight. . .
That's my girl!
So she spent hours upon hours researching her bejeebers off starting
the US Copyright Laws:
Then she discovered the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 amending
the US Internet Copyright Laws to include a provision for online
infringement liability limitation:
Now we were finally getting somewhere!
AH. . . .
(Notice how I said we? I always
lend Sue my vast and considerable wisdom
and talent to help her out of
these types of cyber pickles.)
For those of you who allow your visitors to share information on your
websites but haven't a clue if the material happens to violate any
internet copyright laws or not, thank the US Legislature for amending
Copyright Laws to protect unsuspecting website owners and other online
entities to include Chapter 5 section 512:
Sue then methodically combed forums, blogs and anything else she could
think of on the internet to learn what she could do
from similar experiences with Getty's threat of become one of their
many copyright infringement cases that others had faced.