Guettarda wrote:
On 2/2/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Arwel Parry wrote:
There's an interesting article on picture copyrights in todays' "Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices" http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html
It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about non-free images being deleted!
I think that those being asked for these ridiculous fees could have a good case for criminal extortion. The article says nothing about what happens if these people resist the demands.
The article says that the rates are high, but within the normal range. If that's true, could on really make a case for extortion?
As the one victim said, she checked out what the rates would be for what she used and it came out to £440 for five years, but he was being asked for £1,300 for one month. Attorney's fees? One could always go to the court for a motion to have the costs taxed according to the schedule prescribed by the courts for such action. How long does it take for a lawyer to write a letter which he probably already has set up as a template in which he can substitute the relevant details?
Companies like Corbis, Getty, et.al. know that the average little guy is scared shitless at the idea of going to court about anything. They can use that to charge whatever they feel the guy will pay.
As long as the offending picture is removed from the site ASAP how far will they be really be willing to go if you stonewall them?
Ec