[WikiEN-l] Picture copyrights - an interesting article

[Ray Saintonge]

Guettarda wrote:

>On 2/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at 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