Steve F Posted October 27 Share Posted October 27 Don't get too excited... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 27 Share Posted October 27 (edited) Not terribly impressive advice from a barrister- legally close but with no appreciation of the practicalities. Notice how he kept edging the figure up "to avoid the hassle". There have been some pretty impressive fees awarded in IPEC over the years. Not £40. I've certainly never settled for anything like that little. If you steal an image you don't get to dictate terms. Edited October 27 by spacecadet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin L Posted October 27 Share Posted October 27 Stock shutter!!!! 🤣🤣🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 27 Share Posted October 27 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Martin L said: Stock shutter!!!! 🤣🤣🤣 Google knows it though. For an £800/hour barrister to cheapskate on SS rather than hiring a professional is a bit poor though. Edited October 27 by spacecadet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted Thursday at 07:28 Share Posted Thursday at 07:28 (edited) I had an infringer recently - an established local web design company - who was trying to tell me that he would only pay £35 because the image was available on Alamy at that price. And that anything higher would not 'be fair'. I had to explain...... Edited Thursday at 07:35 by geogphotos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted Thursday at 07:31 Share Posted Thursday at 07:31 On 27/10/2024 at 17:50, spacecadet said: Google knows it though. For an £800/hour barrister to cheapskate on SS rather than hiring a professional is a bit poor though. Not wise to dig up old coals but this does remind me of a certain micro stock enthusiast and micro stock book author ( an very expensive London solicitor and Alamy contributor) who was predicting that we would all be blown away by micro stock and baited us by saying that his stock income went on Xmas champagne for his staff. But as I say ...water under the bridge and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted Thursday at 08:33 Share Posted Thursday at 08:33 "I know so many people who have done exactly the same thing. Nobody thinks twice about taking photos from the internet and reusing them. Although technically it is unlawful and it is infringement of copyright and you might have to pay a few quid. But these companies are shysters, they just try to make money out of people's miseries and often out of people's lack of knowledge about what to do and lack of familiarity with the court process." Wow. I must have missed the bit where he asks people to make sure that the pictures they download to use on their websites or anywhere else aren't covered by copyright. Or possibly where he points out that the photos on the sites that he recommends ("the best place to get images like this") won't be the same as the ones under copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted Thursday at 10:07 Share Posted Thursday at 10:07 shyster is a word comes to mind. There is no standard fee like he confidently says it's £20 a pop. From where did he pluck that figure? The "copyright is a scam" is a mind boggling nonsense we keep seeing. The only thing Getty has contributed to the stock market industry is to call some infringers out big time. A useful criteria for people on the media area is; don't pick a fight with Disney or Getty you will feel pain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca Ore Posted Thursday at 15:55 Share Posted Thursday at 15:55 Any number of people break the rules for photos offered on Wikipedia's open source contract. They're free but the contributor needs to be named. I've had one photo used a couple of times to illustrate Caribbean coastal side Nicaragua. Um, no, Penas Blancas is in the middle of the country, and I didn't get a credit. People have a myth that anything on the WWW isn't copyright. The other myth I've heard was that anything out of print wasn't copyright. Um, no. And that one came from an academic, said of a novella that was NOT out of print, just published by a small press. Piracy is incredibly common in social media. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now