Getty Vs a Chair

TCR4x4

Wishes he had a couple more Inches
Messages
8,852
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Had this email this morning from Getty.
Interesting points raised.


I cant see how or why Getty disagree with it, surely its no different to any other copyright case.
If I was to submit a photo showing a brand name, there would be no question, and they would reject it, why is this any different?


Attention all Flickr Collection on Getty Images Contributors!

You may have heard about a recent case (actually more than one case) where Getty Images and some of our photographers have had claims lodged against us in French court for images which include designer furniture, even as a minor part of the image.

This is a serious issue that involves potential liability for you as photographers.

The French courts have found in favor of the Le Corbusier rights-holders who initiated these claims. While we disagree with the decision and we are appealing it, we are very mindful that for now, it is a valid decision. It is critical that you understand that any claim like this one is extremely serious and requires action on your part in order to protect your interests, not just ours. We will continue to fight this decision, but in the meantime we must continue to actively pull content from our site that may be deemed infringing. We simply cannot identify all problematic images as quickly without your active participation. And quick action is vital.


Most importantly, if you believe that any of the images you have uploaded to us might possibly include any designer furniture, please email the Getty Images ID numbers to @gettyimages.com as soon as possible! The sooner we can identify and remove potentially infringing images the better we can reduce potential legal problems.
 
Last edited:
Sounds ridiculous. A couple of women who've inherited the 'rights' to one of their ancestor's work trying to cash in. Not a fan of inheritance laws.

Anyway, doesn't this mean anyone who makes anything can start suing? And we'll never be able to sell a photograph again.. or is it reserved for people who call their (other people's) products, "art"?
 
The only new piece here surely is the "minor part of the image"?

If you had a stock photo that was a BMW M3 (for example) in its entirity with your product placed in front of it, then this is misuse of BMW's IP.

If its a street scene with a row of parked cars off to the side, its not the same - or at least hasn't been.

Obviously some objects IP is owned by litigious (sp?) fiends with too much time on their hands, but presumably the same issue can be encountered with any manufactured item you might have in your images - a BIC Biro or a kettle from Argos...

Just because someone doesn't notice your IP infringement and sue you, doesn't make it right does it?
 
<insert tongue in cheek>


Would that mean all estate agents have to start paying the brickie because they are usinging a picture of 'their' creation?


<remove tongue from cheek>
 
Surely everything has been designed even a cheap B&Q garden chair must have been designed.
The question is - what's the difference between "designer furniture" and furniture that has been designed :thinking::shrug:

Apart from about £500;)
 
I have a Le Corbusier table, here's a picture..

after004.jpg


I'll await the phone call from the lawyers :lol:
 
I designed* that door handle, you'll be hearing from my lawyers as well



:naughty::naughty:




*not 100% true, done for comedic effect, don't send the internet police to 'get me'
 
Surely everything has been designed even a cheap B&Q garden chair must have been designed.
The question is - what's the difference between "designer furniture" and furniture that has been designed :thinking::shrug:

Apart from about £500;)

I was thinking the same thing. It's not as if a chair randomly designs itself.

Maybe normal furniture is practical, designer furniture is over-priced, over-rated and excruciatingly uncomfortable.
 
Back
Top