tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post5576875396905714099..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Landmark decision on photos and social media?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-70795266613368914882013-01-17T19:18:32.634+00:002013-01-17T19:18:32.634+00:00Sorry, link updated!Sorry, link updated!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10113165344194057198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-14969025153135652862013-01-17T15:44:42.054+00:002013-01-17T15:44:42.054+00:00nice to see Getty Images getting one in the eye; t...nice to see Getty Images getting one in the eye; they are very litigious when their images are misused ...Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-4832294740615323092013-01-17T15:40:26.224+00:002013-01-17T15:40:26.224+00:00Link to "landmark decision" goes to Bake...Link to "landmark decision" goes to Baker & McKenzie site which will not allow access. Thank your for storty!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-38349163094257052352013-01-17T15:06:36.744+00:002013-01-17T15:06:36.744+00:00Hi Andy, thanks for your comment. I think that thi...Hi Andy, thanks for your comment. I think that this is my mistake in interpreting the judgment, and that Getty in fact failed on its safe harbor argument. I'll amend the post accordingly. <br /><br />I have to say though I found this part of the judgment quite confusing and I think that others have too. In particular, pages 49 and 50 which say:<br /><br />"In order to claim the protection of the safe harbor of Section 512(c) of the DMCA, a service provider must meet, as relevant here, each of three requirements: (1) the service provider must promptly remove or disable access to infringing material upon obtaining actual knowledge of infringement or awareness of facts or circumstances making such infringement apparent; (2) the service provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, if the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and (3) the service provider’s involvement in the infringement must be limited to “storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” <br /><br />The record creates no disputed facts that Getty Images fails to satisfy any of these requirements, much less all of them."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10113165344194057198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-67161374805642748332013-01-16T21:54:14.998+00:002013-01-16T21:54:14.998+00:00Thanks for the update on this case, Iona. As you s...Thanks for the update on this case, Iona. As you say, hardly a ground-breaking decision.<br />What interests me is the comment that Getty may somehow escape liability because they are merely acting as a safe harbor. <br />I don't know whether this is speculation on your part or based on some court documents I haven't seen, but I cannot see how Getty's operation could be treated as merely that of an Online Service Provider as defined in 17 USC § 512(k). Since Getty issues its clients with (sub-)licences to use their content which they in turn have licensed from the contributing photographers, each Getty licence implicitly or explicitly warrants that they are authorised to act as an agent of the copyright owner. In doing this they have moved into another legal category entirely. If further proof was needed, Getty attaches its own copyright label to images it licenses to others, thus breaking the stipulation to be found in both § 512 (and the European eCommerce Directive for that matter), that an OSP must not make any modification to the third party content it hosts or supplies (§ 512(a)). <br />Andy Jnoreply@blogger.com