How aren't sites with image galleries getting sued?

[WallaceCleaver]

I have seen a lot of fan-type sites that have massive galleries. How aren't they getting sued? This is such obvious copyright infringment so many times over. You would think that at least one of the copyright holders would have enough and crack down.

 

[Stanley]

I run an image gallery which obviously copies from other galleries. But below every image there's a link to the source (where I got the image from). I guess most people don't want to deal with litigation, it's just not worth the hassle.

 

[theNOTO]

The return they would get on their legal fees is not worth it for most people.

 

[peach]

on a sidenote, how do you copy from other galleries? I tried using teleport pro once, but I really need a solutions that also copies categories right into the new system, because I don't feel like sorting 70.000 britney spears photos or whatever

 

[WallaceCleaver]

I'm not even just talking about copying from other galleries. I'm talking about when people scan in magazine covers. TV guide and People magazine would certainly have enough money to start and win a lawsuit.

 

[Charlie]

I'm not even just talking about copying from other galleries. I'm talking about when people scan in magazine covers. TV guide and People magazine would certainly have enough money to start and win a lawsuit.

Would they want the potentally bad publicity of a lawsuit against a small website publisher?

 

[peach]

Ah yes, but you can't help me out with my gallery duplication job?

 

[WallaceCleaver]

Would they want the potentally bad publicity of a lawsuit against a small website publisher?

For the same reason that the record industry started sueing grandmothers and children. People were stealing their shit.

 

[MisterX]

For the same reason that the record industry started sueing grandmothers and children. People were stealing their shit.

They would also have to sue a big number of people. And when you compare the losses, I think music industry was in a worse position and therefore more willing to go through all the hassle.

 

[ms15000]

some of them do.... i had a large gallery and because one fotographer found one of his pics (which he was credited for) i had to take the whole thing down - he threatened me with law suits from other companies too... i knew it wouldnt happen but its not worth the risk really - he made out like it was a big deal for me :S as if, its less work for me to do!

and with the scanning thing... they dont loose money if the magazine isnt in issue anymore.

 

[kyleirwin]

I had one photographer threaten me once... I left his pics up and ignored his e-mail. Nothing ever happened. It's just not worth it to pursue it.

 

[JDA]

I imagine most of them just operate under the theory that they'll take a photo down if threatened with legal action. That usually ends the problem if legal action is threatened.

 

[Payton]

There are so many that it's probably hard or not worth it to go after them, if htey get popular or get in the media though, that's when they'll git hit with the cease and desist

 

[WallaceCleaver]

There are so many that it's probably hard or not worth it to go after them, if htey get popular or get in the media though, that's when they'll git hit with the cease and desist

That illustrates even more why hosting stolen images is pointless. The whole point is to succeed, but if you do then your success is jeopardized.

 

[Payton]

Well, for the majority of fan sites out there, they don't really have too many alternatives. Most probably can't afford the real thing... and prob not enough amateur/candid shots out there that people are willing to submit

Plus in return for turning a blind eye, the celebs or whoever get some free publicity

 

[Andrew]

Getty Images actually pays a company that runs bots crawling for their images. If liscences don't match up they will send you an "invoice" in the mail much like the RIAA does for file sharers.

In order to register the copyright of an image the photographer must pay $30 for every picture. Do the math, very few can afford it. Without the copyright registration they have to prove actual damage and a lot of stuff. Put it this way, its the difference between $1,000 and $150,000 from an actual infrindgement.

In the US we have the DMCA. Basically if your users are submitting copyrighted work they get in trouble, not you. This is why sites like Youtube are alive and well.

From what I have observed there are specific companies and individuals who will agressively pursue action against those that infrindge on their copyright. Quite honestly, you could lose your site, house, etc. Unfortunately there are also very grey fair use areas that the DMCA and other different laws create making this a real minefield..