Prev: needing guidance
Next: Monitor comparison
From: NotMe on 21 Sep 2009 22:06

�

2
0
0
8

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
;

n
o

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
i
s

p
o
s
t

m
a
y

b
e

u
s
e
d

a
n
y
w
h
e
r
e

e
l
s
e

o
r

a
r
c
h
i
v
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

w
r
i
t
t
e
n

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/1UhWreLXIemy95lrVasUAU3z7SHbU3Js=
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090921-0, 09/21/2009), Outbound message
Cancel-Lock: sha1:15jCPfxhGAtPIEdfK4WSY0T4ZaQ=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Xref: news.netfront.net alt.graphics.photoshop:1947

http://copyrightaction.com/category/articles/news

Getty finally sues, and wins
Submitted by admin on Fri, 09/11/2009 - 13:29.
Tagged: General discussion � News
Out-law, the bulletin of IT & e-commerce solicitors Pinsent Masons LLP,
reports that Getty has won a case for copyright infringement against removal
company JA Coles. Coles admitted using a Getty photo 'Mother with daughter
(6-8) looking at each other and smiling' on its website. Although Coles
removed the image when approached for payment by Getty, they did not pay the
fee. The Court ruling means they will now have to pay Getty's legal costs as
well as �1,951.31 in damages.

What is significant about this case is that hundreds more may now follow.
During 2005-2006 Getty (and Corbis) began invoicing alleged infringing users
of their photographs for retrospective licenses. Many hundreds of UK web
publishers have since received bills from Getty's UK lawyers,




 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: needing guidance
Next: Monitor comparison