What is the Weakness of Getty Images China’s Protection Litigation against Photo Infringement?

(By You Yunting) Recently, Getty Images China brought cases regarding copyright infringement arose from Weibo to courts. These companies sued by Getty Images China almost take a similar pattern like that: first these companies have outsourced its right of operation for their Weibo to ads enterprises, then on its Weibo ads enterprises published photos that Getty Images China owned in their thought, and finally these companies were sued by Getty Images China. Some customers asked us how to face such litigation. We will share our analysis on this question and introduce a case which Getty Images China lost its litigation in the Supreme People’s Court.

READ MORE

Is a Copyright’s Creation Time Important for Deciding Copyright Infringement?

(By Albert Chen) In 2010, Getty Images China (“Getty China”) filed a copyright infringement suit against Sinotrans Chongqing Co. (“Sinotrans Chongqing”). After the first instance, second instance, and review, the Supreme Court confirmed the copyright held by Getty China over the pictures involved in the case. The point that deserves the most attention in the case is the different understandings on whether the creation date of the copyright is an essential requirement for showing infringement.

READ MORE

Fair Use for Getty’s Picture of Statute?

By Luo Yanjie

    Getty Images (NYSE: GTY) (the “company”or “Getty”) is a company globally known for its picture license business for third party’s use. In general, the company shall appear in the court as the plaintiff, yet as reported in recent (note: the link is in Chinese), Getty was charged in Beijing Haidian People’s Court. The story is: Getty was found by a Chinese statute designer of unlicensed collection of his works into the company’s data base, which was on sale to the public; therefore, he filed a lawsuit against Getty, demanding a compensation. After the hearing, Getty was judged non-fair use in the case, and shall compensate the plaintiff RMB 5, 000 and an apology.

READ MORE