Discuss the Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter. You may also discuss Getty Clone demand letters from Jupiter Images and MasterFile here. Share your story, information, and comments. http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/list.php?2 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:58:57 -0400 Phorum 5.2.13 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1221#msg-1221 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1221#msg-1221
Thanks for the clarification; it's an important point.

S.]]> SoylentGreen Getty Images Letter Forum Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:49:58 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1220#msg-1220 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1220#msg-1220
Just want to clear up a point you address in your latest post. Copyright is owned by the author of the material. With photographs, the original author would be the photographer unless the photo was a "Work for hire" then the author would be whoever hired the photographer. However, the author has the right to assign r o transfer that right to any third party. Most of the photographer's agreements that Getty uses contain a complete assignment of rights including an assignment of the right to enforce the copyright the author's own. So, Getty can bring an action if they have such an assignment]]> Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:46:20 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1219#msg-1219 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1219#msg-1219
The second letter is intentionally misleading.

While copyright exists at the moment of creation, this is not normally enough to collect damages in court. In any case, this form of "copyright" would exist only for the creator of the image, and not Getty.

Getty must own the copyright to the image in order to sue for damages; it cannot sue for damages on behalf of a third party.

Watermarking an image does not copyright it in any manner.

It's interesting that Getty is unwilling to actually explain the cost breakdown. The number seems to be purely arbitrary.

S.]]> SoylentGreen Getty Images Letter Forum Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:15:05 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1218#msg-1218 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1218#msg-1218
The federal rules say that settlement discussions are not admissible in court and normally settlement agreements in copyright matters are kept confidential. That is standard practice. However, you have not settled with them so you have no obligation to keep anything confidential unless you have already agreed to do so. If you would like my help in representing you against Getty on this case, you can email me at omichelen@sbmlegal.com]]> Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:40:00 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,240,1213#msg-1213 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,240,1213#msg-1213
YouTube
Vimeo
Twitter
Scribd

Enjoy. Stay Informed.]]> admin Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:00:44 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,3,1212#msg-1212 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,3,1212#msg-1212
YouTube
Vimeo
Twitter
Scribd

Enjoy. Stay Informed.]]> admin Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:58:03 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1211#msg-1211 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1211#msg-1211 slamberth Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:28:00 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1210#msg-1210 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1210#msg-1210
Dear Shane,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your follow up in this matter. I would like to address your comments and concerns.

Please note that you have commented that you are completely responsible for the image being used. We are willing to work with you as a courtesy, should you be willing to settle this matter on behalf of Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers. As the end user of the unlicensed imagery, however, Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers are ultimately liable for this infringement. Should you be unable or unwilling to settle this matter on behalf of the end user of the unlicensed imagery, we will continue to pursue Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers in this matter.

Copyright exists upon the moment of creation. Getty Images represents the photographer who owns the copyright in this image. Rights Managed images, such as the one at issue, are exclusive to Getty Images and available for license only through our website. Please find enclosed a watermarked copy of the imagery as evidence of our rights in the same. Therefore, when copyright infringement occurs, Getty Images is entitled to legal redress.

As exclusive licensor of the images in question, Getty Images is seeking compensation for the unauthorized usage of our represented photographers work. The settlement offer presented to Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers is based on several factors that include the cost of licensing, and administrative costs related to policing these matters.

Absent the appropriate license surrounding the specific use of the imagery in question, the settlement amount of $875.00, as presented, represents what Getty Images would expect to receive in a matter such as this.

Payment of this amount will serve as full and final settlement of this matter. The terms of this settlement shall be kept confidential, except as may be required by law. Getty Images expressly reserves all rights and remedies available under copyright law. Settlement of the unauthorized use claim does not constitute permission for future use of the imagery.

Please let me know if you wish to settle this matter on behalf of Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers so that we may proceed accordingly.

Thank you for your continued time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

xxxxx

License Compliance Specialist

Why are they saying this is all confidential?]]> slamberth Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:09:56 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1209#msg-1209 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1209#msg-1209 Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:31:28 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1208#msg-1208 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1208#msg-1208
S.]]> SoylentGreen Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:28:00 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1203#msg-1203 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1203#msg-1203 omichelen@sbmlegal.com]]> Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:51:47 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1202#msg-1202 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1202#msg-1202
While I don't think its wise to automatically assume that Getty won't litigate, it is highly unlikely that they will litigate over just one image. I agree with SG that you should send the letter out, retracting your offer, and await their response. Please keep us posted]]> Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:50:57 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1200#msg-1200 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1200#msg-1200
Next, it's very likely that you'll get the form letter that states something to the effect of "We'll reveal our documentation in the court session". Which actually means that Getty has nothing, as usual. Just don't reply back to them.

Any company really intent on going to court wouldn't be so negligent in its duty to protect their content. Assuming that they even own said content. In fact, what's to stop you (or anyone else) from paying 50 bucks and copyrighting that image right now?

They're after the "low-hanging fruit". People who just send money out of fear.

S.]]> SoylentGreen Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:13:45 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1199#msg-1199 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1199#msg-1199
They sent me an email on how to pay by credit card so I replied with this email:

Dear Mr. McGrath,

Before payment, for my records and protection as advised by my lawyer, I do need proof of valid ownership of the image and a precise calculation for the claim of $875.

I purchased this image along with other images as a bundle, so I honestly feel I did nothing wrong. As soon as I read your company's letter "claiming" this was thier image, I removed the photo immediately.

I feel a simple "Cease and Desist" letter would have been sufficient, instead your company demanding such a preposterous price for "damages and compensation" without proof of damage is not only pathetic but borderline illegal.

I will not "blindly" pay such an arbitrary sum. The license for the web photo would be $49.00 for 3 months, so as you might guess, feel a bit gouged for such an easy and victimless mistake.

Nor will I be scammed into paying your company for an image they "claim" to have the rights to. Until I receive proof of ownership, your company's "claim" means nothing.

Once the requested information has been provided and reviewed by my lawyer and everything is what your company says is true, I will be more than happy to pay for the amount specified.

I would be more than happy to settle this in a court of law if your company would rather take this case in that direction.

And please understand your company is damaging their reputation with this bulling tactic.

Thank you for your cooperation,

Sincerely,

Shane Lamberth]]> slamberth Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:58:10 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1198#msg-1198 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1198#msg-1198 B-]]> black X Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:04:56 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1197#msg-1197 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1197#msg-1197 admin Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:03:37 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1196#msg-1196 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1196,1196#msg-1196 Letter of Demand" today, and I had a knee-jerk reaction out of embarrassment and sent Getty Images an email saying that I was responsible for the image and that I removed it immediately. I then asked if they.can please provide me a way to make the payment by credit card. Am I too late, since after doing some research, realized I should have just ignored them?

Now that I calmed down, I'm thinking ,"Why am I paying for such an absurd fee for an image that I received from a download of stock images?"

I will be receiving a response from Getty on directions on how to pay the fee by credit card very soon. I now feel duped.

When they send me the response email, if I was to say, "On second thought, unless you can 1. Provide proof that the copyright is held by Getty and is valid and not expired and 2. show me PRECISELY how you calculated that absurd fee, I'm not going to pay you a dime."... be a proper response or am I just digging myself into a deeper hole? Am I already too late because I already responded and now have to pay a $875 fee for an image whose copyright I thought was cleared?]]> slamberth Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:36:19 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1195#msg-1195 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1195,1195#msg-1195
Thanks,
Rex]]> Rex Humston Getty Images Letter Forum Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:01:10 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1192#msg-1192 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1192#msg-1192
Good question, with no easy answer. It used to be the law many years ago that the copyright notice had to be located on or near the copyrighted work. You could not get damages otherwise. That was undone by regulations many years ago and no requirement now exists for copyright notice to be affixed or near the work. When a search engine produces images from an image search result, it usually has a disclaimer saying the images may be subject to copyright. What the "anonymous" definition means is that if a list of songs on a record album does not identify an author for a particular song, it is presumed that the song was anonymously written. That does not mean that the artist's version of that song would be free from copyright however. Here, I think the law is clearly in favor of the copyright holder in that no notice is required and the burden is on the user to make sure they have a copyright free image.]]> Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:54:20 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1191#msg-1191 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1191#msg-1191 spartan91 Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:27:29 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1190#msg-1190 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1190#msg-1190
I finely got a link to the actual Copyright Law of the United States; When reading the actual definitions listed in the document I came across the following

"An “anonymous work” is a work on the copies or phonorecords of which no natural person is identified as author."

If you take the anonymous work definition literally, can you argue that Google, Bing and other search engines listing images after a search, is a search of a work on the copies of which no natural person is identified as author....therefore if the images displayed (a work on the copies) after a search does not have a natural person as an identifiable author isn't it considered an anonymous work and can be viewed as displayable by anyone (Copyright yes, but know one to go too to ask permission to use the work, until the identity of one or more of the authors is revealed. )

My point is how can we use the copyright definitions in the defense for the situations listed in this forum, even if the initial intent of the definition was not for the current situations?]]> spartan91 Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:20:56 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1189#msg-1189 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1189#msg-1189
In order to get statutory damages and legal fees the image must have been registered at the time of the alleged infringement (or infraction, as you called it) so registering it the day after Getty finds out or issues the letter would not allow Getty to get legal fees and statutory penalties. Filing for registration of the work PRIOR to filing the lawsuit is mandatory in Federal court so Getty would file the registration sometime before filing the lawsuit and be only entitled to receive its "actual damages."

I have reported on a few cases that have looked at the compilation issue and have ruled in favor of our position.]]> Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:14:19 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1187#msg-1187 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1187#msg-1187
This is just to clarify.

The court is normally most concerned as to whether an image is registered as "copyrighted" or not at the time of "infraction". Is this correct? For example, if Getty notifies a person of an "infraction" for using an unregistered image today on Aug 27, 2010, it wouldn't help their case at all to register the image as copyrighted the next day on Aug 28, 2010. In this example, they cannot prove that they owned the image on the date of the alleged "infraction". Registering an image shouldn't give them any "retroactive" ownership rights in terms of litigation.

I guess that a person or organization can file a lawsuit for any reason at any time (even if they have a weak case, or will even surely lose)? For example, Getty could sue over the unauthorized use of an unregistered image. They'd probably lose the case, however.

Very sorry to mince words in the above. However, it's such an important issue; thanks for your patience.

Masterfile has been registering bulk catalogs of images, so their position appear to be stronger than Getty's in my opinion. They've copyrighted some books such as "The Best of Master xx", etc; I still think that copyrighting in bulk is weak when seeking thousands in damages. Getty has been encouraging the original artists to register the images themselves. Picture a situation wherein the original artist registered an image, but not Getty. Getty would have no right to sue and collect damages on behalf of someone else's work.

Yes, Copyright Trolls such as Masterfile and Getty seek insanely large settlements. Masterfile is second only to Imageline/Riddick. It'll knock your socks off. I'd like to see the courts ensure that the settlements are within the normal purchase price. The music industry also seeks huge settlements, using the argument that the "downloader/uploader" has distributed the files widely to other "pirates", thereby causing economic losses. But, I cannot see the same damages occurring for stock image companies.

To me, it's just a big money-grab before new foreign companies produce content of similar quality as Materfile/ Getty, but at vastly lower prices.

S.]]> SoylentGreen Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:05:17 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1186#msg-1186 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1186#msg-1186 Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:56:45 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1185#msg-1185 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1185#msg-1185
Just to clarify, to my understanding:
It is true that an image must be formally registered before a lawsuit can be brought. However, it is permissible to register the images after the infringment is found, and then sue for all infringement throughout the statute of limitation period (usually the latest 3 years of infringment I think). So if they find their image on your site, the can easily register the image and sue you. The only difference is that if the image wasnt registered before the infringement, then they cant recover attorney fees nor can they recover statutory damages. They can only recover actual damages (probably just the normal licensing fee associated with the image in question).

This is why Masterfile's position is stronger than Getty's. Masterfile registers beforehand far more than Getty does.

Hopefully Oscar will straighten me out if Im wrong.]]> Lettered Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:25:03 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1184#msg-1184 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1184#msg-1184
I can't speak for Oscar, but I can offer some help.

Google's use of online images in its "Image Search" falls under "fair use" technically. That is because Google doesn't serve up the images to you directly; it simply links to the location of the actual images. There are those who challenge this thinking, because Google must temporarily store or "cache" the images on its systems at least temporarily in order to provide you with such a search function that includes those little thumbnail pictures (but this is beyond the scope of this post). However, that doesn't give anyone the right to use an image just because Google lists it in a search. In fact, it doesn't matter where an image came from... a web site, a Google search, or even scanned from a book... if you use it without license, you might be held liable, or at the very least, harassed for a long time (you'd think that you've stolen a Ferrari, for God's sake). Furthermore, if a person or organization uses an image without license and then someone else gets it from them, that wouldn't offer the latter any indemnity. There's also no provision in most places that state that an image must be protected by watermarks, copyright warnings or metadata in order for it to be protected by copyright. Of course, for an entity to sue you and actually receive payment, it should have properly registered the images for copyright beforehand. Unfortunately, it's often difficult to determine what's formally copyrighted and what isn't on the web. Technically, everything that anyone creates is copyright "the author", but it's difficult to get damages in court with that, unless somebody used an unauthorized picture of your likeness in an advertisement or something... you could sue and get damages in that case I'm sure.

I'm not a big fan of the stock image/art companies. However the above would be considered standard in many circles these days. To play it completely safe, you should make images yourself (if you are so talented), pay someone to do it for you, or buy images from a company that you feel offers good value and conducts itself in the most ethical manner.

In the case of separate companies selling identical images, I would guess that it would come down to which one has actually applied for and received copyright on the particular image. That would be the company that would "own" the image and could best protect its use legally. The other companies would be dead in the water in such a case. It's also my opinion that if none of the companies have formally copyrighted the image in question, then none of the companies would be a a strong legal position to protect it.

S.]]> SoylentGreen Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:48:35 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1183#msg-1183 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1183#msg-1183
Let say we search Google for "big Clock" images and we download an image from that search. Since Google has the image listed, but is not linked or download from the reference agencies listed above is it ok to use it, since Google is also using the image in their database without permission or does Google fall under fair use in listing the images under a search function?

Can we use orphan images (images we don't know where they came from, and has no metadata to identify the original source of the image and listed thru Google, Bing or other search engines, other then the agencies above.

I would assume you would sa,y if you don't know where the images came from, or if you don't have a license to use them, then create you own using your own camera or design software.

A request, if I can be so bold. Would it help folks, if you had a link to the Copyright Acts Getty is referring to, or did I miss those links somewhere on this site.]]> spartan91 Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:37:26 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1034,1181#msg-1181 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1034,1181#msg-1181 Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:55:05 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,245,1180#msg-1180 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,245,1180#msg-1180 Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:39:44 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1157,1179#msg-1179 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1157,1179#msg-1179
Believe me it was worth it to settle the matter and put it to rest. Generally Masterfile treats "hobby" or "non-commercial" sites much differently that e-retail or business websites which is why they came down to that number so quickly. Masterfile would not have stopped bothering you and may even have filed suit if you did not work something out with them. Their program works because it would have cost you far more than $500 to call their bluff and find out you got sued. I think the only way this burdensome program ends is if more Federal Courts agree with our position and declare that they cant use compilation registration to enforce individual image infringements. Don't worry too much about your payment, at least it puts an end to the contacts from Masterfile]]> Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:38:51 -0400