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 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:00:03 -0400 Phorum 5.2.13 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1233,1233#msg-1233 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1233,1233#msg-1233 Since the family member isn't too hot with the English- I have decided to try and help him out.
GettyImages are demanding $3,000 for 3 Images, which they are stating are on the web site concerned, and they are right !
I saw the Images in question and I have removed them.
I then phoned up gettyimages and I tried to explain to the rude girl on the phone, who answered in German- but changed to Engish when she heard me speaking.
I said that the web site,was created around 6 years ago by a 3rd party designer and the images used, was certainly not known by my family member to be copy righted in any way- he was just happy to get a web site up and showing on the internet.
Within 3 mins of the telephone conversation, I was being offered a special discount ! I rejected this right away and told the girl, that there is no money available and I no longer wanted to continue this conversation and I would be writing a letter to her head office.
I have read so many comments over here on this board, some saying not to write to them, but I am so mad at these people.
I have been involved with the internet for over 12 years, running blogs and forums and not once have I ever come across a situation like this one.
I have so many friends in the digital art world, who have had thier work published in so many books and they are doing work for movie companies- and on many occasions, if we find any one using thier work on thier web site- we usually write them a e.mail and explain to them- not only have they stolen some one elses work, they are breaking the copright law !
And on most cases, these people take down the Images involved- and some times they simply close down thier site- and the matter is closed !
But Gettyimages are using another simple method !- "Pay Up" and boy ! doesn't their letter look so proffesional.
Its a 8 page letter and no wonder my family member was shaking in his boots when he came to my house, with this demand for this kind of money- which is a months wage for this person with 3 children.
I await on a reply from Gettyimages, and I will not give in without a fight !!!!]]> wallace Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:38:00 -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 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:49:58 -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 Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:31:28 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1157,1157#msg-1157 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1157,1157#msg-1157 lynnsoli Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:38:51 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1139#msg-1139 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1139,1139#msg-1139
What I notice while looking, was some of the images managed by Getty were also found in the other companies databases. Can anyone speak to this?

How is this possible if the companies are claiming to represent they exclusively manage the images in question? Are they infringing on each other's images? Which company has the right to go after the infringer?

I'll attempt another image search and find an actual example, if it makes a difference in defending against settlement demands.]]> spartan91 Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:54:20 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1133,1133#msg-1133 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1133,1133#msg-1133
Also, any simple advice on blocking and deleting caches would be much appreciated.

Thanks]]> Victim Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:37:29 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1114,1114#msg-1114 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1114,1114#msg-1114
1. If you do a Google search under "Getty Images", we are now on page 2 of the search results. This is especially significant because the only way our website could be found is if you typed in various permutations of "Getty Images Settlement/Demand/Extortion Letter." We were always #1 or #2 as a niche topic website. However, this website is now likely to be "discovered" by the mainstream press or anyone else who is doing research on Getty Images within Google.

2. Wikipedia now lists this website as a quoted source in the Getty Images article listing under the Copyright Enforcement section. Being quoted in Wikipedia is HUGE especially since Oscar and I had nothing to do with it. Someone out in the world of the Internet deemed our website as a reliable information source and quote/incorporated our information within the article.

As a side comment, I predicted before that as long as Getty Images continue their extortion letter rampage, this website would inevitably become mainstream in the realm of stock photography and specifically for anyone searching on "Getty Images". This website does not represent a positive image for Getty Images public relations.

If you want to continue your support of this website and what we do (aside from the Paypal donations), tell people you know who have blogs, websites, and webpages to link to our website. PLEASE DO NOT SPAM LINKS. We only want legitimate and credible links if it fits into the content of their article, webpage, or website.

Thanks for your ongoing support.

MatthewC]]> admin Getty Images Letter Forum Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:49:45 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1096,1096#msg-1096 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1096,1096#msg-1096
If I send them a letter am I making it worse / more difficult for Attorney OM , should I decide at a later date to secure his assistance. If I use OM and he works with them can they still send me for collections?

They seem like a racketeering outfit, I would love to just keep writing asking hundreds of stupid questions their $15 per hour staff can respond to.Dont want to waste the time though, would rather pay 150 and hopefully put it behind me.]]> abducens Getty Images Letter Forum Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:56:07 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1090,1090#msg-1090 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1090,1090#msg-1090
I spoke with Oscar a few days ago about the Getty Extortion Letter I received. They wanted $600 for a small thumbnail image on my webpage that my brother-in-law built for me through Yahoo site builder. I really didn't want to play the game with them (more letters, collections calls, etc.) mainly because it was very distracting, and the anger that I was feeling was very unhealthy. I didn't want to feed the monkey, but as Oscar said, what they are doing is legal, as unscrupulous as it may be. I called them, and we settled for $500. Had I been hornswoggled for more money, I would have taken a different route. I think that what they are doing is despicable and they should be regulated somehow.

On the flipside, I wanted to thank both of you for standing up for what is right and helping to protect the little guy who is getting railroaded. With your help, I was able to educate myself, understand the situation, and make a decision that best suited my situation. I have made my donation to the site so that others that feel lost, scared, and helpless, can educate and protect themselves.

So what's next? Maybe in the future they will claim that I used a font that they manage the rights to, or maybe a certain color of red that they claim the rights to. To me, the possibilities seem endless. I can see that there are 2 types of business people in this world, producers and parasites.

Thanks again,

Hollowpoint]]> Hollowpoint Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:47:35 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1065,1065#msg-1065 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1065,1065#msg-1065
From what I understand Masterfile is totally arbitrary on amounts they seek from unwitting victims. The site is a small, totally local website for a small tennis club. The images were roughly postage stamp sized and the website has only been active since March 24, 2010.

I haven't scanned this entire website with its wealth of information, but I wonder if anyone has covered the topic that in the 1990s Masterfile sent out tens of thousands of free sample CD-ROMs to graphic designers and ad agencies all over the world loaded with thousands of their images....NONE OF WHICH WERE WATERMARKED.

You know graphics and ad folks share images all the time....How far of a stretch is it to imagine Masterfile did this purposely as a way to make more revenue, knowing these non-watermarked images would find their way into the marketplace, then they could begin this extortion scheme? It's a lot better to get 3500.00 for a 500.00 image, yes?

Stranger things have happened.]]> jimwitt Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:23:42 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1053,1053#msg-1053 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1053,1053#msg-1053 Muench Decision

Here is the text of the blog post:

In a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the licensors of digital images, Federal Judge Loretta Preska, the Chief Judge for the Southern District of New York, declared as improper and unenforceable the standard method for registering images by digital image warehouses like Corbis and Masterfile (the biggest of them Getty Images, does not register its images with the Copyright Office).

Let me briefly explain the situation: digital photography has allowed photographers to upload whole catalogues of images into a database and then “assign” their copyright in the images to these large digital image warehouses that then license them for use to media companies, web developers and the like. So if you’re building a website and need the perfect picture of a woman talking on the phone for your cell phone company client, you need only go to Corbis, Masterfile or Getty’s websites, type in “woman on cellphone” and get dozens of shots to choose from. Pick the resolution and use you want, pay the licensing fee and you get to download the image. The photog and the “warehouse” split the license fee under a written agreement.

Normally, under the statute, a copyright registration must include the name of the work and the name of the author of the work. What the warehouses have been doing is registering dozens of catalogues together under one “compilation registration” and when it comes to listing the authors, its lists the name of one photographer and then adds “and numerous others” afterwards. They have been doing that since they received an opinion letter from Nanette Petruzzeli, Chief of the Copyright Office’s Examining Division saying that this would provide copyright registration for ALL of the images included in the compilation even if the actual authors of most of the images were not named in the registration.

For nearly two years now, I have been locked in many disputes with the three major image warehouses over the value of infringement of digital images. I have a whole website devoted to the issue., which is spreading like wildfire across the internet (the issue, not the website): www.extortionletterinfo.com. I currently represent a total of about 500 companies in such claims against, Getty , Masterfile, and Corbis. For those that do register the images, I have been arguing that the Petruzelli letter is WRONG and conflicts with the plain reading of the Copyright Act which says to be valid, the registration must contain the name of the actual author and that if you register it as a compilation, then you don’t get to seek damages for each individual photograph, so that if someone takes 30 images from one compilation, then it is only one infringement. (I know this is hyper-technical for most people, but it really is important in the arena of digital imagery).

Well in the case of Muench Photography, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin, decided May 27, 2010, Judge Preska agreed with me on this issue. The Court outlined the issue this way:

The Court is faced with the novel question of whether the registration of an automated database–here, a compilation of photographs by different photographers–by a third-party copyright claimant that has been assigned the rights to the individual works for the purposes of copyright registration registers the individual works thereby permitting the individual photographers to sue for copyright infringement . . . A plain reading of § 409 of the Copyright Act mandates that the copyright registrations at issue here contain the names of all the authors of the work..”

The court went on to explain that while it felt bad that the fault for the mis-registering the images was that Corbis and the photographers relied on the Petruzelli letter, it said it had no choice because the statue was clear. It held therefore that the compilation was properly registered because Corbis was listed as the author of the compilation but that “the individual works themselves are not registered.”

This means that there are no statutory damages for each and every infringement of the automated database, but at most just a single infringement of a part of the compilation. This opens up the question of whether taking one or five or ten images from a thousand image compilation is de minimus infringement and may not be enforceable or subject to significant damages. What it does not leave open is the question of whether the Petruzelli letter was right or wrong – it clearly was wrong and is not to be relied upon.

All of the individual images in a compilation are not validly registered if the individual authors are not named on the registration. This case will undoubtedly be appealed and we will keep track of its progress. Also, there are many pending actions filed by Corbis and Masterfile in which this case will be cited and we will wait to see how this is analyzed in cases where the author of the compilation itself its bringing the case and not the author of the individual photographs. While the plain reading of the case states that no different outcome should result, rest assured that the image warehouses will see it differently and try to bend and twist this case to suit their purposes or limit its applicability.

Stay tuned as this new area of intellectual property law continues to get defined and clarified.]]> Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:30:07 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1034,1034#msg-1034 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1034,1034#msg-1034
The image is size: 150x105 pixels
I have removed it now.

What should I do? pay them? What will happen if I dont?

- Sweedish web developer -]]> landing Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:55:05 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,928,928#msg-928 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,928,928#msg-928
Thanks for any replies.]]> lsb Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:40:35 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,926,926#msg-926 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,926,926#msg-926
largest-copyright-infringer-of-all-time]]> buddhapi Getty Images Letter Forum Mon, 24 May 2010 12:04:16 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,912,912#msg-912 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,912,912#msg-912 Ron08 Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 19 May 2010 23:13:37 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,911,911#msg-911 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,911,911#msg-911 I hope this is the right place to post this. I stumbled upon this site after reading an article on another site. I have a fashion blog that I write for fun. Often times, I mention celebrities and include photos from GettyImage's Editorial Section (with their watermark on it). Could I possibly be sued by GettyImages? Should I remove these images immediately?]]> EarthLoves Getty Images Letter Forum Thu, 13 May 2010 12:05:30 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,909,909#msg-909 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,909,909#msg-909 What do you think my next move should be?]]> George Getty Images Letter Forum Thu, 13 May 2010 12:00:34 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,904,904#msg-904 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,904,904#msg-904
I feel unable to fight aggressively since the company was targeted and not me. I want to preserve my reputation and theirs and I can't ask them to take the risk of further retribution from Getty.

For my part I've now learned that the photo site I've used most recently, IStockPhoto, has been acquired by Getty so I'll back away from them posthaste. I've also learned a bit about how some companies have decided to make money in a down economy.]]> rjohnston Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:59:23 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,903,903#msg-903 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,903,903#msg-903
What a dirty practice! They want $2,000+ an image for what amounts to simple photos one could hardly appreciate as a "work of art" worthy of the demanded price.

Go get 'em! This whole practice stinks. I understand the reason for liability for "innocent" infringement. Really, I do. However, with photos all over the net (hardly worth much of anything), there is no way a person could reasonably research photos they are supplied in order to protect themselves. In one instance, the picture was of some grass. Unbelievable! $2,000 for a picture of grass!

Now, on masterfile's site, if you do a search for "grass," you will come up with hoards of pictures. That's just them. How can any person check all possible repositories for pictures of grass to see if the picture of grass (which one would never expect would be worthy of copyrighting in the first place) was copyrighted? It is literally impossible. This practice amounts to nothing more than trap-setting for the innocent.

Immediately, I had ideas of how lucrative this practice could be and began to question why I am an attorney who works for reasonable money, when I could just copyright a multitude of pictures I take with a digital camera and flood the net with them. With the ease of a "bot," all I have to do is sick an automated blood-hound to find my unwitting suckers, scare the hell out of them, and make easy money sending out letters en masse. The more pictures I post and copyright, the quicker my budding, new business will take off. I could start rolling in a few thousand a day before too long and leave this workaday, small law practice behind.

Truth is, however, my conscience will not allow me to do that.

Glad you guys are doing this. If I can be of help, feel free to e-mail me.]]> Jeff Matthews Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:00:07 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,887,887#msg-887 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,887,887#msg-887
Years ago, we joined an affilliate program offered by RevenuePilot, which pays royalties for advertising on our website by RevenuePilot's clients. One of the advertising devices they offered was a pay-per-click search box that renders itself on our website via a code snippet we add to one of our pages. We have no control over the content displayed in RevenuePilot's banners or search box. All content displayed is located on RevenuePilot's servers and controlled by RevenuePilot.

In March, 2010, we received a settlement demand letter (for $2240) from SuperStock for an image displayed by RevenuePilot's search box background banner on our site. As I say, we had no control over the image displayed, nor did the image ever reside on our server. Our agreement with RevenuePilot granted us a license to display their content.

As we had never received a penny from RevenuePilot, and forgotten we were even part of their affiliate program, it wasn't until we received SuperStock's letter that we discovered RevenuePilot has discontinued their program and probably gone out of business (their website still exists, but claims they have "closed media operations".)

Under "strict liability", are we liable for an image used by a third party through a separate license agreement? Does anyone who allows display advertising on their site assume liability for the images in the ads? Surely there must lots of case law from the world of printed media. Is Time Magazine liable for every ad it prints?

Assuming the worst case, i.e., RevenuePilot illegally used SuperStock's image and is no longer around, does the liability then fall on us? What would you expect a court to award SuperStock in such a case? We're willing to settle with them for a reasonable amount if we're technnically liable. We've removed the RevenuePilot code from our site but have not contacted SuperStock yet. What actions do you recommend we take at this point?

Thanks for any help!]]> hamilsoft Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:12 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,882,882#msg-882 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,882,882#msg-882
We've learned of no new lawsuits filed by Getty since our last post. The most interesting thing to have changed is that in the last few months, the demand in the letter has gone down from the traditional $1,000 or $1,300 per image to $750 and in some cases even $450. I think this is likely in response to some of the efforts done through this site. I think is terrific and a major change in Getty's position. I am glad that Getty is realizing that there is no basis for the amounts they demand and that they have begun to adjust their demand letters accordingly. Now if they will negotiate reasonably against that initial demand, we may have some real progress here. Let's see what happens.

Masterfile continues to expand their program. When it started, they had one individual doing all of their correspondence and negotiation. Now the program has 3 "Compliance Officers" all of whom continue to send out letters to those allegedly found to have Masterfile images on their sites. Masterfile has increased the demand amounts in their letters from around $2,000 per image to now between $4,000 and $6,000 per image. No explanation was given for the increased amounts.
So, our position with Masterfile has really not changed - it is best to try and reach an amicable settlement with them since they have registered their images and would be entitled in a court of law to attorney's fees and costs, as well as statutory penalties.]]> Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:07:30 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,880,880#msg-880 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,880,880#msg-880
I listened to your phone recording of March 2009. It has been a year and I would like to know if there is any update worth noting regarding the getty case. Any info would be appreciated , may be time for another audio update :)

Joe]]> joehawk Getty Images Letter Forum Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:01:41 -0500 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,872,872#msg-872 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,872,872#msg-872
We always make sure images are from either public domain or royalty-free. Until this time, we didn't realize that the photos were "rights managed" by Getty. I make it a policy to never use images of this type, just royalty-free ones.

One of my concerns is Getty being up front with the status of the images that they are claiming to be "rights managed"? Could they ever have been royalty-free at some point, especially if they are buying stock photo companies. With billions of images on the internet and them trying to promote/sell on behalf of photographers, who's to say. If I was a photographer and one company wasn't selling my photos much, I would try other avenues.

In my case it's only 5 images, out of the many others on the site. I have since removed them and replaced with royalty-free (not from Getty for sure). What I did notice in their letter is that the opening page stated that they expect a settlement in 21 days from the date of the letter and stated the due date to get the 10% discount. On the REMIT page it states a settlement date of before the date of the letter, and also on other pages (confusing on which date is which). Regardless, it comes with a clause for each image, stating (from my interpretation), that even if there is a settlement, there is no entitlement to use the images. Go figure.

Any suggestion on the recourse? One of my arguments would be that I am at a disadvantage in seeing if the images are licensed, while they rely on third-party software (not available to the others) and cheap labour (this could have all been outsourced). While I support royalty-free stock photos, it would be great to be on a level playing field.

Cheers]]> bubu678 Getty Images Letter Forum Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:15:30 -0500 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,868,868#msg-868 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,868,868#msg-868 MDGetty Getty Images Letter Forum Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:18:56 -0500 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,856,856#msg-856 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,856,856#msg-856
* Proof of the title of copyright including exclusivity
* The date of first publication and the date of copyright issuance
* How many companies/persons have been granted the rights to distribute the images
* Proof that the images have never been contained, in any other image libraries
* The date Masterfile Corporation obtained the legal right to distribute the images
* A breakdown of the costs claimed to have been incurred as a result of the alleged copyrighted images being displayed

I thought that would be enough to discourage the writers of the letter if they were indeed scam artists. Evidently this is not the case. The Compliance Officer responded with most of the above information, and of course an extremely short deadline.

My wife had commissioned a designer to build our website close to 6 years ago, as we have no experience in this field. This company assured us they had thousands of stock photos to help fill our website. As my wife had just started up our company, and we had very few images of our own, we used some of these images. This design company has unfortunately ceased operations, and we cannot track down the owner of the company or designer of the site to verify how they obtained the image in question. Our website does not directly generate any money of our business - we do not accept payment through our site. Masterfile has demanded a payment of $6030.00, and claims that this fee is "fair, balanced and reasonable". I vehemently disagree, as this fee amounts to close to 10% of our net profit for 2009, and we had no idea we were in violation of any copyrights. I certainly do not believe we are in the wrong.

Could you kindly consider my information and advise on how to proceed?

Thank you very much!]]> jeffskippy Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:36:55 -0500 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,853,853#msg-853 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,853,853#msg-853 oh.findacase.com]

This case seems a lot like the typical case here, except that the images were probably registered, making things a bit more complicated for the defendants (compared to cases where images aren't registered).

The way I read it the court found the website owner vicariously liable and the website designer directly liable. No big surprise to anyone who has read over the material here on Mathew's site. No big deal as I think the the more important issues are damages and attorney fees.

It appears that the court didnt rule on the issue of willfullness and damgages (including atty fees), pending a resolution of "issues". One of the "issues" , it appears to me, is that willfullness on the part of the website owner cannot be established (because it clearly wasnt willfull, in my opinion). To complicate matters for Corbis, it even looks as if they may even be having trouble showing willfullness on the part of the web site designer.


Anyway, I was wondering if you had been following this case, Oscar, and if you know when a ruling on willfullness and damages is expected.]]> Lettered Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:05:46 -0500 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,851,851#msg-851 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,851,851#msg-851 Oscar Michelen Getty Images Letter Forum Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:19:56 -0500 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,849,849#msg-849 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,849,849#msg-849
I received the letter out of the blue from a debt collection agency. It is actually even worse in some ways than the standard one described here. For example there was no illustration at all, and we were puzzled as we have just redesigned our website (www.hunter.cz)with no stock images at all. And the amount demanded equates to about $1000 for just one image! That is more than one months net salary for the average Czech!

However it was very easy for me to track down the company behind it. Its a Czech company dealing with fotobanks and related services for the creative industry. Getty is one part but not all of their revenue stream. I was easily able to track down the CEO and find out a lot about him. I could not get him on the phone but was passed to his 'marketing' manager, a young lady who presumed to lecture me on copyright law (not knowing that I've been working in advertising longer than she's been on the planet.)
The CEO has a LinkedIN entry which describes his relationship with Getty thus: "is selected partner/master delegate for getty images. "
The previous website with the alleged infringement was designed by a very good digital agency who are investigating the allegation for me. I have already told the company representing Getty that their claim is ridiculous, not least because the entire website doesnt exist.
The interesting thing here is the local rep of Getty. Prague is a small town, especially in the area of creative communications. His company is not much bigger than mine. We have 3 direct connections on LinkedIn. Two of them are top local creative directors of ad agencies, and he needs them whereas they tend to need me. He and I feature in the same local magazines. It seems to me that because he is just a rep of Getty the playing field between bully and potential victim is more level than usual.
Right now I feel that I want not just to remove his claim against me, but to get him to change his business practice. I am an experienced and assertive British national but I am worried about the naive local people who could be intimidated.
Any thoughts and advice much appreciated.]]> RHPrague Getty Images Letter Forum Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:59:22 -0400 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,842,842#msg-842 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,842,842#msg-842 Did Getty Images violate any rights I have by capturing a screen shot from my site when I have the words, "Copyright © 2008 RenaissArt. All Rights Reserved." at the bottom of my website?]]> soltek Getty Images Letter Forum Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:09:47 -0500 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,840,840#msg-840 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,840,840#msg-840
I've called your office and left messages 3 times now over the last few days and I know you are very busy and I totally understand. I was just curious if you would have time to help me out as soon as possible about a Masterfile letter I received concerning a $2,000 demand for a tiny image on my website that I obtained from a free stock imagery site. My "10 days" is coming to an end and I'm not sure how big of a deal that is, but I have yet to respond and I would like to get further legal advice on how I should proceed and possibly have you write a letter on my behalf.

If you are too busy this week, I understand and I will have to decide whether to pay them or what to do?

Thanks!]]> JasonR Getty Images Letter Forum Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:35:29 -0500