Gigaom writes about Getty Images

[Matthew Chan]

ELI is not quoted in the current article by GigaOM. However, I am quite certain ELI has a huge bearing to Getty's supposed "change of heart."

https://gigaom.com/2014/10/21/getty-images-claims-to-turn-away-from-controversial-copyright-tactics-but-critics-remain/

However, within the article Jeff John Roberts does link back to his earlier article which refers to us:
https://gigaom.com/2012/09/19/copyright-trolls-2-0-image-sites-embrace-righthaven-tactics/

Getty Images is definitely not trustworthy and only motivated by self-serving interests.

[Peeved]

From the article:
"These controversies, however, could also reflect the fact that Getty has no choice but to brandish a big legal stick from time to time. According to John Petersen, a lawyer and technologist, the company’s tactics can be unpleasant, but are necessary to signal that Getty will do all it can to stand up for the copyrights of the photographers and artists who license their work through the company."

"Petersen adds that he has advised friends hit by a Getty demand letter and that, inevitably, the company’s prices are negotiable — typically resulting in a settlement of “a few hundred dollars.” (His advice for letter recipients is to open negotiations with Getty by explaining it was a good faith mistake and offering to take down the offending image.)"


I found interesting the mentioning of "John Peterson" a "lawyer and technologist" stating that "the company's tactics can be unpleasant but necessary". Is this guy a lawyer for "Getty" or for "demand letter recipients"

The next paragraph states that Peterson has "advised friends" hit by a Getty demand letter that the company's prices are negotiable which typically result in settlements of a "few hundred dollars".
REALLY?? SOME "FRIEND".

Oh and I'll reiterate his advice:
"(His advice for letter recipients is to open negotiations with Getty by explaining it was a good faith mistake and offering to take down the offending image.)"

Sure...just explain that it was a good faith mistake and it will only cost a "few hundred dollars" verses a COUPLE GRAND!

Right O'!

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Oh and I'll reiterate his advice:
"(His advice for letter recipients is to open negotiations with Getty by explaining it was a good faith mistake and offering to take down the offending image.)"

Sure...just explain that it was a good faith mistake and it will only cost a "few hundred dollars" verses a COUPLE GRAND!

Right O'!

I don't know but he sounds like a Getty lawyer, how many lawyers advise their clients to admit guilt.  He also doesn't mention (or at least the article didn't print it if he did) that the vast majority of the cases are innocent infringements.

[stinger]

Greg, my thoughts exactly.  I have never met a REAL lawyer who advises his client to admit guilt.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Below is from a "friend" who shall rename nameless at this time and I totally agree with his thinking:

It all comes down to corporate marketing-speak, in my opinion.  "Fewer demand letters" simply means that they'll waste fewer resources on the really minor stuff and/or tracking down hard-to-find people/ those that lawyer up fast (Oscar?).  They'll go for low-hanging fruit.  "We'll settle for simply the regular license fee"  is the same old thing; when you complain about the enormous price, they send you to a web page proving that it's the true price... but they don't tell you that it was one-tenth the value yesterday.  All this from a corporation that doesn't own or even document its copyrights.

Some other food for thought:

We've recently seen letters being sent directly from Picscout (owned by Getty), would not surprise me one bit, if in an effort to cleanse their reputation, that they now send all letters from Picscout as opposed to Getty, as most laymen, would not put the 2 together. Does this possibly mean Seattle attorney Timothy B. McCormack main source of income is in jeopardy?..only time will tell. The letters I have seen from Picscout indicate they are all computer generated, so Getty could save some cash by trimming back it's "copyright compliance team" as well, so maybe Mr Bieker will have to get a full time job at a local soup kitchen.

Either way Getty Images, Picscout and Seattle Lawyer Timothy McCormack are NOT to be trusted, they are asshats of the largest magnitude.