The best defense ...

[SaraZ]

Robert,

You are correct (again). THEY said on THEIR site that they considered it a "win," even though it was as you said. They got what they wanted -- a retraction of the demand. Since you are just down the road from that firm, maybe you could take one or more of their senior counsel to lunch, pick their brains, and feel them out as to how they would feel about taking on a project like this. I found in business that for the price of a lunch, one often got priceless information and possibly gained an ally or resource for future interactions. Just a thought.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

If they DO contact you again Sara, I hope you will head the advice I give other letter recipients. I suggest writing back and telling them that you have stated your position on the matter very clearly and you consider the matter closed. Say that, starting immediately, you will be calculating your time spent answering any further correspondence on this matter and you will remit an invoice for your time.  Tell them you bill in quarter hour increments at $300 an hour.

You may not be able to collect on this invoice. But it makes it clear to the person hassling you that he is going to have to explain to accounting (and probably his superiors) why they got an invoice.

And one other thing, I know you don't wan't to be a "hater," but I think you should give yourself permission to at least be a "Getty-strongly-disliker." It's not just a software algorithm and a few office drones that are caught up in this. This is a systematic scheme that is engineered and calculated to extract as much money as possible regardless of the consequences. In my five years here I have heard of letter recipients sharing how this has caused strain to their marriage, caused a veteran's non-profit to close down. One person even contemplated suicide.

Getty Images has never had the integrity to come out of the shadows and have a reasonable conversation about their tactics. So, as a person who likes to belive they love everybody, I can proudly say I am a Getty Hater.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Sorry Sara, my statute of limitations is well behind me, buying them lunch would yield nothing for me, except the lunch tab and a full belly.

[SaraZ]

Jerry,

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep it in mind IF it's needed. If I am contacted again, I intend to state that, according to Title 17 § 501(b), since they have not demonstrated that they have an exclusive right to that image, they do not have legal standing to demand compensation for its use. I also will make use of your suggestions at that time, as needed. I like the sound of, "I consider this case closed."

I long ago decided that hating anyone or anything was a poor use of my time and energy, and kept me locked into non-productive patterns that went nowhere but down. Getty paid $20 million for PicScout. They were being opportunists and now they are trying to recover their investment. Their behaviors are unacceptable to me and many others, but so are the behaviors of our government and many other large organizations, such as Adobe, Microsoft, Google, and Wal-Mart.

At the root is our economic system — built on debt creation and fiat currencies that have nothing behind them but people's perceptions of their worth — that ties everything together, and our legacy of laws, which are primarily designed to protect property. Behind all of that is an invisible pyramid of power, seeking only to serve and perpetuate itself. Not the world of MY dreams, but there it is.

I am standing up to Getty because, in my opinion, they are not entitled to what they are demanding of me and have no legal standing to make the demand. I don't take it personally because they don't mean it personally. To them I am just an invisible number or cypher — someone to be bilked, along with the other fish the sharks feed on. There is something even more "evil" behind them and their behaviors, but that is totally beyond the scope of this discussion, so I'll just leave it at that. I do not hate them, but I will not cave in to their demands.

Robert,

I was suggesting that business lunch because you are physically near them and because of your forums title as being part of the ELI team. I thought that you could find out more about the feasibility of a class action suit and see if they had either the interest or ability to handle something like that. I wasn't thinking of your own case as being the subject of discussion. I don't know enough about that, anyway.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Robert,

I was suggesting that business lunch because you are physically near them and because of your forums title as being part of the ELI team. I thought that you could find out more about the feasibility of a class action suit and see if they had either the interest or ability to handle something like that. I wasn't thinking of your own case as being the subject of discussion. I don't know enough about that, anyway.

Understood, yes I am "a part of the Eli Defense Team" and proud of that actually, but I get paid very little ( as in nothing) I already have my own thoughts on the feasibility of a class action suit, and it would be up to someone else to see if they had an interest, since I really don't have that interest.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Robert,

I was suggesting that business lunch because you are physically near them and because of your forums title as being part of the ELI team. I thought that you could find out more about the feasibility of a class action suit and see if they had either the interest or ability to handle something like that. I wasn't thinking of your own case as being the subject of discussion. I don't know enough about that, anyway.

Understood, yes I am "a part of the Eli Defense Team" and proud of that actually, but I get paid very little ( as in nothing) I already have my own thoughts on the feasibility of a class action suit, and it would be up to someone else to see if they had an interest, since I really don't have that interest.

Robert,

You should forward this to S.G.

[SaraZ]

Robert, I can appreciate your not having interest in pursuing a class action suit. I personally don't want to get THAT involved, either, but until and unless everyone who has an interest in seeing this pattern of behavior stopped bands together to accomplish that, it will remain a one-on-one battle, with each person experiencing their own pain and loss at Getty's hands.

I have other reasons for remaining on the sidelines, primarily because of my other obligations to my own path, but as long as people do not combine forces, similar to the Lilliputians bringing down Gulliver, Getty will continue to bring misery to the planet through their actions. They are also lobbying Congress to change the copyright laws so that it will be even easier for them to collect damages and what protections there are will be diminished. If a solid case was made against the abuses Getty is making under present law, their influence in Congress could be weakened to some degree. I recognize that this has been and would become an ongoing campaign and Getty has deep pockets to fight it at every step, so it might not be doable in a practical way. Nonetheless, I can't help but feel that some sort of collective opposition need to organize and act to level the playing field. Perhaps there are other ways to do that than a class action suit. A class action suit is just the form I am most familiar with.

GregTroy,

I don't know who S.G. is, but your site was one of the ones I found and read, and if every site that was like yours rallied around a single point of focus for proactive action, that could make a lot of difference in the way this proceeds. ELI seems to be the most logical place for that to happen because it has the largest member base, but others also have reach to a larger pool of people who would like to see Getty prevented from continuing this pattern of behavior. This site is an example of that. Other sites have links to ELI as the place to go for help. It seems logical that ELI could be the place that organizes something that unites people and creates a larger force for good.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

well, you pretty much summed it right there..you want to remain on the sidelines for your reasons, I have my reasons and so it seems so does everyone else..eventually Getty will hang themselves, they are alreay strapped for cash and itis largely a sinking ship.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

GregTroy,

I don't know who S.G. is, but your site was one of the ones I found and read, and if every site that was like yours rallied around a single point of focus for proactive action, that could make a lot of difference in the way this proceeds. ELI seems to be the most logical place for that to happen because it has the largest member base, but others also have reach to a larger pool of people who would like to see Getty prevented from continuing this pattern of behavior. This site is an example of that. Other sites have links to ELI as the place to go for help. It seems logical that ELI could be the place that organizes something that unites people and creates a larger force for good.

SaraZ,

Welcome to the forum, please take what I am about to say in the spirit it is intended, not as a scolding but as information and educational.

I have been in this fight for a while now and I can not tell you how many times someone has said to me, Robert, Matthew and Oscar...."You should organize everyone and file a class action lawsuit."  but when asked what their plan is or what they are willing to do the answer is always similar to yours.

Lawyers have approached Oscar raring to file a class suit and Oscar gives them all the info they need, yet once they go over it they and see what is involved they are never heard from again.  To my knowledge no class action has ever been filed in the States against Getty for their infringement program.  Ian (Scraggy) did file a class suit in Israel. 

I do not know you nor do I know what if anything you have done in the fight against Getty other than the correspondence you have posted here.  You tell me I should rally all the other sites like Eli and mine, find the victims, a legal team and file a class suit while you sit on the sidelines because you "don't want to get THAT involved." which is ironically followed by "...but until and unless everyone who has an interest in seeing this pattern of behavior stopped bands together to accomplish that, it will remain a one-on-one battle, with each person experiencing their own pain and loss at Getty's hands. "

There's the problem.

You are not going to get everyone with an interest to get involved because they don't want to.  You can get many but it takes time and effort.  You need to look at what you can do, take a stand against Getty and go from there.  I am a firm believer in what you are saying but YOU need to stand up and be counted before asking anyone else to do it.  This board is full of people take the fight over Getty's business model right to them.  Matthew, Robert K, Jerry Witt, Stinger, Ian, Peevy and the list goes on.

Don't get me wrong, you have the right attitude, and again, I do not know you or what you have done and I am not trying to be harsh, just realistic as we all hear the "You should do this...." all the time.  If you want to join the fight we would loved to have you on board, find out what you can do and have time for and do it, share your results with the others and encourage them to join you.  It works, I know it does.

[SaraZ]

I had hoped that, since it has been over a month since I last heard from Getty, my last letter discouraged them from pursuing my case. However, this morning, I received the following email from them (all emphasis in the original):

"Science Photo Library Ltd., License Compliance Services
605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104, United States
Email: lcs@sciencephoto.com, Telephone: +1 855 387 8725

July 01, 2015

This letter is a follow up to the letters that were previously mailed to your company.

Unauthorized use of our imagery without a valid license constitutes copyright infringement.

According to our records, this matter has not been resolved to date, and we have decided to escalate this matter to our legal representatives for further pursuit. Please expect their letter in the coming weeks.

Please note that as a consequence of this escalation, the settlement amount has now been increased to reflect the addition of legal fees to the initial amount requested.

The complete information regarding our claim is available at the following link: https://LCS.sciencephoto.com/4S0T4P3W

For any question, please contact Steven Stern of Stern & Schurin LLP at sstern@SternSchurin.com or
(212) 338-0300.

Sincerely,
License Compliance Services, Science Photo Library Ltd.

Note: Please also be advised that you will receive a copy of this note in the mail."

Is anyone here familiar with this particular lawyer or law firm? A reverse lookup on the phone number given shows an address of 605 3rd Ave New York, NY 10158-0180.

I don't feel I need to do anything just yet until the attorney contacts me, other than to bone up on the New York Bar Association's ethics regulations. Needless to say, this brings up nearly all the emotions (fear, helplessness, etc.) that I felt from the original assault. (That's how it FEELS to me -- like an assault.) Any help and/or advice on this will be appreciated.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I would agree that you don't need to do anything yet as this letter is still from Getty/Science Photo. 

[stinger]

If this lawyer is unwilling to prove that the photo is registered and that they own the rights to the photo, I don't think they will sue over one image.

A real attorney does not want to go to court with a losing case.  If he doesn't have those things, his is a losing case. If he does have them, and you have requested to see them, and he does not let you see them, I am fairly certain a good judge will find in your favor.  Because that link shows that image and claims it is theirs, doesn't make it so.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Just to make sure we get facts correct, this letter is NOT from Getty Images, it is coming from the offices of Picscout on behalf Science Photo Library Ltd. The attorney mentioned is their counsel not Getty's or Picscounts. Picscout is the company that finds the offending images and attempts to collect payment, they cannot sue you, as they don't own the rights to any images, when one fails to pay thier demands, they have no choice but to send it back to the photographer/agency and they decide what to do next. Just because Picscout staes they are escalating it, doesn't mean anything will come of it.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

yeah that screen shot in that link proves absolutely nothing in terms of infringement, it only shopws that the image in question "appeared" on the site, who's to say that image was not linked from an outside source..if so they have NO case whatsoever.. I'd be willing to bet they don't have the source code either, just a crappy screen captpure..

[SaraZ]

Greg, thank you for that confirmation.

Stinger, one never knows what will happen, but I appreciate the reassurance.

Thanks for that clarification, Robert.