I don't think the Getty case stands up technically

[m081072]

Hi all, so on Friday we got the letter.  I've been reading up on it since, on this forum and others.  One thing that strikes me is whether the Getty case can hold up in court, so I wanted to see what others' opinions are.

Getty send a snapshot of the site at a particular time.  We took down the image immediately, so now that page cannot be reproduced i.e. nobody can view it and say "look, there is the image".  Even the wayback machine does not store images, just references to images, so once we delete it from the server, the page cannot be viewed as it was.  I'm sure the same applies for google cache.  There may be other page copying sites that I am not aware of though.

So, Getty's snapshot proves nothing as far as I can see, as it could be fabricated.

Am I misguided?

Thanks for listening

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Welcome to the forums, as to your question as to whether a snapshot can be used in court or not has been challenged in the past. Jerry Witt found a case from back in 2004 in which the use of snapshots as evidence was disallowed.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/are-screenshots-from-the-wayback-machine-useful-as-evidence/

Rather than preparing a defense for a court case which likely will not happen, I personally would be focusing more on shutting Getty down and making them leave you alone. There are more recent cases such as the Getty versus Advernet case which was a case where Getty was suing for the use of 35 images and ended up winning the case by default but received no monies because there was issues with either the registration or the paperwork or something with every single image that negated Getty from collecting any damages. I personally would be pursuing along the lines of asking for proof of registration and Getty's exclusive right to the image, how they arrived at the sum that they are asking for and to see a copy of the signed contract between Getty and the artist transferring all these rights to Getty.

I would let Getty know that if they do not provide all of this proof that you will send out complaint letters to the Better Business Bureau, the Washington State Attorney General's Office, your state's attorney general's office, the Federal Trade Commission and your Congressman and Senator. You may see examples of this and how it worked in my case in the following thread.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

Do not make these threats in less you are fully prepared and intend to carry them out as if you show that you make idle threats Getty will not believe anything that you say and will continue to harass you. Getty likes easy pickings and if you become difficult they tend to move on to easier prey that will just roll over and pay.

I hope this information helps and again welcome to the forms and please keep us posted as to your decisions and progress of your case.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Agreed a screen shot or printed page from the actual site with the image on it does not prove infringement.

a. it could be fabricated.
b. just beacuae an image "appears" on a page means nothing.. in other words you will see many , many, images here on the forum, not one of them is actually hosted here..The only way to determine that is via the source code.

Also agreed you energies would be better used, making Getty Images know you're not going to roll over and having them leave you alone..

[m081072]

Thank you both.  I agree defending in the manner you suggested is the best use of time, I'm just checking if what the bottom line it.  I feel better knowing there is this safety net

[SoylentGreen]

Most of these never make it "court".
Therfore, the issue of "solid proof" isn't often tested.
The strategy of Getty and their ilk is mainly to scare people and wear them down until they pay to make it go away.

S.G.

[Oscar Michelen]

As has been repeated here endlessly, Getty has only sued about for or five times since they started this program in late 2004/early 2005. To my knowledge they have never sued over a few images. So the threat is not that you will be sued, it is that they will just continue to harass you with different letters form different sources.