Today I wrote my Congressman and my two Senators the following letter. I'd encourage everyone to do the same. I'm not sure it will do any good, but if enough people write it will at least draw attention to this issue, and possible lead to some change. As a matter of fact, if anyone knows of a system that can be used to generate an online petition and forward it to your representatives, I'd love to know about it.
Here's the text of the letter. I'd appreciate any feedback you'd like to share.
Senator Jon Kyle
730 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Friday, September 16, 2011
Dear Senator Kyle,
I am writing today to seek your assistance in modifying the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to require copyright holders and digital content distributors to first issue a cease and desist letter before demanding payment, including punitive damages, for copyright infringement.
My reason for enlisting your assistance is to help avoid penalizing people for innocent mistakes without giving them an opportunity to correct this oversight before imposing a penalty.
In today’s electronic age most business and many individuals are turning to the Internet to both promote their businesses, charitable organization, or small groups such as church groups, boy scouts and the like via websites, or to voice their personal opinion and share their knowledge via blogs.
To reduce the expense in creating these sites many people turn to “free stock art” offered on many sites on the web, purchase pre-designed templates, or hire overseas design firms, particularly those in India, to design their site.
The problem is that occasionally the “free stock art” is pirated, the template designers and overseas design firms use copyright protected art without the knowledge of the end user. The user then pays for the template or the design and continues to conduct business as usual, only to one day receive a cease and desist letter from a company like Getty Images demanding an exorbitant fee as a penalty for their unknown use of the image.
Case in point: I operate a small web design firm that creates sites for small businesses and charitable organizations. Over 75% of our work is donated to non-profit agencies. To assist the DELETED Chamber of Commerce in their fund raising efforts, I donated a free website to the highest bidder. I subsequently designed a site for the bidder, DELETED, and used several images obtained from a site offering free stock art.
On September 8, 2011, Getty Images, Inc. sent DELETED a letter demanding payment of $780 for unauthorized use of an image they claim they own the exclusive rights to. Had I known this in advance I certainly would not have used their work without purchasing the licensing agreement, which today is $30 per year. In effect, Getty is charging a $750 penalty for this oversight. In fact, in July 2011 I became aware of a new piece of software called ImageExchange that identifies possible rights managed images. I took the proactive approach of scanning all the sites I developed and completely removed this site, including the image in question, July 14, 2011; almost two months before Getty issued their demand letter, yet they still assert they are due the penalty even though I acted in good faith. As a side note, if content is copyright protected at the moment of creation, would not Picscout (the company Getty uses to search the web for unauthorized use of their images) be guilty of infringing my copy rights for downloading a copy of the site I created, saving it on their servers, and ultimately providing a copy of the site to Getty?
I would ask that you “Google” Getty Demand Letter and you will find that this is common practice for Getty. In fact this is a major income generator for them, preying on unsuspecting people and threatening them with legal action if they don’t remit payment within 14 days. Many people do so as they fear legal action, when in fact, over 90% of Getty’s portfolio is not exclusive to Getty. They have even been known to threaten people who have actually purchased the image from another company that had licensing rights prior to Getty.
I have attached a copy of their standard demand letter and ask your assistance in modifying the DMCA to help prevent this type of predatory extortion. In particular, I direct your attention to page 3 of their letter, titled Frequently Asked Questions, wherein they acknowledge the infringement may be unintentional however they remain dedicated to collecting a penalty. For more examples I ask that you visit the following website: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com where you will find hundreds of mom and pop businesses, small designers, web bloggers, churches and charitable organizations who have received similar demands from Getty and other such companies.
In short, we are being penalized for something we had no idea we were doing wrong. There is no sense of fairness and we are not given the opportunity to correct this matter before they impose a substantial penalty. This is simply not right, and serves as an example of a large corporation circumventing the spirit of the law to their financial gain.
Sincerely yours,
Topic: A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators (Read 30179 times)