ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Cam Winston on September 15, 2016, 10:46:54 PM
-
Has anyone had a letter from these folks before? It's the same LCS.global style I have read about here. Trying to decide what to do with it. I don't really want to write back to them, I have read a lot of feedback saying that is the worst thing to do. They didn't list any kind of fee or charge, just a statement that removing the image wouldn't would resolve the issue. This is all due to a small photo used on a blog post which is now gone, including the entire blog. So strange, and if I am not mistaken, AFP is not affiliated with Getty, although the image in question is listed on Getty's site. Also, I noticed the image being licensed by another photographer as well (it's a news article photo, hence the error in thinking it was okay to use). I don't believe it's in the copyright database, I ran several searches. Any help or guidance would be much appreciated!
-
I am small business owner in Rhode Island and I am getting the extortion letters from Getty Images. I will tell you that the first letter did not mention any dollar amount, it was same language as you reference. Upon receipt of the initial communication from them, I took down the images in question, and I called them. I honestly had no idea what the problem was. The web site in question had been created (for me) by a web designer about 12 years ago.
Many of my friends say that I should never have responded to Getty - no calls or letters. I'm not sure if that's a wise approach. Someone else can chime in on that.
If Getty was honest and ethical, then I might not having a problem settling with them. But it seems to me (after reading up on this subject) that Getty is operating almost as a criminal enterprise, claiming ownership of images that are in the public domain and freely available. I find Getty's behavior absolutely terrible and I am now determined to pay them nothing.
I had a 30-minute chat with Matthew Chan, and I have retained Oscar Michelen.
Anyway, good luck with your extortion process.
-
If you decide to reply to them, and if it were me, I would tell them to shag off...if the image is availalbleto license/purchase elsewhere, then it's up to them to prove their case...who's to say you didn't obtain it elsewhere?...Just be careful in your wording, don't admit to anything and don't prove their case for them..
-
Thanks for some insights guys.
I don't believe we will ever use any kind of stock photography again (it's super corny anyways), we will just make our own content. This all sounds like an elaborate scam. Just googling the words "extortion letter" gives nothing but thousands of results of "the getty letter". No question, these folks have the right to protect their copyright, but this appears to be a phishing expedition. If proving successful, I can see other companies doing this going forward. There is so much out there! I bet even the color of my house is somehow copyrighted. Shit, I think there is a few people I need to threaten to sue just thinking about it.
I have a few questions if anyone can help:
How much is typically accepted for settlements on these cases, in my case one image?
Is there any reliable way to find out if an image is listed in the copyright office? I searched by title, the original photographer (who is does not live in the US) and all the keywords I could think of and so far, nothing. I think I would go ahead and ignore these letters if that is the case as even if they sued me, I would only be liable for the actual damages. The image currently shows an amount $180 on getty's website. I suppose I could ask for the registration number, but then they might play coy.
Being that this the "first" letter, in your opinion (not legal, just yours from experience) do you think it would be wise to respond or wait for the court summons? I found several sample respond letters on the net, the most famous one includes the verbiage that admits fault (which I find incredibly strange). My thoughts were, buy the original (not that it matters obviously), show that you have it without acknowledging that you just purchased it (oh yeah have it, looksie). Let them do their due diligence, and wow, if they decide to sue, how lame that would look to a jury. "An unknown blog with 5 total articles sued for a single stupid picture, of which, they later purchased".
-
How much is typically accepted for settlements on these cases, in my case one image?
That's not really the question, a reasonable offer depends on the value of the image. If you look on the internet for similar images, and make an average, you can reasonably make a offer based on that. Their own price is an indicator too, but if it's overpriced compared to many others I'd ignore it.
If this was Getty with a price of 180, I'd probably estimate that to 18. /justme
Anyway you say it's AFP, and I don't know.
Being that this the "first" letter, in your opinion (not legal, just yours from experience) do you think it would be wise to respond or wait for the court summons? I found several sample respond letters on the net, the most famous one includes the verbiage that admits fault (which I find incredibly strange).
This is a good one, if a little old:
http://artlawjournal.com/respond-getty-images-demand-letter/
-
BTW, the likelyhood they'd sue you over an image isn't high. (for Getty is was like 0.3% probability or lower, don't imagine the court is preparing papers for you as we speak! it's not impossible, just terribly unlikely. Please understand they want you to believe no one has anything better to do than to prepare your papers.)
Again it depends on AFP's practices, actually, which I don't know. Did they send the letter themselves, or was it an agent for them, or they as agent for the photographer?
-
Did they send the letter themselves, or was it an agent for them, or they as agent for the photographer?
It was done through LCS.global out of Seattle, the same people that handle a lot of these letters for getty and just happen to be located very close to their main office. Even though it says AFP, I have a feeling it's still getty as they have the image on their licensing system under an AFP collection. I could be wrong, but it seems likely since AFP is mostly a news organization and probably wouldn't be actively scanning small websites for fraud (but who knows). I have seen a bunch of names under these LCS letters, mostly companies I have never heard of. I ran a docket search and didn't see a whole lot of cases under AFP's name, interesting I saw some where they were suing getty (a circle jerk of sorts).
-
Ah, LCS is Getty - in my opinion, though they apparently sort of deny it. It seems (to me) that it was Getty's licensing department, a couple years ago, and it started to sign letters under the name "License Compliance", then "License Compliance Services", dropping Getty's name from the letters and sending letters on behalf of other stock agencies too. In time they may have been meant to become a different company than Getty - but apparently they were incorporated only a few months ago, and personally I don't believe they're yet "different" at all.
See for example: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/license-compliance-services-inc-corporate-naming-hanky-panky/
-
Ah, LCS is Getty - in my opinion, though they apparently sort of deny it. It seems (to me) that it was Getty's licensing department, a couple years ago, and it started to sign letters under the name "License Compliance", then "License Compliance Services", dropping Getty's name from the letters and sending letters on behalf of other stock agencies too. In time they may have been meant to become a different company than Getty - but apparently they were incorporated only a few months ago, and personally I don't believe they're yet "different" at all.
See for example: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/license-compliance-services-inc-corporate-naming-hanky-panky/
Yeah, that seems to be the case.
-
It's been stated before, here it is again...
you have Getty Images....who also owns a bunch of smaller stock agencies...
Getty purchased Picscout, the scanning software company that finds supposed infringements.
Getty than came up with and owns LCS who works with Picscout to send out letters..
at the end of the day, the are one and the same.
-
sholtz, if you decide to write to them, the first thing ever to clarify is if they have copyright over the image. Make them prove it. Some word their letter like: please prove registration of the image; if not, don't bother me anymore. (in essence)
That's only the first thing, but it might be the essential. Can also make an offer if you like. It seems it might matter if it ever gets to a court, a good faith attempt to negotiate, just make sure it's a fair market value for the image (which isn't necessarily how much they ask for)
-
sholtz, if you decide to write to them, the first thing ever to clarify is if they have copyright over the image. Make them prove it. Some word their letter like: please prove registration of the image; if not, don't bother me anymore. (in essence)
That's only the first thing, but it might be the essential. Can also make an offer if you like. It seems it might matter if it ever gets to a court, a good faith attempt to negotiate, just make sure it's a fair market value for the image (which isn't necessarily how much they ask for)
Good idea, I think I will wait for the letter with the extortion and have our lawyer send it. I agree though, if some random company sends a request for indemnification, but no proof, it would be unwise to settle. The fact of the matter is, we receive scamming correspondences daily, everything from unpaid taxes to office supplies, all fraudulent of course. Supplying no proof but asking for a hefty fee is in the same vein, and quite frankly, it should be addressed.
With that said, as much as I want to hate on Getty over this, it has taught me a lot about copyright law. I will make sure to update this thread with the outcome.
-
As promised, here is an update on this. I sent them a single email almost three months ago, and it has been deafening silence since. Is this normal? Kind of annoying, I would prefer they at least let me know if the case is still active or not. I will update the thread again if the contact me or when SOL passes.
BTW, you have all been great! Love the scrappiness of you folks.
-
Have no fear, they'll get back to you...keep in mind they send 1000's of letters out..
-
Oh, don't worry. Your case is still alive. If you want to call and settle with them, they will definitely speak with you! :-)
I think it's funny. People are upset when they get harassed with letters but you feel neglected and WANT to get letters to let you know if the case is active? Trust me, it's active!
As promised, here is an update on this. I sent them a single email almost three months ago, and it has been deafening silence since. Is this normal? Kind of annoying, I would prefer they at least let me know if the case is still active or not. I will update the thread again if the contact me or when SOL passes.
BTW, you have all been great! Love the scrappiness of you folks.
-
Oh, don't worry. Your case is still alive. If you want to call and settle with them, they will definitely speak with you! :-)
I think it's funny. People are upset when they get harassed with letters but you feel neglected and WANT to get letters to let you know if the case is active? Trust me, it's active!
Maybe because my whole life I have been ignored. I have yet to meet a girl, and my only two friends moved away and don't give a damn about me anymore. My family hates me. And finally, out of the blue, I get someone who is interested in my story. Someone who took interest in a blog that was way underappreciated.
They saw the clever photo I used to highlight an incredible story about medicare supplements. I am not going to lie, I was excited and really wanted to chat with them about it. I read up on their company, their parent company, current and former law firms, addresses of operation, law suits, and even their favorite food. Instead of getting the attention that everyone else got, I get the silent treatment. What does it take, two photos? Three photos? It's all about numbers anymore.
Maybe I was hoping to score a date with one of their young lawyers? I don't know, but things were looking up again for me. Sigh. Sorry for the rant, I will remain cautiously optimistic for now since you guys seem to know your stuff.
-
Collectively as a team and community, we have seen a lot but we are not infallible but we seem to do pretty good overall. It doesn't mean things can't change (and sometimes they do!). We report on general patterns. We also have good instincts in filling in some of the holes.
If they are quiet with you now, it is more than likely they are off chasing other people who are new and lower-hanging fruit. There are thousands of letters out at any given time that are "active".
-
So I'm having issue with these guys as well. They're asking for $350 for two images that I had on my website. After calling LCS they assured me theiyre a legit company and that they will pursue legal action if I don't pay them. So I wrote a check for $350 and sent it to the address they had in their email. However within a week the post office sent my letter back saying they couldn't deliver the letter. So I continued to ignore their emails, but they are increasing in aggressiveness. I'm just curious has anyone actually been sued by LCS?
-
LCS is not the party that owns the infringed material. AS such, they are telling a lie LCS can't sue. However, the folks they represent could sue but I haven't seen one LCS client actually escalate to lawsuit status yet. It doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. But LCS has been a round a few years now and we haven't heard of it yet.
And regarding the check you mailed, why did it bounce back? Was it a bad address?
-
So, do you suggest that we ignore their threats at this point, or respond requesting proof of the copyright?
-
Ignoring the LCS letters is the easiest course of action but that doesn't mean they will go away and not nag you a lot.
-
We received emails and letters from Pic Rights on behalf of Agence France Presse claiming that a blog post on our website included a copyrighted photo. The post in question was a reprint that we had purchased from Commpro Magazine. We ignored them. Now this past Friday, we received a letter from Higbee & Associates claiming to represent both Agence France Presse and Pic Rights demanding 1500 or a lawsuit
-
so heres an issue I see with this... you purchased "a reprint" (whatever that is ) from Commpro magazine, which apprently included the image in question. Commpro may have had a license to use this image, but they may NOT have had the rights to transfer that license to you.. Now if this is the case chances are pretty good that if it went to court, you would prevail as an "innocent infringer" as you purchased the article/image in good faith. Unfortunately a lawsuit would be a huge time suck and be costly, which is where the counter-suit option comes in, it may force their hand to dismiss the case on their end, still a time and money suck, but at least you could possibly turn the tables on them.
-
Yes, that is a new twist. PicRights is now going to Higbee & Associates for help on an Agence France Presse image.
Absent more information, the problem I see with this claim is that it implies an image has dual-ownership between PicRights and Agence France Presse? I am skeptical.
IF THERE WAS a lawsuit, I think Agence France Presse would be the copyright owner. I am not sure PicRights has any real legal standing in a hypothetical lawsuit beyond being an agent hired to tried to collect money.
We received emails and letters from Pic Rights on behalf of Agence France Presse claiming that a blog post on our website included a copyrighted photo. The post in question was a reprint that we had purchased from Commpro Magazine. We ignored them. Now this past Friday, we received a letter from Higbee & Associates claiming to represent both Agence France Presse and Pic Rights demanding 1500 or a lawsuit