Screen shots of web sites that contain getty images

[nhanson]

I too received my 3rd letter today. However, my case is a little different. I have a portfolio site that contains screen shots of the websites I designs.  Some of the screenshots of the web sites had Getty images in them.  I would think that this would be fair use?  There are thousands of sites that have screenshots of other web sites on them.  I never bothered to contact Getty.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

nhanson, welcome to the forms and to the wonderful world of Getty settlement demand letters. There are different opinions here on the form as to whether to ignore or respond to the letters. I personally am in favor of responding at least once in asking for proof of claim before negotiations can continue which Getty does not provide. This way in the unlikely event you should be taken to court you can show you sent a letter offering to negotiate as long as the reasonable proof of claim was provided, as opposed to the unlikely event you are taken to court and Getty can say we mailed out several letters all of which were ignored tends to not look good for your part.

Now as to the screenshots of the websites that you designed I guess I need a little bit more information. You say you designed these websites did you place the pictures in question on these websites that you designed? If so how did you obtain the images?

As far as the fair use defense goes I am not a lawyer nor an expert but from what I have read it sounds like a lot depends upon the size of the image as well as other factors. I will provide the link to the Wikipedia page of fair use which contains a section of fair use on the Internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet

Perhaps some of our members who are more up to speed on the fair use aspects will chime in with their two cents as well.

Keep reading in the forms, ask questions and keep us posted as to your situation.

Greg

I too received my 3rd letter today. However, my case is a little different. I have a portfolio site that contains screen shots of the websites I designs.  Some of the screenshots of the web sites had Getty images in them.  I would think that this would be fair use?  There are thousands of sites that have screenshots of other web sites on them.  I never bothered to contact Getty.

[scraggy]

I am not a lawyer. A "fair use" defense in your case seems more than reasonable to me.

However, it's also irrelevant.

If you are sued, the economic cost of hiring a lawyer to defend yourself will always be greater than Getty's demands. It wouldn't make economic sense to fight in court.

On the other hand. it doesn't make sense for Getty to sue you either. With your "fair use" defense, Getty would be taking an unnecessary risk. Getty can't afford to lose in court, or even win, but receive a symbolic payment. It would take away the fear from their "extortion" letters.

Getty has the luxury of choosing its strongest cases to sue with. In my opinion, yours would not fit into this category.

Ian

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm not a lawyer either,but I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

I think if it was a portfolio page, "legally" it would not fall under fair use, as there are certain criteria you must meet..you would have an issue with the first point shown below. As of today Getty has not sued anyone over 1 image, and I highly doubt they would pursue something of this nature,  fair use or not a judge would probably be inclined to award the least amount, which wouldn't even cover the cost of filing the papers.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act lists four factors to help judges determine, and therefore to help you predict, when content usage may be considered "fair use."

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

If a particular usage is intended to help you or your organization to derive financial or other business-related benefits from the copyright material, then that is probably not fair use.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
Use of a purely factual work is more likely to be considered fair use than use of someone's creative work.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyright protected work as a whole.
There are no set page counts or percentages that define the boundaries of fair use. Courts exercise
common-sense judgment about whether what is being used is too much of, or so important to, the original overall work as to be beyond the scope of fair use.

4. The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyright protected work.
This factor looks at whether the nature of the use competes with or diminishes the potential market for the form of use that the copyright holder is already employing, or can reasonably be expected soon to employ, in order to make money for itself through licensing.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

you might want to read this is well:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/5-reasons-you-shouldnt-fear-being-sued-(too-much)/

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

 HAHAHA

I'm not a lawyer either,but I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night!