ELI Forums > Getty Images Letter Forum
another copytrack letter
dave101:
Just to update on the latest - it looks like they've given up. After two letters from the third party "debt collector" in my country, I have not received anything since February (it's July now) - proof that just ignoring them is the best way to go. It certainly was for me.
Ethan Seven:
Copytrack, like Pixsy, are a non-law firm based in Germany. They cannot sue you. While they might be able to have a US based law firm commence litigation. My thought is that if the claim was litigation worthy, it would have started at a law firm. If you used the image without a license, I would either offer a small amount, sub-$200, in hopes they accept it or to mitigate liability if they refer it to a law firm, which is very unlikely. Otherwise, I would just ignore them.
Tman:
I had a similar experience with Copytrack. I had a fair use of an image from over 3 years ago where I critiqued an image on a blog that gets essentially zero traffic which was removed when I switched my website's format long before Copytrack contacted me.
The Copytrack employee contacted me and didn't realize the image wasn't even on my site because they were using their own content delivery service as their source for information which used cached copies of websites. So a cached version of the site but not the actual website and apparently it took them about a year to email me about the issue. I kept asking them for a link to the image I'm using without permission and they kept linking their own website's cached copy. I just told them that they are linking their own site and to please provide a link on my website.
After they figured out the image wasn't actually on my site tried to say I removed it in response to their email. I told them that isn't true either and I can prove it's not true because I have logs of updates to my site and my site hasn't had a blog for almost a year. Later they corrected this and tried to say I owe them anyway because I used the image years ago.
At which point I asked them to please show me why this isn't an example of fair use. They incorrectly told me fair use doesn't apply for commercial websites they also harassed me and tried to shame me. Then I really dug my heels in that this was fair use. I asked them to please show me something to verify fair use never covers commercial websites then they changed their tactic and tried to claim fair use doesn't apply because the supposed original photographer is German. (As I can tell, Germany does have something like fair use that protects critiques about images for public benefit or education). However, I don't think it's a given that I'm subject to German laws anyway as a US citizen. I would think it's at best an international copyright issue. I told them if they could justify that I actually owe them something or that I caused damages I would be happy to discuss payment, I even showed them that very similar images are vaued at estimated 2.79 each on stock sites. At which point they told me they would no longer respond to me. Not really seeing a path where they had grounds to justify that I owe them anything I expected them to take the next step of sending a letter and then to collections. Which is what happened and where we are now.
They sent this to Recoverable Management Services out of Columbus OH. They left me a voicemail and I ignored that and they sent a letter now saying I have 30 days to dispute the debt. I wonder if I should continue to ignore this as I don't see how they might have a case.
I don't ever plan on getting a loan but I'm not crazy about the idea of the invalid debt on my score either.
Some issues that kind of make it more nuanced:
I also understand that copyright may have a 3 year time limit for them to begin a lawsuit which should have passed as the image was originally published on a blog over 3 year ago.
There is also the fair use issue which I think is strong and Copytrack got pretty disrespectful and vulgar with me over email and I asked them to cease communications which they ignored and I also asked that they don't hire third parties to communicate on their behalf since this is clearly not an example of copyright infringement or I would consider that harassment I also added in that I don't see their case as an attempt to collect a valid debt. Obviously they ignored that as well. They are asserting I owe $1500 for a single image and it's an image that is used over 100 times online that the original photographer spent money to distribute publicly on pinterest so that he could attempt to sue people and on pinterest I've seen the image attributed to another photographer who is from the US and not the person they claim took the image.
Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi):
tell the collection agency to shag off...this is a "claim" not a debt..there has been no judgment or anything else saying this is a debt.. Alert the collection agency that if they continue to contact you in this matter you will report them to the FTC, remind them of The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text#808
DavidVGoliath:
--- Quote from: Sman on August 15, 2018, 11:59:57 AM ---I also understand that copyright may have a 3 year time limit for them to begin a lawsuit which should have passed as the image was originally published on a blog over 3 year ago.
--- End quote ---
This is a common misconception: the statute of limitations is that a claimant has three years from the discovery of an infringement in which they must file suit. The clock effectively starts ticking on the date that the infringement claim was made to you in writing, whether email or physical letter.
--- Quote from: Sman on August 15, 2018, 11:59:57 AM ---There is also the fair use issue which I think is strong and Copytrack got pretty disrespectful and vulgar with me over email and I asked them to cease communications which they ignored and I also asked that they don't hire third parties to communicate on their behalf since this is clearly not an example of copyright infringement or I would consider that harassment
--- End quote ---
Another common misconception. If you believe that your use of a work is exempted under 17 USC 107, then that's an argument you make in your defence pleadings if/when you are sued and, ultimately, it would be down to a judge and/or jury to determine if your use was fair or not.
In simpler terms: one cannot say "Fair Use!" and expect it to be a get-out-of-jail-free card.
--- Quote from: Sman on August 15, 2018, 11:59:57 AM ---I also added in that I don't see their case as an attempt to collect a valid debt. Obviously they ignored that as well. They are asserting I owe $1500 for a single image and it's an image that is used over 100 times online that the original photographer spent money to distribute publicly on pinterest so that he could attempt to sue people and on pinterest I've seen the image attributed to another photographer who is from the US and not the person they claim took the image.
--- End quote ---
That's a very bold claim to make - I'm curious as to the merits of what you say and, with this in mind, are you willing to point to the image in question?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version