ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: bigblueben on June 02, 2011, 09:35:45 AM
-
Hey guys,
First thanks to Matthew and Oscar for all the hard work on this subject. I have received the letter, etc., etc. I noticed in their letter they used a screen grab of my website. Well, that is an unique piece of artwork, in my opinion, and therefor automatically copywritten. What about a strategy of a counterclaim of a like amount for the reproduction and distribution of my work? Especially, since they do not take the time or expense to certify mail anything. That distribution could have gone to anyone. I know it might be a stretch, but I was wonder your thoughts.
-
Hi
My first post on Getty issue.
I think this is a very interesting angle.
I received screen shot in my correspondance. Has Getty got the authorisation to download and store what amounts to my property.
Do you think they'd accept a cost neutral settlement, if i ask for same amount in response :).
Thanks
-
It's an interesting thought.
They'd probably say the same thing to you that you should say to them:
"Can you prove that you're the sole copyright owner, and you could actually collect on this".
S.G.
-
Hi
In regard to me proving ownership
1, I can't deny the screnshot is (sorry was) my website.
2, It was bought through ebay (first mistake), but at least I have proof of purchase.
3, Disclaimer at bottom of website stated that all content was copyright of website.
So removing the obvious position i'm in re images, the rest of the site was mine.
That is of course unless someone writes telling me they have sole rights to the background colour and text font.
I'm sure the Getty machine have heard this angle of defence, but seeing as I haven't got the near £3k they are demanding, they might just hear it again.
-
OK, first of all, making that claim would be an admission that you used their image and you may be waiving some defenses. Second of all, it is not copyright infringement to send you a shot of your own website to prove to you that you are infringing.
-
"Second of all, it is not copyright infringement to send you a shot of your own website to prove to you that you are infringing. "
You're a very patient man.
-
I try Helpi, I try. I think that many times people get frustrated by this claim and like to think "out of the box" but don't take the time to think it through in detail. Its still better than just having everyone roll over though
-
Please don't infer I want anyone to roll over. I've said many times. I don't.
I appreciate the creativity.
-
Oscar, at this rate, "Helpi" will make "partner" in no time.
S.G.
-
I know you two seem to have issues, but if both of you turned down the personal animus, you would see that both of you contribute a great deal of information to the site. If you take a look at my posts (and others) that follow your posts, you will see when I agree or disagree with you and by far I more often agree. I don't care if either or neither of you are lawyers, as long as you dont hold yourself out to be when you're not. No one has done that yet to my knowledge. As far as Helpi is concerned SG, I think he is a valuable poster on this site. It can't be that everyone has the same position or the same response. A healthy dialogue requires input from all corners. Could I do with a little less sarcasm and smarminess (if thats a word) from him, sure, but at the same time, that's his style and far be it for me to condemn it as long as everyone remains respectful. So I encourage both of you to step back off each other a little bit and keep on contributing when you feel you have something productive to add.