ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Nutinsider on July 29, 2012, 11:28:45 PM
-
Hi, my name is Craig. I received one of those famous getty letters demanding 700-800 bucks for a photo I posted on a website. The website was a pretend business that I set up for informational purposes only. The website made no money, in fact I had to pay like 40 bucks to 1and1.com to get it set up. The business was a hedge fund, and getty claims that the pretend fund I set up was real, I wasnt using the image for information purposes, and they want to get paid!
They recently responded to my email with "get a letter from the IRS saying that this hedge fund isn't real."
But, isn't the burden of proof on them to prove it is real? In order to be a hedge fund you have to register with all sorts of regulatory agencies, and a bit of paper work is involved. (SEC and whatnot).
I'm curious because I really don't want to have to call the SEC, call the IRS, jump through all these hoops, simply in order to prove my innocence. It just seems pretty silly all the way around, and I'm not sure where to go from here.
I read some material on this site, and the main thing I took away was that if you ignore them, and they go to collections, never admit its a debt. I never admitted there was a debt, and simply told them they were wrong. I also shut down the website immediately.
Any advice helps.
Thanks,
Craig
-
Matt will be quite interested to see the correspondence that Getty sent you...
It doesn't really matter whether you made money from your site or not.
Even if we make a website for "fun", we could be held liable for unauthorized use of copyrighted images.
Although, if something like this ever made to "court" and Getty won, your damages would be lessened if you didn't make much money on the use.
However, Getty normally doesn't sue over only one image.
At this stage, it's simply best to request that Getty send you documentation to prove that they are the owner of the image in question.
If they aren't the "legal owner" (it's not registered to the Getty at the copyright office, or they don't have an exclusive agreement with the artist), then they couldn't get much from you.
If they won't send you proof of ownership, then I wouldn't pay them.
S.G.
-
One of Getty's favorite tactics, is to put the burden of proof on the recipient. They forget that in the U.S. it's innocent until proven guilty.. You have to prove NOTHING to them, that is their job! Demand they send you "proof" they own the image in question, Demand to see the copyright registration information, DEMAND to see a signed contract by both parties giving Getty rights to the image in question...
They won't.
Tell them with out these items, they have no claim, and a that a complaint to the Washington Attorney General, as well as you home state will be forthcoming..Then follow thru with this, there are a couple of good threads related to submitting complaints and it a topic which we hope to be discussing at lenght in the next couple of weeks.
I too would be interested in seeing this letter and Getty's response!
-
I concur with Robert and SG that if no proof is provided then I would not pay them. I think we would all like to see this correspondence, if you can email it to Robert or Matthew they will redact all personal information from the letter.
-
I forgot to mention that Getty could check with the SEC themselves.
But, it wouldn't matter much, really. It's mostly a question of what image was on the website and for how long.
What an interesting twist in Getty's tactics, though.
Will we see more "customized", but somewhat obtuse arguments from Getty in the future?
S.G.
-
Hey guys, just to answer a question that ya'll asked.
The site was up and running for like 3 months.
Lets assume they prove the image is their image; they own the rights. What next? Should I go thru the steps to then prove that my image was for informational purposes only and the site was in fact not advertising for an actual hedge fund? I say this because in the letter I received it seemed the only reasons they are pissed is because they feel that the image was used in a for profit endeavor.
thanks for the help!
ps: I am in the process of writing a letter to ask them proof of image ownership.
-
I concur with Robert and SG that if no proof is provided then I would not pay them. I think we would all like to see this correspondence, if you can email it to Robert or Matthew they will redact all personal information from the letter.
Hey Greg,
What correspondence would you like? beginning letter to current?
-
Trust us when we tell you, they won't prove they own the image, they have been asked too many times to count, they will only supply you with "proof" when it goes to court...only problem here is that it won't go to court...they have never filed suit over 1 image. ( I'm not saying they won't, they just haven't yet) They use this as another scare tactic to take your money.
-
I'd like to see the letter in which thell request you get a letter from the IRS in regards to the fund and if it's real or not. They just don't seem to get it's not upon you to prove anything...bunch of ass-hats and morons..was the letter signed by anyone?? or just the generic "coptright Compliance Team" line of bull..they don't even have the nerve to put a signature on these crazy letters!
-
To answer the question "nutinsider" asked... you should always wear a condom, and not "nut inside her".
But seriously, whether or not you ran an actual hedge fund has no bearing on whether or not you "infringed on a copyright".
So, just forget about that part.
Listen to Buddhapi, though. They never send anybody proof of their claims... and they have very little hope in court.
If you infringed on a pile of images, and their paperwork was in order, things might be different.
S.G.
-
You can always repeat you are not a business and tell them that should the time come, you will be able to prove that in court. Getty is making a claim; they aren't the judge.
In the meantime, ask them information about the copyright registration and evidence they have a license. They won't give you either, but it's to your benefit to have information about those things. So, meanwhile, try to find the copyright registration yourself.
-
@Nutinsider
I'm sure the first letters you received are the standard Getty form letters, I would be very interested in seeing the letter where they are asking you to prove whether it is a hedge fund or not. Feel free to send the letter to either Matthew, Robert or myself and I assure you that all personal information will be removed. This sounds like something new and we are always interested in trying to keep on top of what Getty is doing so we can modify our attack as Getty modifies their demand letter strategies.
Again, you must decide what is best for you but if it were me, I would tell them I will not pay or negotiate until they provide all the proof that I have requested.
I concur with Robert and SG that if no proof is provided then I would not pay them. I think we would all like to see this correspondence, if you can email it to Robert or Matthew they will redact all personal information from the letter.
Hey Greg,
What correspondence would you like? beginning letter to current?
-
Hey guys, thanks for the responses, here are some emails getty sent me, per your request. The first email is the email they sent me after I asked for proof that the image is actually theirs..
"To clarify our position, Getty Images represents the photographer who owns the copyright in the imagery. This representation includes the privilege to license their intellectual property and the obligation to protect it from unauthorized use, known as copyright infringement. Rights Managed images, such as the one at issue, are exclusive to Getty Images and available for license only through our website.
The requested proof that we represent the copyright owner would be made apparent through discovery, should the matter reach the court. We have chosen to try to quickly close unauthorized use cases such as this by avoiding the burden and cost of litigation. As you know, registration are not required with respect to settlement, especially when the damages we seek are based on what Getty Images and its represented photographer have been injured as a result of Greenshire Capital, LLC’s unauthorized use and now seeks to be made whole. These damages are calculated by the lost licensing fees, including our costs of enforcement. Had Greenshire Capital, LLC not infringed on our represented photographer’s copyrights, we would not be attempting to recover these fees and the added efforts to pursue this unauthorized use matter.
You can confirm that this image is represented by Getty Images by going to www.gettyimages.com and entering the image number 200534843-001, the image appears under the Photographers Choice brand. Getty Images is unable to provide further evidence at this time.
The terms of this settlement offer shall be kept confidential, except as may be required by law. Getty Images expressly reserves all rights and remedies available under copyright law. Please let me know if you have further questions."
This is the letter I received from them after I asked them what steps do I need to take to prove to them that the website was purely for informational purposes (this is before I realized that the burden of proof should be on them since they are claiming it is a for profit endeavor)
"Dear Craig Davis,
In order to further review this matter, please forward your nonprofit determination letter from the IRS. Once received, we will review accordingly.
Best regards,
xxxxxx"
As you can see, they have a person assigned to the case/claim, I made his/her name not readable because I didn't think it was right to air him out like that. @Lucia, I like your idea. I mean, I should have to prove to a judge my innocence, not them. You are right, they are not a judge, just a company making a claim. Thanks!
-
I would cease ALL email communication with them, DEMAND they send anything else via USPS...you're making it to easy on them, and don't be ashamed to throw Douglas Biekers' names out there, he's well known here as are some of the the kool-aid drinking @#$%tards that work for Getty Images..
-
going to there web-site and pulling up the picture means NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, we even seen at least one case, where the artist severed all ties with Getty, yet they still showed her image and send a demand letter..
-
In regards to the caseworker that has been assigned to you, I would not hide their name and I would make it public. It is most likely either Douglas Bieker or Nancy Monson as these two tend to show up quite a bit.
Just because they are a copyright compliance specialist does not mean that they are innocent in this. They know what they are doing is wrong as they are trying to extort money when they know their court cases don't hold up. The excuse I was just doing what I was told or I was just following orders does not apply as if you have half a conscience you could not force people to pay money they should not have to pay.
In my complaint letters that I filed with the Washington State Atty. Gen.'s office, the Ohio State Atty. Gen.'s office, the Better Business Bureau of Washington state, the Federal Trade Commission, my district congressman and senator I made an absolute point of naming Douglas Bieker who is my Getty copyright compliance specialist along with the company he works for for harassment and extortion practices. These people sit in their office and do this all day long knowing it's wrong and not worrying about the complaints filed because they know that the complaints go against the big company that they work for but when you start filing the complaints against them as well and these are all public record and their names are now associated with complaints of harassment and extortion that will follow them wherever they go I think you will start to see a large turnover in the Getty compliance department. I know I would never want complaints filed with all of these agencies against me but then again I could never do anything in good conscience that would warrant a complaint filed against me.
Of course you must decide what is best for you and your case but if you continue to read this forum you will see that what Getty is doing truly qualifies under the definition of extortion and as for me and my fight I am going to make it as personal as I possibly can and go after Getty Images As Well as my good Getty penpal Douglas Bieker.
-
Hey Greg, thanks for the response, lol, yea, you nailed his/her name right on the head.
You know, this whole process with them does not really bother me, I have admitted no guilt and I have yet to pay them. In fact they sent me one email that said "ok, how about 500?"
All I worry about, long term, is my credit health. As is, my credit is glistening, and I would be sad if this got to collections and a mark was put on my credit. I agree with the sentiment here that they will not sue, so I do not feel frightened about litigation, however I am interested in how the collections process goes...I have a theory, however. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong (which I probably am, as I am not well versed in these things).
-6-12 months pass and I get a random contact from a collector asking if the debt is indeed a debt.
-I say, "no this is not a debt, I do not owe them money, this is a claim by them"
-collector says "fine" and returns to getty with my response.
-then getty decides whether to get a judgement on me, which is severely unlikely since it's one 500-800 dollar image.
Those are my thoughts, would love to hear yours.
-
You should have absolutely nothing to worry about as far as your credit goes. If they send it to collection agency it will most likely be NCS and all you have to do is send them a letter stating this is a claim and not a debt, I am currently dealing with Getty do not ever contact me again. Here's a sample letter you can use the format of.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100461757/NCS-Letter-Redacted
I included this letter along with my last letter I sent to my good Getty penpal Douglas Bieker basically thwarting his next step of sending this to NCS collections as I instructed him he must forward this letter to NCS if he sends my case to them ;D
Hey Greg, thanks for the response, lol, yea, you nailed his/her name right on the head.
You know, this whole process with them does not really bother me, I have admitted no guilt and I have yet to pay them. In fact they sent me one email that said "ok, how about 500?"
All I worry about, long term, is my credit health. As is, my credit is glistening, and I would be sad if this got to collections and a mark was put on my credit. I agree with the sentiment here that they will not sue, so I do not feel frightened about litigation, however I am interested in how the collections process goes...I have a theory, however. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong (which I probably am, as I am not well versed in these things).
-6-12 months pass and I get a random contact from a collector asking if the debt is indeed a debt.
-I say, "no this is not a debt, I do not owe them money, this is a claim by them"
-collector says "fine" and returns to getty with my response.
-then getty decides whether to get a judgement on me, which is severely unlikely since it's one 500-800 dollar image.
Those are my thoughts, would love to hear yours.
-
Also, if they do send their demand to a collection agency, you must must write a letter or complaint to the attorney general. Post a draft here so people can make sure that the fact that they have no right to use a collection agency to intimidate you into paying when there is no debt anywhere except in the mind of Getty.
-
I would also send one to the AG in his state as well as the FTC for starters.
Also, if they do send their demand to a collection agency, you must must write a letter or complaint to the attorney general. Post a draft here so people can make sure that the fact that they have no right to use a collection agency to intimidate you into paying when there is no debt anywhere except in the mind of Getty.
-
Hey guys, just a quick update if anyone is interested.
I replied to getty with the following letter. (this letter is in response to gettys inquiry regarding a letter from the IRS stating/proving greenshire is not in fact a real hedge fund).
I honestly felt that the burden of proof is on them, not I.
"Thanks for the response Mr. Bieker, if the case goes to court, I will prove my innocence by supplying documents from the SEC, FIRNA, as well as my personal tax records which will show that there is no hedge fund titled "greenshire capital."
I am sorry that Getty disagrees with me, but I have neither the time, nor inclination to spend my time faxing documents, speaking to representatives, and making numerous unnecessary phone calls to the SEC, FIRNA, and IRS, simply to prove my innocence in this matter.
Getty's claim that the site was used for "profit" purposes is false.
Thanks,
Craig"
-
So now when D. Bieker, replies yet again that you still owe them for"unauthorized use" you can simply state that you do in fact have permission to use the image..The permission comes from none other than the president /ceo of Getty Images Jonathan Klein...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0mSYjL44n0
Pay attention right around the 1 minute mark!
-
Very very interesting. This video needs to be backed up before they take it down.