Entrapment???

[ECA317]

I used a website template that I obtained online that has gotten me into this mess.  How can I possibly confirm that Getty isn't using some off-shore presence to entrap me.  I obviously can't prove it, but given their tactics it makes me wonder.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Welcome to the forums, it would help if you can provide a little bit more information about your case so in the meantime my answers will be generic.

First be aware that to date Getty has not sued anyone in the states for just having one picture on a website, they will try to bully harass and scare you into paying.

I would contact the company were you got the template and see if they can provide you with the licensing information for the image in question. I don't know where you got the template from or how long ago but I remember a while back ago Template Monster got caught using Getty images without licenses and paid Getty retroactive licenses to make everything good for their users. I also know of a couple of cases where Getty tried to "double dip" by trying to collect from end-users on images that were settled previously by template monster.

Having said that if the company were you got your template cannot provide licensing information I would start by asking Getty for proof of claim meaning

1) To see verification that the image was filed with the U.S. Copyright Office

2) Verification that the copyright is either for the individual image or a group of images.

3) A copy of the signed contract, assignment or other documentation between Getty Imagesand the artist transferring copyright and giving you exclusive rights to the image as you havestated in your letter.

4) Sales history and records of this image and prices received for the image.

Getty will not provide any of this information to you as they most likely can't. You'll need to decide if you want ignore it which is not recommended by me, fight it on your own which is what I did, talk to Matthew using the Eli support call to get up to speed quickly and get a plan of action or retain Oscar using his defense letter program so you will not have to hear from Getty again.

Read the forums as there is pretty much everything you need to know to fight it yourself contained here and ask questions. Again welcome to the wonderful world of Getty extortion letters.

As far as your entrapment question I'm not really sure where you're going with that, could you please clarify?

I used a website template that I obtained online that has gotten me into this mess.  How can I possibly confirm that Getty isn't using some off-shore presence to entrap me.  I obviously can't prove it, but given their tactics it makes me wonder.

[ECA317]

HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION:  Getty sets up an off-shore fake e-commerce site that offers website templates.  I obtain a template in good faith with the images in question.  Getty knows that I obtained the template and eventually comes after me.

I obtained the template in 2005, but didn't use it until 2011.  I have been looking all over for the company that offered the templates, but can't find it.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Thank you for the clarification, no I don't think that is happening as a result of Getty doing it. Getty has so many images and there are enough of them circulating out there that they are probably running at the full capacity their demand letter program can handle. In 2009 in an article Lisa Willmer admitted to the Los Angeles times that they find an average of 42,000 cases of infringement a year, with the increase in technology and computing power I'm sure the number is far higher. This is not to say that Getty does not as a company engage in unethical business practices because they do.

I believe it is pretty much a consensus among most of the regulars that there are a couple of photographer's that do "seed" their images to "Free Wallpaper" sites namely Vincent K Taylor and his son who deal mainly in landscape photographs of the Hawaiian Islands. A lot can be read about this on the forums as well.

HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION:  Getty sets up an off-shore fake e-commerce site that offers website templates.  I obtain a template in good faith with the images in question.  Getty knows that I obtained the template and eventually comes after me.

I obtained the template in 2005, but didn't use it until 2011.  I have been looking all over for the company that offered the templates, but can't find it.

[SoylentGreen]

Many companies that provide templates use freelancers or contractors to make their product.
Sometimes, these third parties use images that they haven't paid for.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Many companies that provide templates use freelancers or contractors to make their product.
Sometimes, these third parties use images that they haven't paid for.

S.G.

Very good point made by SG. I've also seen in the "fine print" of some template site an escape clause of sorts, releasing them, should an issue arise..Also Template Monster settled with Getty a few years back, and there have been reports of the TM ignoring customer complaints, as well as reports of them standing up for their customers.. I also used images from a purchased template, but Getty didn't care, they just wanted my money....they got exactly ZERO dollars from me.

[Oscar Michelen]

Getty is not seeding its own images to entrap folks.  They simply don't need to (a) They make more than enough money from their image licensing and sale business; (b)They make more than enough money from their copyright infringement business; and (c) template makers are notorious for using unauthorized images in their templates so there's enough of that work out there legitimately that Getty doesn't need to create any new cases and possibly expose themselves to liability.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Although I agree that GI probably does not "seed" their images, several other factors have occurred that leave many, many of their images in copyright limbo.

• Other stock footage companies have sold their images to be included in templates. When Getty acquires these collections, they have pursued a course of action that assumes if a site did not purchase a license from GI they are infringing.
• Sometime in late 1999 GI themselves released CDs of FPO (for position only) images on CD-ROM. The terms of use for this collection were not entirely clear and I think many people believed that these were free to use. I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to track down these CDs to see how the EULA was framed.
• I believe some photographers have sold rights to their images to multiple entities.

There are, of course, many more ways an image GI represents as their exclusive property may be neither exclusive or even their property. But as we have all seen, requiring them to prove that it is, is universally resisted by all the trolls.

[Oscar Michelen]

All true and excellent points Jerry