Famous letter in.... Belgium !

[nicola0903]

Hello all

I just received a letter - 600eur for a usage of an image used in an old website in 2006. Image was used as a part of an flash intro, so only a small part of image is visible. I am  shocked from their 'invoice' . I have done some searches on google and now I'm here...

[oz457]

Don't answer, use it as toilet paper. They'll never take it to court for this amount. It is too costly. It is just a way of extortion, scam. Are you french or dutch speaking?

[nicola0903]

dutch speaking. thank you

[oz457]

Dus, je verstaat die brief niet! Niets van aantrekken. Ik heb al verschillende keren dergelijke scams meegemaak. Eén of andere dag zal deze nog eens op televisie verschijnen (opgelicht).
Gewoon de foto van het net halen en vervangen door een andere foto.

Met vriendelijke groeten.

[nicola0903]

Hartelijk bedankt voor uw advies.

Fijne dag nog.

[oz457]

Wat ze trachten te doen is gewoon je bang te maken. En angst is een motivator om iemand tot iets te dwingen. Ze hebben geen poot om op te staan. Ze ge(mis)bruiken gewoon copyright wetgeving om hun te verrijken. Indien ze toch zo op copyright uit zijn, dan zal getty in de rechtzaal indien het zo ver komt snel van de rechter te horen krijgen dat zij sinds het begin van hun praktijken hun bestanden dienden te versleutelen of op de foto's zelf een watermark te plaatsen om ze onbruikbaar te maken.
Dat hebben ze sinds het begin van 2002 nog nooit gedaan.
Ik heb al minstens 10 brieven gekregen van bedrijfjes die de standaard layout van professionele salons gebruikten om een update te vragen van onze bedrijfgegevens. Ze maakten in elk van deze brieven een willekeurige fout in het adres. Omdat je denkt dat het gaat om een brief van de organisator, stuur je de brief met de correctie ondergetekend terug. Maar zonder het te weten heb je ook een zogenaamd contract getekend waarin je ook zo'n 1000 euro moet betalen om in een database te staan.

Wie is G.I om te bepalen wat de prijs is? Als je weet dat de prijs van 1 foto bij hun 49 dollar is, dan is die 1000 euro er serieus over. Als ze bijvoorbeeld 150 dollar zouden vragen, dan kan ik er nog mee instemmen, maar 1000 euro is meer dan 200 keer hun normale prijs.

Voor zo ver ik heb gevonden hebben ze nooit rechterlijke actie ondernomen. En voor zo lang je niet méér dan 20 foto's hebt gebruikt is het voor hun ook niet echt winstgevend om je voor de rechter te slepen. Wees wel op je hoede en je zal nog wel een aantal brieven krijgen, zelfs verstuurd door een advokaat. Maar verder zullen ze nooit gaan.


Met andere woorden, het betreft pure oplichting van eerste klasse.

Met vriendelijke groeten.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

yes it's a lot, yes they try to scare you, no they won't go away if you ignore it, a watermark is not needed legally, they may very well have a leg to stand on..

[Oscar Michelen]

What he said.

[Helpi]

"They'll never take it to court for this amount. It is too costly."

In the US, the point of permitting the plaintiff to recover attorney fees (if the work was registered prior to the infringement), which while not mandatory are routinely awarded, is to encourage lawsuits involving copyright infringement that would otherwise be uneconomic to pursue.  

So while I can't speak to Getty, I'd say, in general, not the most comforting theory that someone with a substantive claim will go away simply because the dollars appear small.

[Matthew Chan]

There is a big difference in winning and collecting. Winning a $5K, $10, $20K case and getting a judgment against someone plus court costs is a whole different ball of wax than actually ever collecting on it. But hey, Getty might want make an example of someone that made a mistake of a couple images. Why not? It worked so well for the RIAA when they went on a rampage a few years back.

The more fearful and paranoid people get about getting sued over 1 or 2 images, the more Paypal contributions this website gets and the more business Oscar gets.

Oscar and I try to empower people with knowledge, education, and a realistic perspective. We try to ease people's worries especially to people who are single-person/mom-pop operation that made a mistake with a couple of images.

Can we guarantee it?  Nope.  Is it likely?  At this time, it does NOT seem likely.  But what the heck...


.....If you choose to tell those same people, NOT to take comfort in the fact that their mistakes are relatively small in the big scheme of things, they will likely get sued, and they believe you, then I believe Oscar is willing to accommodate even more clients. After all, it isn't quite enough that he is going on nearly 600 new clients since this site launched....

Likewise, I am so sure Getty's team is enjoying having even more people flock to an experienced litigator/IP attorney like Oscar. After all, Getty enjoys being frozen out of all legal communication from letter recipients (after having paid Oscar $195) and having to negotiate with Oscar.

We could also ignore what has been said repeatedly on these forums and private emails that People would sooner contribute money to this website and pay money for Oscar's legal services before they give one dime to Getty Images?

But hey, what the heck. Oscar and I have been running this operation on the wrong premise. Maybe we need to discuss changing strategies. We should adopt the philosophy of driving fear and paranoia UP EVEN MORE. All this comfort talk is encouraging way to many people to feel less stress and empowered. We can't have any more of that nonsense. We want people to be even more dependent on us and this website so they can come back for more.

After, we all know that Oscar is aching to rack up his numbers up further and I am desperate for more website traffic and Paypal contributions. Let us not forget the hero-complexes that Oscar and I have that needs to be further fed. Inflaming fear, doubt, and paranoia will escalate our status even further.

And as far as Getty is concerned, they won't mind continually having to go up against Oscar (who will one day reach 1,000 clients from this controversy and website).  Why bother negotiating with 1,000 inexperienced laymen when you can drive letter recipients into Oscar's law firm?  Oscar is only a single-call and email away.  It makes it so much easier for Getty.

Yup, let's go ahead and spread the word that if you are a mom-pop/single-person biz that made a mistake with a couple images, they need to be very worried and to lose sleep over it. They will get sued by Getty and lose. They will go in to bankruptcy and lose their home since there is a 5% chance it might happen.

Yeah, that is the ticket.

Matthew

[Oscar Michelen]

well said matt