Getty and Picscout

[cloVSgetty]

Hi every one,

First of, I am frenchspeaking, so sorry for the bad english some times.

I live in quebec, received a letter from getty in january.  Ask them to prove themself since i never use the image in question.

They sent me a webcaption of picscout date june 2011, were we see half of the picture they claimed that are theirs.  Problem is : I never use this picture... anyone had the same problem?

I use the wayback machine to go back in time till 2009 and no sign of this picture in the website.  All the images of the website were paid to istock photo.  I have the bill to prove it.

Now, yesterday, received a letter from NCS IP solution.

Stress and confuse about what to do now.  But i read a lot on this forum and saw that there is The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) that i could use to stop them harassing me.  But since I am in montreal Canada, dont know if this applies.

Also, i wonder, if they take a step ahead, will they have me fight this in quebec or will i have to go in US.  surely dont have the money for that.

Any experiences or answers are welcome.  Thanks a lot.

[SoylentGreen]

I posted a bit for Canadians recently.  I think that it will be helpful:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/preparation-for-'next-round-of-extortion'/msg9489/#msg9489

As for collections, I don't think that it's legal to make collection efforts for non debts in Canada.
I'm guessing that you got a letter from NCS in the United States?

The FDCPA applies to the United States only.  But, Canadians have their own legislation:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/h_ca02149.html

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

They sent you a PicScout image grab but you never used the image? I wonder if they have the wrong person. Perhaps if you share the original letter with Matthew Chan we could help you analyze the claim to see if there's any merit to it.

It would also be helpful if you send Matthew the NCS IP Solution letter so that we can see if they have any right to be contacting you to make any kind of claim.

Do not pay them any money. It's most likely they're trying to scare you into paying them without having any legal standing to make this claim. If you are correct about not having ever used the picture, they have no right to bother you.

Search this forum using the Google search bar on top of the page for "Canada" and you will find many posts discussing the legal aspects of these claims as well as the specifics of how copyright law applies to Canada.

I hope the stress goes away soon, it's always troubling to be threatened with legal action. The more you learn about these Getty people on this forum, the more you will feel that the right thing to do is fight back and stand for your rights.

By the way, I'm not sure if the FDPCA applies to Canada. Since we have a Fair Trade Agreement between the US and Canada, it may be that the same rules apply. However, I'm not a lawyer so I will defer to the more experienced members of the forum, such as SoylentGreen, to advise on that point.

[cloVSgetty]

Thank you boyh for the response.  I will do as suggest and search the forum for any topic about Canada.

They dont have the wrong person since i recognize perfectly the website but instead of the two images that are in the heading right now, there is one of the images that is not mine.  But as i said, i went back in the timemachine and as old of 2009, there is no such picture in the website.  So I am wondering, did they make that up, or what.

We have ask for the proof of copyright and have received a NCS IP solution letter instead !  (yes, from US).

Thank you again, if anything you want to add, feel free. 

[lucia]

They sent me a webcaption of picscout date june 2011, were we see half of the picture they claimed that are theirs.  Problem is : I never use this picture... anyone had the same problem?

I haven't heard of cases where they claimed an image appeared but it never did. But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen! Does your site run ads? Might the image be contained in an ad?    Do tell them you do not believe that image ran at your site and ask them to provide you the uri for the image.  If it's an image running inside a googlead, in the US, you'd be all clear.

I suspect the same will hold in Canada, but our court rulings don't hold there. So you'll have to discover what Canadian law says.

Also, i wonder, if they take a step ahead, will they have me fight this in quebec or will i have to go in US.  surely dont have the money for that.

Oscar would know-- but I think the answer is somewhere in Canada.  My impression (and I hope others will correct me if I'm wrong) is that because I am in the US, they would have to sue me in federal court where I reside. They can't just pick whichever court they prefer-- those courts don't have jurisdiction. 

If this is true, I would imagine no US copyright court has jurisdiction and they would have to sue in Canada.  That means you need to learn Canadian law about this issue. 


But also: If it turns out the image was in a banner ad and you never hosted it, you will be a ok in the US too. Hotlinking is not copying under US copyright law. We can tell you more about this if it matters. (Maybe the mere fact that US copyright law doesn't give US copyright holders this protection would make Canadian courts recognize that the right doesn't magically come into being if the person hotlinking is in Canada? Anyway-- if it turned out you hotlinked, you'll want to look into that.)

[Oscar Michelen]

The case would be covered by Canadian copyright law and have to be brought in Canada.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I have a question, in the screen capture along with the date, was this about the time that your website was being developed or went live? If so this may have been a placeholder image before your website even went live and that's what this is a picture of. I'm not sure if this applies to your situation but I'm just trying to think of ways that Getty might have a screen capture of an image that has never been on your website. I know that a few others have stated that the image they received a letter over was for a placeholder image on a website that had not gone live yet.

This is an interesting case and please keep us posted as to what happens with it.

[SoylentGreen]

I must agree with Oscar here, of course.
It's important not to mix American laws and Canadian laws.
There are very important distinctions, and we musn't make assumptions.
Let's not confuse everything.

I can tell you for certain that a collection letter from the United States sent to Canada about something that isn't actually debt is nothing to worry about.
It's just idle threats.

S.G.

[cloVSgetty]

The site was built in 2008...so no, there is no place holder here.  I am wondering, is picscout really reliable ?  Could they bring that up in court ?

Strange, moreover, we gave them (getty) proof of buying all the images from istock photo, we sent them the bill.  No answer, just 3 months after, the NCS IP solution letter !!!

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

If you licensed these images from istock and have copies of your paperwork for the image in question I don't think you really have anything to worry about then.

The site was built in 2008...so no, there is no place holder here.  I am wondering, is picscout really reliable ?  Could they bring that up in court ?

Strange, moreover, we gave them (getty) proof of buying all the images from istock photo, we sent them the bill.  No answer, just 3 months after, the NCS IP solution letter !!!

[SoylentGreen]

I think that OP is saying that they're after him about an image that he never put on his site, let alone licensed.
I'm not sure what to make of this one.

S.G.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Agreed SG, this has me scratching my head too. It will be interesting to see as this develops how Getty acquired the screenshot.

I did see where OP had said that the image had never been on his site and then got a little confused as I thought he'd said he had purchased the image from  istock. Either way I still would not settle for an image that never appeared on my site or for one that I licensed from another company that Getty claims exclusivity to.

I think that OP is saying that they're after him about an image that he never put on his site, let alone licensed.
I'm not sure what to make of this one.

S.G.

[cloVSgetty]

Is OP refering to me ?  But to make things clear, when i say all images were paid to istockphoto, I mean, all but this image that getty claims theirs.

And also, I am a she 

[SoylentGreen]

Yes, OP refers to you (Original Poster).

In any case, Getty will stand by their evidence.  It's your word against theirs.

However, Getty won't provide any proof to you.
That being the case, no reasonable person would expect you to pay them a settlement.
They'll probably still send you letters for a while, but I don't really see how they could take it much father than this.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

One other think cloVSgetty:

iStockphoto is owned by Getty Images. You would think that doing business with a company affiliated with Getty would give you special consideration. Instead, Getty is trying to con you into believing they can send you to "collections."

I urge you to stop doing business with iStock. Tell your friends and other web developers too. There are other microstock companies out there that don't threaten to sue their customers. Last year I started compiling a list of public domain images on this thread:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/

One of the ways to change the way these companies conduct themselves is to be very vocal about what they are doing and to choke them off financially. You can vote with your dollars by not spending any money on Getty or iStock images.