Getty From Start To Finish

[timjefferson]

I received the letter from Getty a couple of months back for $975.  The hardest part is finding a case from Getty showing the letter, responses from Getty and payment.  Below is my story w/ Getty from start to finish.  Any response or suggestions are welcome.  What I'm curious about is what others have settled for.  This seemed cheaper than getting an attorney & going that route:

1st response:

From:
Sent:
To: License Compliance
Subject:

 
We received your letter regarding the use of your photo.  Per your instructions we have taken down the photo in question.  This was done inadvertently and have not generated any income on the photo in question.  We were not aware and had no reason to believe that the acts constituted an infringement of copyright -- nor are we admitting that we have violated any copyright.  The settlement amount described in the letter seems quite exorbitant since there was no income not only generated off of the photo in question, but no income to the named business Trillium Advisory Group before, during and after the posting of the named photo.  Please let us know if you have any further questions.

---They came back with a bunch of legalese stating that the photo is copyrighted.  They went from $975 to $700. 
 
Our response:


From:
To: License Compliance
Subject:


On your settlement, we cannot pay the $725.  We are a small business and have no receipts of income.  The photo has been removed & no income was generated from it.  Please send a lower revised amount that we can afford.

Thank you.
 
----They responded with a final amount of $585 payable in 1 week.  We sent a 4th email asking for a lower amount but they refused.  We ended up paying the fee.

My concern in Oscar's letter is for $195, that doesn't guarantee Getty will get off our back.  So if they settle for a lower amount, I could use the $195 towards that?  Locally, an attorney would write up a letter for $500 which was as much as the settlement.  I don't know.  I hated to pay them for this scam but I don't see any history of people coming on the thread either successfully eliminating Getty & their letters without paying a dime or how they successfully lowered the settlement fees. 

Hopefully this will help some of you gauge their flexibility on lowering their demands.  See if anyone can break my record on the lowered demands

Thank you.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Looks like you paid about 535.00 too much..this is what happens when people go in un-educated and make rash decisions..do you really think they wopuld have filed suit over 1 image?? they'd be losing money they walked thru the courthouse door. Oh well another win for Getty Images..more cash to buy stamps, paper and envelopes..

[Mulligan]

Tim, too bad you didn't have time to do more reading because quite a few of us here on ELI are fighting our little battles with Getty Images and their copyright troll outside counsel Timothy B. McCormack of Seattle, WA. Some use Oscar's letter program, some pay to talk to Matt, and some do it entirely on their own, using the wealth of info and experience to be found in this forum.

Too bad you shelled out because in my opinion, there's no reason whatsoever to knuckle under to these people or to pay them even a dime when they refuse to provide the legal documentation that proves they have a right to demand a settlement.

On the other hand, if ending the stress and time commitment necessary to fight these folks was worth to you what you paid, then take the $585 off your taxes as a business expense and more power to you.

With that said, I have to admit I don't know if paying a settlement demand would be a legitimate tax deduction. Seems like it would be. I'm not going to look up the definitive answer, though, because nothing on earth at this point would ever get me to pay Getty or one of their outside counsels anything other than a series of farts generated after a big Tex-Mex dinner.

[Peeved]

Mulligan you are a JOY!

 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Does this mean I can't write off my monthly pacer fees? OOPS

[Matthew Chan]

He definitely got sucked in.  I paid zero because the $500 that was offered me was still way too much.  The price of ignorance and not having a spine is very high and a much lighter wallet.

Looks like you paid about 535.00 too much..this is what happens when people go in un-educated and make rash decisions..do you really think they wopuld have filed suit over 1 image?? they'd be losing money they walked thru the courthouse door. Oh well another win for Getty Images..more cash to buy stamps, paper and envelopes..

[g-mareng]

Not really sure where to put my story in on this forum but I have been playing this game with Getty since February of this year, 2012.  I had one image on my website that I immediately took down.  The funny thing is that the image was actaually a scanned image from a self published book I bought years back from the photographer but apparently he had this image licensed with Getty as well.  So I responded to the letter, which initially I should not have done because it was addressed to my "
Legal Dept" which doesn't exist.  THus far I have never signed my name to any response letter, just company letterhead.  Well I responded back stating that the image was from a book that I purchased.  They came back about a month later saying they were sorry but it is still licensed imagery and I owe Getty money, although the reduced the amount.  I replied back stating that the image was scanned from a published book that did not reference any permission from Getty to publish.  So apparently Getty does NOT exlcusively own that image!!!!  I told them to stop harassing me or I would get my "legal team" invovled.  Well they replied back about a month later again with the original letter they sent me with the original amount owed.  I ignored and I figured it would go away.  Well it did...for about 2 months and just this Friday I got a letter in the mail from their legal counsel, McCormack Intellectual Property stating that I now owe double the amount originally owed!!! - $1400!!  So I am going to ignore this letter now.  What a corrupt bunch of a-holes!  If anyone has some additional advice on what to do with this, seeing that I used this image from a self obtained resource.  This image clearly is NOT exclusively licensed with Getty if it was used in a published book that was published in 2009.  It's not theirs and I am NOT paying them!  I even gave them the ISBN # and publish date, company and author.  They don't seem to care.  I am tempted to contact the photographer directly seeing that he is a local university professor and just paying him outright and telling him the crap I am going through with this sleasy company!!  Thoughts??

Thanks - g-mareng.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Don't expect the photographer to have too much sympathy for you, as you admittedly copied his image from a book, which to me shows willful infringement.

" I ignored and I figured it would go away.  Well it did...for about 2 months and just this Friday I got a letter in the mail from their legal counsel, McCormack Intellectual Property stating that I now owe double the amount originally owed!!! - $1400!!  So I am going to ignore this letter ..."

Yeah ignore it, since it worked so well the first time.

"self-obtained source" - which clearly states somewhere on the first few page that it;s copyright, and not to copied..I must admit this is the first time we've had someone here that did this. Most users on this forum got the images they used at various places on the net and truly did not know or realize that they were copyrighted.. One would think, that anybody no matter how ignorant of copyright law  would know better than to copy an image from a book..

There are plenty of suggestions on the forum, as to how to deal with McCormack, do some digging around, or just ignore it and see if it goes away..

[SoylentGreen]

Copyright may subsist in various parts of printed materials.
For example, my company might choose to create a brochure which would be copyright "my company".
However, I might have licenced images for use in the document.  I've licensed them for use, but the owner still retains copyright.

It's common that Getty doesn't own the actual copyright of the images that it retails, and therefore couldn't legally collect much damages.
So, that's probably your best bet.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

Scanning an image from a photographer's book? That is harder to defend given nearly everything in a book is copyrighted to begin with. How do you think the photographer will be ok with this? That requires way more effort and thought than right-clicking an image in an open Google Search.

If you get tired of ignoring it, you can hire Oscar Michelen to issue a Defense Letter on your behalf. Most photographer's have little power over Getty Images. It seems to me you have a LOT more education to go through in this matter. No one can do it for you in 1 or 2 posts.

[Oscar Michelen]

I agree with  Matt, you need to take the time to educate yourself with all the information available on these forums (in various forms).

[lucia]

g-mareng
Contacting the university professor might help you-- or not. It's worth a shot. (Maybe find out from students if he's an ogre first.)

Also: I think exclusive rights are weird. One person can have the exclusive right to put on t-shirts and coffee mugs, another to print the image in a book and another to distribute on the web. So don't assume the fact that the image is in a book means Getty doesn't have the appropriate sort of 'exclusive' right. They may have the appropriate right for web distribution.

One of the difficulties you are going to have is that because this image is in a book, it almost certainly is registered. You should check-- but unlike many other Getty images, I'd guess this one is very likely registered.

You haven't given details of how this image is used. On a business site? Decorating a blog post? And so on.  I'm not sure you ought to because given the whole "copied from a book" thing,  and you have reached the 'letter from McCormick" state, I think you might do better to hire Oscar and explain the details to him.  (I assume McCormick has figured out who you are? These letters must be going to some address where you receive them-- right?)

I've been dealing with Getty myself. But my situation is different from yours. Based on what I know about your situation, I'd be hiring Oscar and hope he can negotiate down. ( BTW: You are the first person I've told that I would hire Oscar if I were in your shoes.)

[g-mareng]

Thanks for the advice all.  I understand that copying from a book was not the best idea on the planet.  I guess my intention of bringing it up was that the image was from a source that was not owned by Getty for internet image distribution but by another source.  If their exclusive right is to distribute digital images via the internet and that is what they are trying to get me on then my statement of using the image from an alternate source was simply for them to understand that it was obtained from an outside source unrelated to online purchase and distribution.  The image was being used on a company website.  It was a picture of lightning strikes over the City skyline.  It had absolutely nothing to do with my services or business.  I just liked the image and the photographer that takes these pictures.  It was displayed on my "contact" page where my business contact information was....easy catch for them right?  I am more or less a sole proprietor and honestly have not made much money in the past few years.  This was simply a side gig that I did, more or less moon lighting.  The reality is, there is no money in the name of my LLC anymore so there isn't much for anyone to sue my LLC over.  Not sure if that helps lighten the load of this harassment.

Thanks again.

[lucia]

Ahh! Well, if the domain is in the LLC's name and the LLC has no money, that fact is useful to you.  I think someone here said in this circumstance do not dissolve the LLC.  Let it exist until the statute of limitations runs out (3 years).    On the one hand, if they sue you need to hire an attorney to defend. On the other hand, if there is no money.... there is no money. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

What your missing is that Getty Images licenses images for all types of uses, be it web, print, video, etc..regardless of what you tell them the reply will be the same.. "pay us".