Getty in Switzerland: this time with LAWYERS letter

[Matt]

From Switzerland; Hello everyone, especially Oscar!

I was so happy this morning to find this site. I was astounded that on your forum there were only 2 posts related to Getty in Switzerland.
I am happy that I can share my case with you all. I am a bit panicked because of my situation right now.

Here is my case:

Some months ago (I really don't remember exactly when) I received THE letter from Getty Images (US or UK - I don't remember).
For one photo I used on my website they asked round 2'500 Swiss Francs - insane!

Round year ago I was browsing Google Images for a photo besides a text on my website. I found the one I like & uploaded it on my website besides the text.
I had no idea where the photo comes from or that is possibly licensed (my mistake I know - I should have checked it before - ever since this letter I learned the lesson!)

So, after the letter came, I researched a bit on the internet & by reading between the lines, the words ... SCAM ... DON'T PAY ATTENTION ... were the most common.
After reading that, I concluded: doesn't matter. I teared the paper, threw it & forgot about this.
Immediately after this, I removed the photo & an entire page with the content (the text on it was not valid any more).

After month or two, another letter came. They warned me that I didn't pay the amount they demanded. Based on what I read on the internet, I paid no attention to this letter &
AGAIN, I just teared the paper & threw it away. And, I forgot about it, thinking: "They won't get my money... I am in Switzerland, they won't bother to "chase" someone in this "holy" land).

Today, it is 29. April 2012, Sunday. I came to my office to take something & see this LATEST (new) letter laying.

The date on the letter is 26. March 2012.
It is send from Swiss private lawyers specialized in copyright and media law.
It is one page long. Written entirely in German language.

To make it short: they write in the name of Getty Images US.
They explain how using licensed photos is not allowed ...
In one section they write: "You have received a letter from Getty Images (US) some time ago. You removed the photo, but you didn't react on the financial part of the letter." (I didn't pay OF COURSE).
They mention the paragraph in the law that obliges me on something I don't exactly understand what. (Art. 62 Abs. 1 lit. c URG)

At the end of the letter the write in bold: "Please send us the required information on how long did you use the photo latest till 16. April 2012. If we don't receive this from you until then or it is unsatisfactory, we'll make an estimation and send you an invoice."

At the end, hand signed, the lawyer

.............................................................

NOW, the time has obviously passed. I didn't send them anything.

What shall I do now?

These are the things I have in my mind now, as the options I could do (based on what I read on forums what people suggest):

1. Should I hire a lawyer specialized for these cases?
2. Shall I write to Getty Images and ask them to send me an exclusive license they have from the photographer?
    (I assume they won't send me any - based on what I read on the forums. I would try anyway - if you suggest to).
3. Shall I just ignore this letter & wait if there is an invoice from the lawyers?
4. Shall I write to the lawyers, telling them I only now saw the letter and tell them that I used the photo for a month on my website?
    (This might me interesting to know: I looked up on the Getty website. Now, this image would cost me 195 Swiss Francs if I would like to use it on my website for ONE MONTH!)
5. Shall I write to the lawyers & offer them a settle for this photo (based on the fact that this photo for month now costs 195 Swiss Francs - based on what is on the Getty official website)?

p.s. I am sorry if there are confusing sentences or thoughts in my text up.
I was shocked in a way this morning & my head it still pretty "taken" by this letter.

As you all say, don't panic & don't pay anything. I'll listen to this advice.
I have to say, I read that there is not a SINGLE case known where Getty went on court and really WON in this cases.
I really BELIEVE & HOPE that I won't be the FIRST case in the world that will be a victim of them!

Btw, I just checked on the official website of the photographer; this photo is on his website & it says: "All the photos are copyright of XY (the photographer)"

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Don't know if this could apply to you, but there has been some chatter in regards to "speculative invoicing", and I think this in regards to German law.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/this-could-possibly-be-a-good-thing-for-image-letter-recpients/


http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/this-might-be-significant/

[Khan]

Hello Matt
If the photo is on the website of the photographer see if you can buy it from the photographer that would prove that GI has no exclusive rights. Make a picture search (Is threre another place where you can buy the picture) I am not an expert but the copyright in Switzerland regarding photos is a little bit complicated and not so easy ( see Court Case Meili and Bob Marley). I am not sure but as far as I know they have to get a court decision that there has been an infringement. After this they have to ask for compensation and then the Art 62 comes along. I would go and ask all the questions which you find in the forum.  Keep in mind they did not prove anything to you. They just try that you admit how long you have used the photo.   

[Khan]

Are you able to prove that you used it only for one month ?

[Matt]

Hello guys!

Firtsly, thank you both for such a fast reply. I really appreciate it!

To Khan - I can't prove that I used the photo for one month.
But, I wonder how can Getty prove that I didn't use it for one month?
Wouldn't it be my word against theirs (Getty's)?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It woiuld depend on what screen shot they have from archive.org or domain tools.

[Matt]

Interesting!

I just noticed; in the lawyers letter, attached is the screen shot of my website with the photo I used. In the upper corner of the printed paper stands this url:

http://stock.pickscout.com/monitoring/Reports/ShowImage... (no more is vivble)

Does this mean anything?

p.s. I just wrote an email to the photographer asking can I buy the photo from him. Waiting for a reply. I'll let you know what does he say.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Picscout is the software they use to hammer your server and search for images, it then compares images found within your site to their library.. Getty Images owns Picscout, and most of their own competition is using it..

[Matt]

Very very interesting!

Thank you so so much for these enlightening informations!

So, I'll wait for the reply of the photographer (I truly hope he replies).
As soon as I have any news, I'll be back here.

[Khan]

Check your website on

http://archive.org/web/web.php

See what it shows regarding your picture.

[Matt]

So, I went on this website & in "The Wayack machine" field I typed in my website url.
The result was a page that said: "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt."

What does this mean please?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It means exactly that! you have a robots.txt file on your server instructing archive org to not crawl / index your site. For the record Picscout ignores robots.txt and also masks its' user-agent...it is a very bad behaved bot, and borderline hacking INMH

[Matt]

So, in simple, plain language this means???

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+robots.txt

[Matt]

Thank you for Googling it for me. I read it. And, I am still not getting it - sorry!
Is it possible that you (or anyone here) explain me, in PLAIN, SIMPLE language, what does this result (below) I got mean in consequence?

The result was a page that said: "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt."

Did the "Robots" crawl and find anything or not?

Thanks a million for your help!