Getty Letter but Image was retrieved from Public agency Website

[northern CAL]

After reading several post and seeing a slew of responses I felt that there may be a small twist of my story than some of the others.  We had on our website an image I obtained from a federal public web site that I used for a flyer/PDF that we had on our site for folks to download.  Our site hardly gets traffic and the company is almost non-existent (we seldom do work from it). 

Anyways, we just received the letter today, I immediately went to the website, removed all traces of the image since i did not want to be in further violation (if I was at all!).   We are a small family and the Getty demand cost is around $950 which is too much for us to afford now. the site the image is on is the US Fish and Wildlife services website. 

Thoughts on the circumstance?

[northern CAL]

Also is the premium support still available i.e., Mr.Michelen's letter fee if needed?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Can you post a link to the image in question on the public site.  I can give you a better response after looking at the site.

Yes, nothing has changed you can still do a support call with Matthew or you can enroll in Oscar's defense letter program.

[northern CAL]

http://www.fws.gov/yreka/northernspottedowl.html

Its the owl right under "Identifying Characteristics".  I was going under the impression that the USFWS had this and other images up as public domain and can be used as references for future education / informative use.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

northern,

I have a solution for you. It involves spending money, but not a grand.

Go to http://gregvaughn.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Wildlife/G00002tQ6.2aq7jw/I0000QLvrCmvZk8Y and select "buy".

Choose the settings you would want for a low-circulation, regional-use of the image. I plugged in some numbers and came up with $152.

Pay the photographer directly and then tell Getty to go to hell. This is another case of Getty claiming to "exclusively" represent an image when it is abundantly clear they do not.

I'm sure you didn't expect to pay even $150 for the image, but this is a way to make things right with the photographer quickly and still not pay Getty; all while saving $800.

Good luck!

[northern CAL]

Thanks Jerry,
I did reach out to the photographer yesterday since he is a well known locally and his reply was this.....  what a headache!

"I am sorry for any trouble this has caused you. I assume that you had the best intentions with your flyer and were not trying to rip off anyone.

Getty Images has in their collection one of my Northern Spotted Owl photographs, an image that they have exclusive rights to for licensing and distribution. Getty has been known to aggressively go after unauthorized uses of photos they represent, and in fact under the terms of contract, even I cannot sell, license or otherwise distribute that image.

I am curious as to whether the letter from Getty offered any terms under which you could continue to use the photo, or if it just demanded that it be removed. Getty recently announced that they would allow use of many of their photos at no charge for online editorial purposes. "

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Well that tools still gave me a price closer to $150. They are making an assumption about how you used the image. You could use that tool to specify how you really intend to use it and the very limited distribution it would receive and generate a much lower price. You could then offer to pay that price to Getty. By the way, I have screen shots of everything, but I urge you to record the page, because GI frequently changes pricing.

[northern CAL]

Jerry,
the image was on a PDF and i feel the advertising - brochure option is best suited.  the brochure was an old link that wasn't even functional (late 2012).  so I went for the 2 year option and the price is now at $238.  The screen shot was taken (thanks for the reminder!).

Is the recommendation to  counter with a $238 cost to Getty?  Or pay the $238 now?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

norther CAL,

Thanks for providing the link, the copyright is clearly listed under all the photos.  Since you have been to the photogs site I would make Getty an offer of a comparable price from the photogs site and refuse to go higher with out them showing past sales history that the images sells for that price.

Also I would make any offer contingent on Getty providing proof of their claim. They are sending you in invoice without showing they have the right to collect on the images in question. Getty will tell you that they will not provide proof except through disclosure (we'll show you when we sue you). If Getty continues to demand payment with out providing proof I would consider filing a complaint with the Washington State Attorney General's office. 

Think about it would you be willing to pay anyone who told you that you owed a large sum of money yet refused to make an account for the invoice then tells you I show you when I sue you now pay me?

I tried in good faith to negotiate with Getty and they refused and sent me the "Final Warning" letter so I filed complaints with the AG, BBB, FTC, my congressman and senator and never heard from them again after that.  You can read what was done here along with copies of all letters and complaints filed.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

Hope this helps, keep reading the forums and ask questions.  Keep us posted on what you do please.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I agree with Greg's course of action.

[northern CAL]

Greg, would you suggest to have Mr.Michelen's letter option as the method of contact to Getty or me personally?  I could do it but is that opening the troll doors of Getty on me?

norther CAL,

Thanks for providing the link, the copyright is clearly listed under all the photos.  Since you have been to the photogs site I would make Getty an offer of a comparable price from the photogs site and refuse to go higher with out them showing past sales history that the images sells for that price.

Also I would make any offer contingent on Getty providing proof of their claim. They are sending you in invoice without showing they have the right to collect on the images in question. Getty will tell you that they will not provide proof except through disclosure (we'll show you when we sue you). If Getty continues to demand payment with out providing proof I would consider filing a complaint with the Washington State Attorney General's office. 

Think about it would you be willing to pay anyone who told you that you owed a large sum of money yet refused to make an account for the invoice then tells you I show you when I sue you now pay me?

I tried in good faith to negotiate with Getty and they refused and sent me the "Final Warning" letter so I filed complaints with the AG, BBB, FTC, my congressman and senator and never heard from them again after that.  You can read what was done here along with copies of all letters and complaints filed.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

Hope this helps, keep reading the forums and ask questions.  Keep us posted on what you do please.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

It all depends on you and if you want the possibility of dealing with them for three years, however Getty tends to want to go after the easy prey and people who fight back are not what they want to deal with.

You case is a little different though since the site had the images clearly marked they were copyrighted and it was not one of the "Free" image sites.  In your case I am still in favor of reaching a reasonable settlement (what the artist would charge) but again, on the condition they provide proof.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914489/1-3-letter-to-getty-04-25-12-redacted

If you use Oscar's program Getty may no longer contact you but the results may be the same, Getty declining your offer and it sits at a stalemate until the 3 year SOL runs out. (I can not speak for Oscar or his program though).

If you do it yourself and it comes to filing complaints, be sure to let them know that if you hear from Mr. McCormack's office and his letter does not contain the requested proof you will file complaints against him with the same agencies plus a set to the Washington, Oregon and Idaho State Bar Associations where he is licensed to practice law.

Again, I did this and also sent follow letters after Getty responded outlining the areas of my complaint Getty failed to address, where they had their facts wrong and where they just outright lied.  After having to deal with this I have not heard a peep from them in almost two years now.

[lucia]

Getty Images has in their collection one of my Northern Spotted Owl photographs, an image that they have exclusive rights to for licensing and distribution. Getty has been known to aggressively go after unauthorized uses of photos they represent, and in fact under the terms of contract, even I cannot sell, license or otherwise distribute that image.

This sounds like the copyright owner does believe Getty has an exclusive contract and the copyright owner is abiding by it. (In the case where Getty sent me a takedown, there were numerous issues. One was that the copyright owner was clearly not interpreting the contract as exclusive and selling them on their own site. In fact, they were distributing the image for free. Which is... of course... how I came to hotlink it from a site that almost certainly interpreted "free image" to mean "free image"!)

Alas: The fact that the government uses something does not affect the copyright. Had the image been taken by a government employee during the course of employment, that would be different.

[Oscar Michelen]

Northern Cal - if you can settle for the amount we are talking about it's definitely better than retaining me to send the letter. The main benefit of the letter is if you do not settle they have to contact my office directly instead of sending more letters to you and then transferring your file to a third party collector like McCormack Law. But try the course of action Greg suggested and then keep us posted

[northern CAL]

Mr. Michelen,
Thank you for your response. In addition, thank everyone else for their contributions towards this topic.  Currently, I am opting to go with the letter writing program due to the potential beratement, harassing and intimidation tactics folks like Getty, and McCormack law conduct.  Therefore to avoid this I feel the letter program is best.  It is difficult for me to not just pick up the torch and go forward to try to rectify this in a logical and sensible matter with the other parties.  However, it is quite clear with the numerous post on this site that Getty and McCormick lack these traits and would rather siphon money from the small businesses of this great nation.   So once again thank you all for your time and help, I will be sure to keep folks informed on the progress once Mr. Michelens team/office is involved.