ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: bondnj on December 10, 2012, 01:42:32 PM
-
After receiving two letters from Getty threatening payment for a single image I subsequently removed from our website, I sent them a certified receipt letter asking for - proof of registration, signed paperwork from the artist transferring copyright, sales records associated with the image and date of alleged infringement. They provided none of the above.
Here's their latest response which arrived today via FedEx to the issue of registration:
"Copyright exists the moment a photograph is created and copyright registration is not a requirement of copyright ownership. Getty has contracts with contributing photographers who are the copyright holders. The contributor agreement contains representations and warranties that the contributor is the sole copyright owner. Consequently Getty does not require contributors to provide Getty with certificates of registration and leaves the option of copyright registration to the individual photographer. Due to confidentiality concerns, Getty would not provide copies of our contributor contracts at this stage of claim.
Under the USCA, actual damages are recoverable regardless of registration. Getty is currently only requesting actual damages in settlement of this matter. Therefore, copyright registrations are irrelevant at this stage".
What the heck is the USCA? And how does much of what they say square with the many posts on this wonderful site? It sounds as if they believe the issue of registration is not important. Any suggestions of how to proceed???
-
USCA = United States Copyright Act.
Yes they are correct that registration is not required...where they are failing here is to PROVE they have this right/contract with the artist ( signed by both) and they also fail to mention that the penalty could be as low as 200.00... it is on them to PROVE their case, not you, nor do you have to help them in any way shape or form..hell they were"selling" images on their site that were in the public domain for crying out loud..
don't buy into theur BS, and anything you request is relevant , whether they agree or not...
-
Robert is right, anything you ask of them is relevant as they are presenting you with an invoice yet refusing to show where and how they are arriving at the sum or even if legally they are able to ask for these damages. I would be asking for the following things:
1) I need to see verification that the image was filed with the U.S. Copyright Office
2) Verification that the copyright is either for the individual image or a group of images.
3) I need a copy of the signed contract, assignment or other documentation between Getty Images and the artist transferring copyright and giving you exclusive rights to the image as you havestated in your letter.
4) Sales history and records of this image and prices received for the image.
I would tell them that if they do not provide you with this proof then you consider what they are doing as legalized extortion and you will file complaints with the Washington state Attorney General's office, the Better Business Bureau and other agencies. Do not make this threat though in less you are actually willing to carry it out.
Good luck and please let us know what you decide to do and keep us posted as to your progress.
-
I agree that you should follow Greg and Robert's advice. This letter's tactics are pretty interesting.
"Copyright exists the moment a photograph is created and copyright registration is not a requirement of copyright ownership.This is a true statement.
Getty has contracts with contributing photographers who are the copyright holders. This might be true. It seems like it should be true in general. Is it true about the images they allege you mis-appropriated? Hard to say without proof. If they want payment, they should be willing to document why.
The contributor agreement contains representations and warranties that the contributor is the sole copyright owner. Representations and warranties in an agreement between a photographer and Getty should mean nothing to you. They should have to prove this to you.
Consequently Getty does not require contributors to provide Getty with certificates of registration and leaves the option of copyright registration to the individual photographer. It's great that Getty is so lazy as to not require proof. Since it is you they are asking for money, your policy should be a bit stricter that this. PROVE IT!
Due to confidentiality concerns, Getty would not provide copies of our contributor contracts at this stage of claim. Due to financial concerns, you should not provide them any money at this stage of the claim. That is all it is a claim. And they need to substantiate it to you. If not, they will eventually need to substantiate it to a judge.
Under the USCA, actual damages are recoverable regardless of registration. Another true statement
Getty is currently only requesting actual damages in settlement of this matter. Very misleading this. They have done nothing to substantiate their actual damages. In fact, they may have refused to.
Therefore, copyright registrations are irrelevant at this stage".Perhaps they are irrelevant to them, not you.
There are two completely true statements in there surrounded by a bunch of stuff that they make sound a lot truer than it might be, in your eyes.
-
Stinger, you will see Getty through this out from time to time as it is one of their stock answers and runaround is that they give you. I first remember seeing it back in June as Robert posted a letter forwarded to him from Copyright Compliance Specialist Nancy Monson.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-interesting-message-from-a-getty-'copyright-compliance-specialist-'/
I also use this quotation as an argument in my defense in my complaint letters filed against Getty with various authorities. I attacked it from a two-pronged approach showing with this statement that Getty does not even know if the artist have bothered to register the images and through in the Advernet case where was determined Getty had no right to collect any monies as there was issues with the registration on all of the images.
It all comes down to just the scare tactics Getty uses to try to frighten people into paying. Unfortunately it works as Getty has adopted this is their business model.
I agree that you should follow Greg and Robert's advice. This letter's tactics are pretty interesting.
"Copyright exists the moment a photograph is created and copyright registration is not a requirement of copyright ownership.This is a true statement.
Getty has contracts with contributing photographers who are the copyright holders. This might be true. It seems like it should be true in general. Is it true about the images they allege you mis-appropriated? Hard to say without proof. If they want payment, they should be willing to document why.
The contributor agreement contains representations and warranties that the contributor is the sole copyright owner. Representations and warranties in an agreement between a photographer and Getty should mean nothing to you. They should have to prove this to you.
Consequently Getty does not require contributors to provide Getty with certificates of registration and leaves the option of copyright registration to the individual photographer. It's great that Getty is so lazy as to not require proof. Since it is you they are asking for money, your policy should be a bit stricter that this. PROVE IT!
Due to confidentiality concerns, Getty would not provide copies of our contributor contracts at this stage of claim. Due to financial concerns, you should not provide them any money at this stage of the claim. That is all it is a claim. And they need to substantiate it to you. If not, they will eventually need to substantiate it to a judge.
Under the USCA, actual damages are recoverable regardless of registration. Another true statement
Getty is currently only requesting actual damages in settlement of this matter. Very misleading this. They have done nothing to substantiate their actual damages. In fact, they may have refused to.
Therefore, copyright registrations are irrelevant at this stage".Perhaps they are irrelevant to them, not you.
There are two completely true statements in there surrounded by a bunch of stuff that they make sound a lot truer than it might be, in your eyes.
-
To my friends in the struggle, your timely and solid advice are invaluable and I thank you - this is really helpful! I'll wait and see what their next move is before I have to respond and will keep you and the forum updated.
-Tony
-
Stay strong and remember you are not alone..
-
Funny, After reading the new posts I just looked up the photographer name on the US Copyright Office website and there are no photo registrations under his name!! I should add that I had also removed the image off of our website after the initial notice but didn't make Getty aware of this in my communications. (a bad thing??)
All of this combined with the fact that the image in question was legally purchased in 2002 from a firm likely bought later by Getty (though we are unable to find the paperwork), we're hopeful they will now be quiet. Stay tuned.....
-
They are not likely to "be quiet". They don't just go away.
You need to give them a reason to go away. Sometimes the threat of being willing to dig in your heels and fight is enough of a reason. Sometimes the thought that they may have more to lose than they have to gain is enough of a reason. But without a reason, they do not go away. They practice the Chinese water torture method of trolling. (No offense intended to the Chinese)
-
They are not likely to "be quiet". They don't just go away.
You need to give them a reason to go away. Sometimes the threat of being willing to dig in your heels and fight is enough of a reason. Sometimes the thought that they may have more to lose than they have to gain is enough of a reason. But without a reason, they do not go away. They practice the Chinese water torture method of trolling. (No offense intended to the Chinese)
I fully agree..therefore GIVE THEM A REASON TO GO AWAY, demonstrate to them you will not roll over, and that if they continue, you will become a large thorn in their side...check out what Greg Troy did...I think he made them go away!
-
I would be VERY surprised if anyone from the trolling industry has contacted Greg at all over the last few months. No one's going to poke that hornets nest.
:)
-
I can tell you that becoming a MAJOR thorn in their side does work. If you want to see what I did including letters between Getty and myself as well as my complaint letters, Getty’s replies and my responses to their replies you can find it here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/
They are not likely to "be quiet". They don't just go away.
You need to give them a reason to go away. Sometimes the threat of being willing to dig in your heels and fight is enough of a reason. Sometimes the thought that they may have more to lose than they have to gain is enough of a reason. But without a reason, they do not go away. They practice the Chinese water torture method of trolling. (No offense intended to the Chinese)
I fully agree..therefore GIVE THEM A REASON TO GO AWAY, demonstrate to them you will not roll over, and that if they continue, you will become a large thorn in their side...check out what Greg Troy did...I think he made them go away!
I think you are right Jerry, it will be eight months in January since I got the “Last chance before we escalate” letter which prompted my attack. They know I mean what I say and that I am prepared now to do far worse should I hear a peep out of them, NCS or Mr. McCormack.
I would be VERY surprised if anyone from the trolling industry has contacted Greg at all over the last few months. No one's going to poke that hornets nest.
:)
-
Greg this is a wonderful blueprint for fighting back and I will certainly utilize many of the tactics depending on what happens next...thanks for the share!!
-
You are very welcome. please keep us posted. :)
Greg this is a wonderful blueprint for fighting back and I will certainly utilize many of the tactics depending on what happens next...thanks for the share!!
-
All good and accurate advice. To our newest victim, the other reason why registration is important is that without registration at the time of infringement Getty cannot recoup their legal fees or other statutory penalties so the likelihood of being sued plummets.
-
Well the Forum was right! Almost 2 months to the day I received my demand letter from McCormack. The latest wrinkle is he is asking for twice the original amount! The letter now also includes 3 examples of copyright infringement but still offers NOTHING addressing the solid ELI points about copyright registration, photographer correspondence etc. With your encouragement and Greg Troy's excellent footprint I'm moving to Defcon 1 by sending letters to the Washington AG, BBB, Consumer Protection and Seattle Chamber. Do I give Getty and McCormack the courtesy of being cc'd on these complaints?
After reading all of your stories and with your solid research and successes you would think that these Madoff characters would just move on but I suspect they don't because the majority of folks don't fight back. Well I am ready to move forward, any final comments before I launch?
Many thanks,
Tony
-
Way to go Tony! You don't need to cc them as they will get a copy of the letter from the agencies you complain to.
Also don’t forget with McCormack to send complaint letters to the Washington, Oregon and Idaho State Bar associations.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State Bar Association
1325 Fourth Ave., Ste. 600
Seattle, WA 98101-2539
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
206-727-8207 | [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------
Idaho State Bar Association
PO Box 895
Boise, ID 83701
Phone: (208) 334-4500
Fax Numbers: (208) 334-4515 or (208) 334-2764
Idaho State Bar Association: http://www.isb.idaho.gov/
Contact Info: http://www.isb.idaho.gov/general/contactisb.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon State Bar Association
P.O. Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281-1935
Oregon State Bar Association: http://www.osbar.org/
Contact Info: http://www.osbar.org/contact.html
Phone:
(503) 620-0222 or Inside Oregon: 1 (800) 452-8260
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the Forum was right! Almost 2 months to the day I received my demand letter from McCormack. The latest wrinkle is he is asking for twice the original amount! The letter now also includes 3 examples of copyright infringement but still offers NOTHING addressing the solid ELI points about copyright registration, photographer correspondence etc. With your encouragement and Greg Troy's excellent footprint I'm moving to Defcon 1 by sending letters to the Washington AG, BBB, Consumer Protection and Seattle Chamber. Do I give Getty and McCormack the courtesy of being cc'd on these complaints?
After reading all of your stories and with your solid research and successes you would think that these Madoff characters would just move on but I suspect they don't because the majority of folks don't fight back. Well I am ready to move forward, any final comments before I launch?
Many thanks,
Tony
-
Yeah the "fee" doubles so Seattle copyright troll Timothy B. McCormack can take his share which in turn helps pay the salary of the "Mistress of Misrepresentation" Ashanti Taylor, who claims be a paralegal..As Oscar has pointed out you notice from Timothy McCormacks bio, he doesn't have many clients except for Getty, it's his bread and butter, much like Linda Ellis only has one poem to her name, hence she sends out many letters, and sells cheesy Chinese made garden gnomes.
-
Tony, it's much better to let McCormack be surprised to learn from the bar associations that yet another letter outlining his outrageous behavior with this payment extraction scheme has been filed against him. He likes to surprise us with his letters, so turn about is certainly fair play.
For details about my experiences with copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his paralegal "Mistress of Misrepresentation" Ashanti Taylor please read...
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/mccormack-office-is-in-potential-trouble-again-over-'last-chance'-letter/
-
Forum,
You have inspired me to write and fight! Thanks to all contributors but especially to Greg, BuddhaPi and Mulligan along of course with Oscar and Matt . In addition to the Bar associations I'm also thinking about separate letters to Michael Berens and Ken Armstrong 2012 Pulitzer winners at the Seattle Times for investigative reporting. The paper has a long history of good journalism and truth seeking and could in fact tell a larger story of just how the issue of photo copyright infringement really works and who the real winners and losers are. Shedding light on just how the McCormack/Getty relationship really works! Stay tuned.....
-
Forum,
You have inspired me to write and fight! Thanks to all contributors but especially to Greg, BuddhaPi and Mulligan along of course with Oscar and Matt . In addition to the Bar associations I'm also thinking about separate letters to Michael Berens and Ken Armstrong 2012 Pulitzer winners at the Seattle Times for investigative reporting. The paper has a long history of good journalism and truth seeking and could in fact tell a larger story of just how the issue of photo copyright infringement really works and who the real winners and losers are. Shedding light on just how the McCormack/Getty relationship really works! Stay tuned.....
Certainly a good idea with the newspaper, and a novel one, however I'd be willing to bet that that papers uses Getty images, and they won't go near it...just my 2 cents, but hell give it a shot!
-
Excellent! Please keep us posted as to what happens.
Forum,
You have inspired me to write and fight! Thanks to all contributors but especially to Greg, BuddhaPi and Mulligan along of course with Oscar and Matt . In addition to the Bar associations I'm also thinking about separate letters to Michael Berens and Ken Armstrong 2012 Pulitzer winners at the Seattle Times for investigative reporting. The paper has a long history of good journalism and truth seeking and could in fact tell a larger story of just how the issue of photo copyright infringement really works and who the real winners and losers are. Shedding light on just how the McCormack/Getty relationship really works! Stay tuned.....
-
Tony, great idea for the newspaper story. Let's see if there's any interest in serious investigative journalism at the Seattle Times. If they're not owned by Getty, they should give serious consideration to doing a series on the Getty/McCormack relationship and payment extraction scheme.
-
Tony, thanks for your post. It has inspired me.
I was in the process of drafting my response to my second letter from McCormack legal, as well as several bar associations to which the McCormack attorney belongs, when I saw your post. It reminded me that I should up the ante and also include the Washington AG, BBB, Consumer Protection and Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
What the heck, McCormack deserves all the recognition we can bestow upon them for their junk mail campaign.
If you generate any interest with the Seattle times, I would be happy to speak with them and throw some gasoline on that fire.
-
Stinger,
My letters go out this week and also include the 3 Bar associations for McCormack as I got all the addresses from the Forum. As for the Seattle Times they are a rarity of sort still owned by the Blethens family. Writing to their Pulitzer winners can't hurt and who knows may lead to something as I will convey the number of people being subjected to extortion. Happy as always for your support! Stay tuned....
-
Are there any samples of what the core content of the Bar associations letters are?
-
I haven't posted any examples because people tend to copy letters. They mean more if they have their own heart and soul. My letters are written but have yet to be posted.
The tone I am taking is something like, 'your association will be known, in part, by the reputations of it's members. Do you want people thinking of you like these extortionists? If you hang with thieves, you might be thought of as a thief. Straighten them out or throw them out - it's in your best interest to do one or the other.'
I find it a tricky road because there are politics involved in associations. I don't know what the prevailing politics are. But I think that if the letters should fall to a neutral party, I want to give them enough to think about, that maybe they might take some action.
Hope that helps. And I am all for additional ideas that I can incorporate in my letters.
-
Couldn't agree more with Stingers statement. We've actually seen replies from Getty images, stating, that the responce was clearly copied from ELI, doing research and drafting your own original letter, will go much further, and as stinger points out, one day somkeones letter might just be compelling enough to get a second look.
-
Appreciate the advice! Seattle AG, BBB and Chamber letters went out today. Will spend more time with the Associations...onward!!
-
Great job!
Appreciate the advice! Seattle AG, BBB and Chamber letters went out today. Will spend more time with the Associations...onward!!
-
Received responses today from the Seattle BBB that an official complaint has been filed. Also received a response back from Washington AG that also registered the complaint. It also included a standard response letter from Getty Images which included a note in which they state the following. "The Complainant characterizes our attempts to settle our copyright infringement claims as "extortion". However, our communications with them do not in any way constitute "wrongful threats" within the meaning of extortion statutes. On the contrary, a demand for payment in satisfaction of a legal claim is not wrongful conduct". No word just yet from the lawyer but when I do receive, the Association letters will go out. Onward!!
-
This is where I strongly disagree with them. It would not meet the definition of extortion if
1) The amount requested were reasonable
2) Proof of their claim were provided if not in the original letter then when requested.
3) Threats of legal escalation were not included with every letter especially when the recipient is trying in good faith to negotiate with them.
Sorry, to me this DOES meet the definition of extortion albeit legalized extortion.
Received responses today from the Seattle BBB that an official complaint has been filed. Also received a response back from Washington AG that also registered the complaint. It also included a standard response letter from Getty Images which included a note in which they state the following. "The Complainant characterizes our attempts to settle our copyright infringement claims as "extortion". However, our communications with them do not in any way constitute "wrongful threats" within the meaning of extortion statutes. On the contrary, a demand for payment in satisfaction of a legal claim is not wrongful conduct". No word just yet from the lawyer but when I do receive, the Association letters will go out. Onward!!
-
That is soooooo true, Greg.
-
All excellent points Greg!
-
Thank you Stinger and bondnj. In this is the whole premise behind my complaint letter campaign as it is my opinion that what Getty and the other stock photo companies are doing does meet the definition of extortion. I also feel that there letters meet the definition under Dakotah, Inc. v. Tomelleri, 1998 DSD 33 where the judge in his opinion gave the following warning to Tomelleri and his lawyer.
“On July 14, 1997, the president of Dakotah received a cease and desist letter from Tomelleri's Kansas attorney, which alleged that Dakotah was selling decorative pillows that infringed copyrights owned by Tomelerri and licensed to Stranger Creek. The letter also stated that Dakotah was subject to injunctive relief, damages and criminal prosecution. This Court must be very careful to treat all attorneys with courtesy and not launch missiles. The Court, however, finds a portion of the letter from the Kansas attorney to be frankly disturbing. No person, especially an attorney, should be even mentioning a possible criminal prosecution in an attempt to collect money in a civil dispute. Extortion is theft by threat if a person obtains property of another by threatening to accuse anyone of a criminal offense. This is not only the common law but is a statute in South Dakota. See SDCL 22-30A-4(2). It is also a specific grounds for disbarment in South Dakota.”
-
Also, if you repeatedly threaten civil lawsuits seeking sanctions etc, but never file them (and had no intention of filing them when you made the initial demand) then how sincere and reasonable are your demands?
-
Agreed, all these things they are doing in my opinion meet the definition of extortion, the artificial deadlines, failure to provide proof when requested to continue negotiations, threats of lawsuits. If they would adopt a new plan like that of Glen Carner people would leave them alone. Notice how he got hammered came around and asked questions then changed his ways and the last things said about him have been good job.
-
I received a letter from the Seattle BBB today with the same form letter response from Getty that they sent to the Washington AG. BBB is asking if I am satisfied with the response and I am in the process of crafting my response as I have a case number and will respond via email highlighting the many good points about extortion. Stay tuned......
-
Great work bondnj! Keep it up!
-
I would also add this definition of "Extortion" from the Wiki page on the subject:
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences.
I myself have often longed to act metaphorically and this site has given me that ability. Thank you ELI!
-
I'll second that!
I would also add this definition of "Extortion" from the Wiki page on the subject:
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences.
I myself have often longed to act metaphorically and this site has given me that ability. Thank you ELI!
-
Received two responses last week- the first is from BBB asking if I was satisfied with Getty's response. I replied no for the reasons previously noted (lack of proof, documentation etc..) they have now considered the matter closed but have noted that I was not satisfied with the response and it is now part of a permanent record. The second response was from the WA Attorney General in which McCormack provides a response to the complaint and attaches a web page photo from my website from 3 years ago (subsequently taken down last year) and reiterates that there is no extortion and restates their basic claim about copyright infringement. A new McCormack para legal (Kate) has now taken the lead but the script is the same. Interesting but nothing from the Seattle Chamber of Commerce as of yet. For now powder is still dry for the Bar associations and the press. Will advise as to what happens next...stay tuned....
-
Would you be willing to share your complaint letters with me and the responses. If you prefer I will redact personal information but I keep track of these type of complaints. If so my email address is [email protected].
Thank you and again, great job!
Received two responses last week- the first is from BBB asking if I was satisfied with Getty's response. I replied no for the reasons previously noted (lack of proof, documentation etc..) they have now considered the matter closed but have noted that I was not satisfied with the response and it is now part of a permanent record. The second response was from the WA Attorney General in which McCormack provides a response to the complaint and attaches a web page photo from my website from 3 years ago (subsequently taken down last year) and reiterates that there is no extortion and restates their basic claim about copyright infringement. A new McCormack para legal (Kate) has now taken the lead but the script is the same. Interesting but nothing from the Seattle Chamber of Commerce as of yet. For now powder is still dry for the Bar associations and the press. Will advise as to what happens next...stay tuned....
-
Greg,
I'll try and get the docs scanned this week and forward to you. Appreciate the follow up!
-
Greg,
Check your email for docs! :')
-
Good to hear...I filed mine with the WA State AG as well a couple of months ago against both Getty and McCormack. Unfortunately, CA responded that they do not deal with these types of issues and strictly on consumer/vendor relationship. Oh well, at least it's registered. McCormack responded with the same garbage rebutting my arguments as well. I have not filed with the BBB yet..might do that. Have not received a Getty letter in months. Next step will be the State Bar. We should start a petition or something lol.