Getty Settlement Purposes Only Letter - 3rd Letter

[bondnj]

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???

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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...

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

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.

[stinger]

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.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

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.

[bondnj]

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

[mdc2727]

Stay strong and remember you are not alone..

[bondnj]

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.....

[stinger]

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)

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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!

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

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 Troy (KeepFighting)]

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.

[bondnj]

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!!

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

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!!

[Oscar Michelen]

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.