Got My Getty Letter - Thank You For This Site

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

That is correct, it is claim and not a debt and once you tell NCS that and that you are dealing with Getty they have to leave you alone.  I too would be very interested in learning if anyone’s credit has been affected by this.  Great question.

I have planned for and am prepared for each step of the escalation.

So, those of us that have done our reading on here know this...
- it escalates to NCS
- it escalates to Tim McCormack
- it doesn't ever go to court

I know Getty hasn't ever gone to court over one image but my question is this...I think I saw somewhere deep in a post about this technically not being a bad debt but a claim so NCS can't collect once you point that out to them when it gets to that point.  Has anyone ever had their credit negatively affected because of not paying this??

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

There is no way, this would affect your credit ratings, if NCS were to continue harassing anybody, they would be in deep shit. As far as multiple letters, I would hope that anyone that recieved the first letter would be pro-active, in removing / replacing any other images that may be questionable. I would also guess that Getty would send all infringements at once, but that doesn't mean that one may get a Getty demand letter, and maybe a second letter from another stock agency like Masterfile.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I got my replay back from Getty to my request for all the documentation of the image and proof of contract and rights to the image.  The respectfully declined my settlement offer of 75.00, and course they declined to provide anything saying that they will provide that during discovery.  They provided me a link to the image on the Getty website and stated that this should be all the proof I need of their ownership and rights to the image.  They get one more letter from me restating I will not consider paying a penny without all the documentation requested and will not pay the ridiculous amount they are requesting.  I will tell them that they are presenting an invoice with no proof of its validity so nadda on any more discussion until I get my documentation.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

They provided me a link to the image on the Getty website and stated that this should be all the proof I need of their ownership and rights to the image. 

Well isn't that nice, they provided me with a screenshot of MY site with an image they claimed to own, even tho I have in my possesion the license agreement to use said image.. The only this proves is that the image is on their site, nothing more..stand your ground! and KeepFighting!!

[SoylentGreen]

This is hilarious.  That's their proof?
Anyway, they've given you an "out".  You don't have to pay anything.
I wouldn't write any more letters... dont waste your time on it.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

That is why I have to laugh when newbies spend so much time trying to figure out what to offer on the settlement.  Whether it's $50 or $200, it gets turned down. Once it's turned down, it's pretty much over.  Just pick a number and go.

This is hilarious.  That's their proof?
Anyway, they've given you an "out".  You don't have to pay anything.
I wouldn't write any more letters... dont waste your time on it.

S.G.

[nns4452]

Just wanted to share a link to the Copyrights office for the images registered by Getty Images:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?PAGE=sbSearch&SEQ=20120512183218&PID=EtaBOsHdrT3INKAu3x-VU4SpUwXM.

use the link above and search for "Getty Images" without the quotes, and use the Search By: Name (...)

There are only 165 entries in total which shows that most of the images Getty claims to have rights over are not registered.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

and to add to this, most of those that are registered were done so in bulk, as in a compilation, which apparently has it's own set of issues. Also just because Getty may work "exclusively" with an artist , doesn't always mean the have the "right to sue"..refer to the righthaven fiasco and see how far they went.

Just wanted to share a link to the Copyrights office for the images registered by Getty Images:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?PAGE=sbSearch&SEQ=20120512183218&PID=EtaBOsHdrT3INKAu3x-VU4SpUwXM.

use the link above and search for "Getty Images" without the quotes, and use the Search By: Name (...)

There are only 165 entries in total which shows that most of the images Getty claims to have rights over are not registered.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Don't worry I have plenty of fight in me, hopefully by the end of the three years they will be glad they don't have to deal with me anymore

They provided me a link to the image on the Getty website and stated that this should be all the proof I need of their ownership and rights to the image. 

Well isn't that nice, they provided me with a screenshot of MY site with an image they claimed to own, even tho I have in my possesion the license agreement to use said image.. The only this proves is that the image is on their site, nothing more..stand your ground! and KeepFighting!!

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I offered them 75 bucks and the only reason I even offered that is I read in the forums that if you should end up going to court it looks better if you made an attempt to settle.

That is why I have to laugh when newbies spend so much time trying to figure out what to offer on the settlement.  Whether it's $50 or $200, it gets turned down. Once it's turned down, it's pretty much over.  Just pick a number and go.

This is hilarious.  That's their proof?
Anyway, they've given you an "out".  You don't have to pay anything.
I wouldn't write any more letters... dont waste your time on it.

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

I think the copyright troll standard of proof is open to challenge, but unfortunately that would be a complex and expensive legal campaign.

Buddhapi's excellent parody of a copyright troll is a perfect example of how easily an image can be manipulated and how photorealistic the results can be. It's not rocket science, the tools available only require a good eye and a firm wrist for some tasks, and much of what looks difficult is nearly automatic, such as texture and lighting effects.

A skilled image retoucher can take an image of anyone and make a very convincing image putting that person at the scene of a crime. A very skilled image retoucher can make it nearly impossible to detect the manipulation. This kind of manipulation takes place everyday in the media and sometimes they even get caught making mistakes:

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11037917-russian-orthodox-church-apologizes-for-photoshopping-patriarchs-expensive-watch?lite

My point is that in this day and age, I don't think photography or even video constitute irrefutable evidence of anything. The little thumbnails they send with the extortion letters, to me, are downright laughable as proof of anything. I could return a "screen capture" of the trolls' home page stuffed with porn and Getty images in a perfect visual tribute to copyright trolling.

This is why they pick the low-hanging fruit that has enough money to settle and avoid the heavyweights who will challenge them with legal teams of their own and eat their lunch in court. They also avoid the individual graphic designers because they're too much effort for what they probably consider a low rate of return. They prefer going after the client who is much more likely to be anchored to a physical location and have more capital and, as the letter cynically suggests, may have business insurance to cover them for copyright trolling.

[SoylentGreen]

Just another quick comment here...

Once one of these trolls "lies" to you, you're pretty much off the hook as far as payment goes.
For example, Getty's "proof" of copyright ownership/registration was fraudulent when their "proof" consisted of a screenshot of their website.
That was the the stupidest thing that they could do.  They're "experts" in this field, and that's a solid attempt to defraud someone.
That gives one proper cause NOT to pay.  They totally blew it.

S.G.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I agree with you but they did not send a screenshot, they sent a link to the image on their site that I could type into my browser which amounts to the same thing.  This all started because I found the image on another site where this person labeled it with their name and a title for the pic making it appear to be theirs and placed it in a public folder. I thought I was being careful not to use any copyrighted images (which I still don't know that I did as they have not provided proof of ownership/copyright yet).  If it would not bring the person that owns the other site into this merry-go-round I would send Getty the screen shots of this site I have to back my case and tell them, you don't own this picture, this person does, here's the link to the site as proof, it has their name on it you are infringing on them.

I wonder if the Getty rep would be smart enough to figure out my reply if instead of sending them one final letter I just sent them a box with rock salt and a wooden mallet? I can at least dream of doing sending it though.

Just another quick comment here...

Once one of these trolls "lies" to you, you're pretty much off the hook as far as payment goes.
For example, Getty's "proof" of copyright ownership/registration was fraudulent when their "proof" consisted of a screenshot of their website.
That was the the stupidest thing that they could do.  They're "experts" in this field, and that's a solid attempt to defraud someone.
That gives one proper cause NOT to pay.  They totally blew it.

S.G.

[SoylentGreen]

The less that you say, the better from this point on.
The person that you refer to could have licensed the image from Getty.
All these letters that people want to write aren't always such a good idea.
Let's just hope that a giant turd falls from the sky one day and crushes Getty.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Agreed, they could have licensed it from Getty, or they may have done exactly what you did, grabbed it from another site, that may have licensed it, which makes 2 infringements..and if i wanted to play devils' advocate I could say for example that the image you used doestn't belong to getty, and you used it, it's still infringement somewhere..copyright is created upon the time the image is created.. I see so many fall into this, people say "well xxx company gave me permission to use it.." or "there was no watermark or cute little c symbol" "it did not say copyright in the google image search"..etc...bottom line if you did not create the image, someone somewhere owns it...