ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: jbigfoot on July 18, 2013, 04:24:52 AM
-
Summary: Getty charged me $1065 for a single image; I responded with a generous 'best offer' (I'm a former union steward) of $75 and a demand to know how they arrived at their figure.
So I got an e-mail from Nancy M. today, rejecting my offer and coming back with this: "A breakdown of line by line items would be made available at the time of trial should this progress to that point" and "Getty Images needs to recover the lost licensing fees for payment to the photographer, along with costs of enforcement. Had the infringement not occurred, Getty Images would not have had to deploy the additional resources needed to pursue this matter with respect to the infringing website. Both issues of settlement must be accomplished on or before July 25, 2013."
They're also seeking proof that I had a license. What I'm tempted to do is tell them that the picture I posted (gag picture of polar bear + penguins) is all over the 'net as 'Creative Commons' but the picture they own is of the polar bear alone. I know it won't go far, but it would satisfy me.
Since I have an attitude problem, I'm also tempted to throw down the gauntlet and dare them to take me to court (in so many words). Assuming the worst, and they throw the book at me, what are the costs?
-
Getty Images Copyright Specialist Nancy Moron...er Monson must live in a third world communist country...She expects you to prove your innocence...sorry Nancy, maybe Lisa Wilmer never explained to her that here in the states one is until proven guilty, and it is up to them to prove that.. If they take you to court, the judge would determine what it would cost you...chances are good that the image is not registered, so they could not go after the entire shabang.. a reasonable judge would probably award the minimum of 200.00 and this jerk-off Nancy Monson knows this..
-
This is one of the biggest problems we have with GI, what other business after presenting someone with a bill and asked to provide a break down of the charges proving the amount owed can tell you they we only provide it when we sue you, now pay us.
-
If you're combative and like to mess with people who are trying to extort money from you, there are all kinds of ways of telling Getty to fuk off (apologies to that Fox News Station and Asiana Airlines) without actually telling them to fuk off...
1) You can play idiot and pepper them endlessly with questions, both relevant and totally off the wall.
2) You can play lawyer and cite all kinds of cases (both relevant and totally off the wall) to "prove" you haven't infringed.
3) You can play indigent and tell your life story... beginning with your aging parent's social security check that barely covers payment for turkey necks when they're on sale at the local grocery to the day you lost your hands in a horrible accident with the ironing machine at the dry cleaners where you work and how the owner of the business refused to pay any compensation and that now you spend six days sitting on a curb holding a cup with your bare toes and looking to the good will of passers-by to contribute a little something. Point out that you give day seven to quiet praise of the Lord in thanks for still being alive
4) You can play madman and reply with long diatribes about alien visitations where you're taken on board great star ships where pale white creatures with huge heads and tiny slitted eyes cut into your body, looking for copyright images of giraffes and piglets.
5) You can write a simple letter saying you will not pay a dime without proof of their right to demand money. Sample letters are all over this forum. Then each time you hear back from them, send them another copy of the same letter. Eventually, they and their copyright trolling lawyers and collection agents like Timothy B. McCormack will realize you're not low hanging fruit, and they'll leave you alone.
In my case, if I had my experience to do over again, I would use all five of the options above and have a great deal of fun with these creepy trolls who think they can squeeze free money out of people by scaring the shit out of them.
The bottom line is that in cases involving one image the chances of getting sued are below slim and none. So have some fun if that's your nature. If you're not aggressive and pissed off and out for a bit of payback, use Option 5 above and keep things simple and go on with your life.
If you really want peace of mind and no more contact from Getty and its cohorts, use Oscar's letter program.
-
I love reading your stuff Mulligan :)
-
I'm officially adopting Mulligan as my dad...since i have none, sorry Mulligan you and the missus are stuck with me. One day i'd actually like to see a bit of Mulligans real writings..(hint, hint) He's much like my favorite authors Tim Dorsey and Carl Hiassen, you just never know what is coming next..
-
I love reading your stuff Mulligan :)
Hear hear! Standing 0!
8)
-
I love reading your stuff Mulligan :)
Hear hear! Standing 0!
8)
Well, well, well...look who appeared!!
-
Gosh, I do believe I'm blushing.
Oops, no.
Actually, I think I shit my pants.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words, my ELI friends and newly adopted son... each of you made me feel good today.
-
Hear hear! Standing 0!
8)
Well, well, well...look who appeared!!
I'm still lurking don't you worry! Look what you did too....got Mulligan shitting his pants again!
8)
-
Hear hear! Standing 0!
8)
Well, well, well...look who appeared!!
I'm still lurking don't you worry! Look what you did too....got Mulligan shitting his pants again!
8)
If he only knew what he was getting into with me, he would probably really shit his pants..I can be a handful at times!
-
Hello,
1. I would like to thank Matthew Chan for all the great work he started and is continuing to do in regards to the extortion letters. His fight and his courage gives me strength not only in regards to the Getty issue but in life general. Thank you Matthew. Keep up the fight!
2. I would like to thank all the supporters and all of you that are supporting Matthew, Oscar, and this fight against the trolls!
3. Thank you for such great informational site and all of the info posted. Love it!
-
Mulligan, I like your style! Here's a joke you may get a kick out of:
Chief of Staff: Mr. President, I have some good news and I have some bad news. The bad news is, the Martians have landed and their weapons are superior to ours.
President: Then what's the good news!?!?
CoS: They eat Getty trolls and piss gasoline.
OK. Enough of my wit.
Seriously -- I haven't decided how I'm going to respond to this. In looking at her letter again, she wasn't as nasty as she could have been; I'm sure I've seen (or dealt) worse in my lifetime. Given this, and the fact that any communication can be used in court, I'm inclined to be decent until it's time to not be decent.
I don't know whether this particular image is 'registered' or not but the licensing is crystal clear. I traced the original picture back to the photographer's web site; and, he clearly specifies that GI is his licensing rep. My only justification would be that several web sites offer it under the creative commons license -- which as we all know doesn't work with them.
Judging by what I was able to determine with their calculator, I would have paid about half of what they're charging me to license this image. With a $200 minimum fine, I just may roll the dice and see if they'll haul me into court over this single item. They didn't come back with a counter offer so perhaps fines, court costs, etc., will be less than $1,065. But I'm going to get very busy soon and don't have a lot of time to play games with them.
-
plan on playing for 3 years...thats how long the game lasts..
-
Depending on how aggressive you want to be I was able to make them go away after 3 months. I waited until they threatened to send it to their legal dept. I have it all documented and you can read the letters between Getty and me as well as the complaints I filed in this thread.
This does take a lot of work and you have to follow through.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/
-
Greg, always glad to see a fellow Ohioan prevail! I read a good portion of your journey. I'm still going to have to think this one through. Whatever I decide, I'm sure it will involve letting others know about GI's tactics.
-
Glad to see you will join in the fight. Please keep us posted as to what you decide and how it goes.
-
Will do.
I thought about this all weekend. I kept feeling like there was something I was missing...something so obvious it's right in front of me. Then it finally hit me: the picture GI licenses is a sleeping polar bear and the image they busted me on is that sleeping polar bear with two added penguin characters. So...how do I know that the person who added those penguins didn't own the rights to the original picture and have the right to distribute it?
-
BTW, I recall reading in a post that somebody was working on buying Getty Images. What is this company that would want to buy a basket of rattlesnakes?
-
Pic-Scout can detect even a small portion of an image even if items are added, removed or just a tiny portion of a picture is taken and used in another picture.
Getty was sold to the Carlyle Group last year.
-
Pic-Scout can detect even a small portion of an image even if items are added, removed or just a tiny portion of a picture is taken and used in another picture.
I did a TinEye search and got over a thousand hits on my wayward image, in several derivatives. I find it ironic that the one image that DIDN'T come up was the original Geeezer photo upon which mine is based!
I replied to Nancy's letter, challenging their right to ownership, speculating that the person who added the penguins and cymbals perhaps purchased the original licensed picture.
Getty was sold to the Carlyle Group last year.
[/quote]
Has there been any sign that they're going to change these policies?
BTW, I found Nancy's profile on Facebook. She doesn't have any pictures posted but I found a couple of shots of what could be her female blood relatives. Not bad looking! Maybe I'll ask her out after this is settled.
-
I think you should share Nancy's profile link, she deserves any attention we can give her!
-
I think you should share Nancy's profile link, she deserves any attention we can give her!
https://www.facebook.com/nancy.monson.98
Note that she makes mention of the Seattle weather.
Got another reply from her today, where she -- nicely and without additional or repeated threats -- explained why Getty owns the rights to the derivative image. Reading between the lines, it seems that GI is going after commercial sites and giving blog-type sites a pass. Little by little, their business model is becoming clearer.
I've decided to let them drag my ass into court, if this is what they really want to do. I'm building a file showing how this image is being offered as Creative Commons, and in one instance somebody else put their name on it. But none of my searches have found a single mention of the original creator (Wayne Bilenduke) or GI.
-
I really would not engage her anymore than necessary, you will not convince her of the error of her employer's ways.
-
I really would not engage her anymore than necessary, you will not convince her of the error of her employer's ways.
I'm not. I have no intention of contacting her (or harassing her) on FB or anywhere else. I'll keep this in the ring.
Some people call it 'divine justice' and others call it 'karma'. Either way, it has a way of sneaking up on you.