ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Documentarian on December 14, 2013, 08:13:27 PM
-
Hello all! Time for another story. Facts of the case:
* I run a tiny non-profit religious org that draws maybe $25K.
* I'm trained in research and know more than most people about copyright. Not as much as Oscar does, I'm sure, but I know fair use and such well enough to have written on the subject for a popular periodical.
* As such I was VERY careful looking for images to use -- if it wasn't listed as free to use, I didn't use it.
* Apparently not enough so! My demand letter identified two images on the website as theirs. That's out of hundreds I have. I posted the images some 5-6 years ago so I can't recall any details of exactly where they came from.
* They want about $2000 for them both. From what I've read so far here that's a mere pittance!
* So far finding commentary by the folks here useful. I'll keep reading and decide what to do soon. Unfortunately I did call their # and leave a "name, rank and serial number" message before I found this place. I think from here on though I'll just indicate all exchanges will be in writing.
Anyway, I'll keep a tab running here of what happens. I figure the more info, the merrier it will be, right? ;D (I definitely like the idea of asking them for the proof that they really own the images.)
-
Don't overly communicate with them as I have advised many others on this site. Take the image down state your position demand proof and then let it be.
-
Yep, I've been browsing an hour or so and seen that's the route to go. I took the images down within an hour of getting the letter from my mailbox...and will use what I've learned here to compose something to state position, demand proof...then let it be.
You're a genius, Oscar. Bless you!
-
This is where you went wrong - " if it wasn't listed as free to use, I didn't use it." there are literally 1000's of site offering "free" images..the problem lies in where these images originate from..always remember.. "there is no such thing as free" and "if it appears to good to be true, it probably isn't". I don't doubt your statement about knowing about fair use, but it is a very grey area, and one I would never depend on solely.
-
Indeed so. It's a shame paranoia is the rule of the day. Keen's Web 2.0 is built for it.
-
I have a technical question about participating in the defense letter program, which I may do.
Instructions are to scan the letter from Getty and email it. What's the preferred file format for doing that? JPG or some other? And should I resize the files? I scanned the pages for my own reference, and the sizes are 3400 x 4679 pixels each. With 10 pages of letter, that'd be a monster in anyone's inbox.
-
I would scan them into an adobe format.
-
yeah pdf format is best...
-
OK, thanks, guys. I know someone who can help me with that.
-
Okay, progress report: They finally returned my call...I told them, "I just want you to know that I removed the images, and anything further I have to say will be said in writing." The rep said OK, thanked me for my time, and that was it. Much simpler than I expected.
I have material prepped to join the Letter program and will probably do so before too long. Make 'em wonder. ;D
-
Smart move, thanks for the update. :)
-
Well here I am again! I got Letter #2 this week, so after I get someone to convert the stuff to PDF, I'll be in touch with Oscar sometime after next weekend. Would be sooner, but I have a conference to attend all next week.
One rather funny and nervy difference in the 2nd letter...which I assume some here have seen before...they are now offering to "help" me find replacement images by giving me a code for 5 free images from "Thinkstock."
Now that's sure a lot of nerve. Demand $1800 like a bunch of bullies, then offer to give me a pat on the head. :o
Well ya know what? I did need some stock footage for a project this week...and I went to their competition!
Anyway, be talking to your office soon, Oscar. Thanks again for being there!!
-
Hello everyone!
It's been a long time since I posted here, I know. But the time gap is a factor in this new report.
After I called on Oscar to work his magic with Getty, I never heard from them again. I'm posting now because I've heard from "Superstock". I checked the forum and see this is not new in itself, but here's what curious.
First, the extortion letter wasn't a letter, but an email, complete with a link to a Paypal page so you could pay your settlement. (I'm offered a 20% discount if I pay within 10 days -- very generous!)
Second, as seen in this thread, I took down all graphics from my website about a year a half ago. They provided the typical screenshot, but that screenshot had to have been taken before December 2013. So, from what I understand here, the SOL period was already half over by the time they sent this demand email.
Thanks to Oscar, I know better how to manage this now. But this seems to suggest that they're so backlogged with these scams that it takes a long time for them to process them. I wonder if its even possible that the screenshot was taken more than three years ago.
Oh yes, for the record...it was just one image, and the demand amount was $660.00, before the "discount".
-
The Statute of Limitations begins on the date that they discover the image mis-appropriation. If you can prove that they discovered it in 2013, then you are correct that you are more than half-way through the statute period.
I had Getty come at me in 2012 for images that were posted in 2005. In my mind, my statute expired 3 years after I received their first letter in 2012 because that is the earliest date I could prove that they knew of the mis-appropriation.
-
I'm not sure I can prove I removed the image in December 2013; but I can absolutely prove that their screenshot is older than February 2014. At that time I did a total redesign of the website, and all my html addresses were forwarded to php addresses. Their screenshot of the listed URL would have been impossible to make after that.
Earlier in this thread Oscar said, "demand proof". If they keep at it, perhaps the first proof I'll demand is the date of the screenshot. (For right now though...I have no plan to acknowledge it at all.)
-
I agree with not acknowledging for the time being.
It is possible they may have gotten the screen shot using waybackmachine.org. I am not certain about the legality of their pressing a case discovered this way. After all, if they find the image on another machine that says you were hosting it at some point in the past, they really haven't found you hosting it.
Maybe someone else can speak to this point.
-
I'd be interested in the answer to that too. (Though it won't apply to me...I made it so my material can't be archived by Wayback.)
-
Keep in mind, that a bot is used in finding offending images, so even if you redesigned the site, and possibly removed images from pages, if the directory where the images were uploaded remained on the server, those images would be found ( unless the directory was password protected).. For example if you are running a wordpress, joomla or other CMS, when you remove an image from a page or post, the images still remains in the library or upload directory. So stating that you removed images, could be incorrect.
-
I deleted the images from the website server itself.
-
So! Now I have a print version of the demand letter that was mailed at what seems to have been about the same time I got the email...the return address goes to these guys:
http://www.corporationwiki.com/New-York/New-York/digitaltoprint-inc/56379334.aspx
Nothing new in the print letter, but I realized that their screenshot does have a date on it. They took a shot of the entire screen of a Microsoft Windows setup, and the date is down in the right bottom corner. Now I can see that their date of discovery was as early as October 2013. That means the SOL is more than half over already.
It'll be ignored like the other, but from all I've read here it seems a little odd that they'd let anyone get any hint of the date of discovery.
-
Got letter #2....only note of interest is that they say they're "willing to offer" another 10 day period to pay and that failure "may result in legal escalation". So just the usual shtick for now.
-
And now we have letter #3! This time is says failure to pay "will result in escalation to our legal representatives and the possibility of legal action being commenced...." Yada yada. So I'll probably get the Robby Cook letter soon.
For certain reasons I won't get into, if I get the Cook letter, I'm debating whether I'll respond with a "$100 take it or leave it, provided you can show you own the copyright" response of the kind some here have discussed...or whether I'll spring for a second letter from Oscar, or just keep ignoring them. But something else occurred to me, a question maybe someone has addressed here before, but I can't find it in a search.
Given the small amounts they're demanding...why don't Getty and Superstock go after people in small claims court?
Is it maybe because in small claims, you're responsible for collecting the judgment yourself?
-
1. copyright infringement is a federal issue, hence you can't bring it to small claims court.
2. you stated the option of a second letter from Oscar...Are you saying Oscar sent a letter already on your behalf?? IF so they are bound BY LAW to not contact you, they MUST go through your attorney ( Oscar if he sent a first letter).
3. IF you care to respond, I would make it short and sweet. something along the lines of. " my attorney has already responded to your request, I will be forwarding this contact by your firm to the state bar association...yada, yada, yada..
-
1. Great, thanks!
2, 3. Sorry for the confusion. Oscar did a letter for me for Getty late in 2013. It shut them up good. Now I'm dealing with Superstock.