ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: hayuitsme on October 09, 2012, 09:02:08 PM
-
Hi Everyone,
I am new here, and like everyone else, got the dreaded demand letter.
I am pretty sure, but can't find old records (2007) to prove I purchased the image from another site. I have never stolen images for use on a clients site.
(I know better as I have heard of this type of extortion by getty before)
In my situation it was ONE image and it was removed immediately upon receipt of the notice.
I am located in Canada.
It really doesn't seem logical for them to go through all this for a single image.
Is anyone aware of how many people have been sued for use of one image, on a small business site?
Thanks for your input
Scott
-
at this time the number is ZERO.
-
Agreed, to my knowlege at this time no one has ever been sued over the use of a single image. The burden of proof is on them not you to prove you do not have rights to the image. I would send them a letter stating you had purchased the image and you consider the matter closed.
Read the fours and there is a lot of great infoumation contained here. Please keep us posted.
-
Thank you Robert & Greg.
If and when they decided to sue, would there be an ability to settle prior to court, without any extra costs?
On the courthouse steps as they say.
Thanks again for any help.
-
Yes, you could negotiate and settle at the last minute, if you needed to.
Getty filed a couple of lawsuits in Canada many years ago.
I don't think that we'll see that again in the near future, especially about one image.
S.G.
-
settling is always an option, as is filing a counter-suit...they won't sue over 1 image, it's very likely that the image isn't even registered, and if it is it might not be registered properly, they would not make any money by suing you, it would cost them money..they just like to blow smoke out of their pie holes..They will most likely send you a few letters, and then they will let that asshole Timothy McCormack send you a letter ( see I can and will call the copyright cow an asshole, a. because I'm cranky today, and b. I'm entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack is an asshole!...there I said it again)...Timmy can't sue you either, he can only harass you. Beside he has very little if any litigation experience, according to his own blog..
Just so you all know I'm on day 6 of no smoking, hence the crankiness, God help whichever troll raises their ugly heads for the next few days, there's no telling how I might react, but i'm fairly certain it won't be pretty..
-
Hi, I'm in a similar situation. The image in question I had thought was purchased by one of my designers 10 yrs ago. As we have bought some images from Getty in the past. We used it for a longtime about 5 years. When we joined the Chamber of Commerce we used it as a thumbnail for our business listing. Now the Chamber of Commerce is being sued for the image I used years ago. They have never came after me for this. This is a small non-profit chamber and just so happens to be my client. They are looking for $1200. This letter from the Attorney came in today. The chamber BOD are freaking out. Any advice?
-
Lisa, they are NOT suing the chamber, they may be threatening to sue or alluding that they MAY sue, but unless the chamber was served properly, they are NOT being sued..Unfortunately the image in question is on the chambers site, so they are on the hook, and Getty won't want to deal with you..you have several options, if it were me, I would request the chamber hire Oscar services and then you credit back the chamber as they are your client....or you can have the chamber shove Jonathan's Kleins ( ceo of getty) video of him stating they don't pursue non-profits, or site thats make no money..but that will fall on deaf ears..it all falls on deaf ears...they just want your money or anybody's money, cause they can sell images.
-
I feel terrible about this. We are talking over 5 yrs ago. And the image was removed immediately. We are a husband and wife business just making enough to raise our kids, and the chamber is a small 70 member non-profit. We will have to pay this, I wouldn't ask them too. And I don't think I have any extra to hire someone.
-
Robert how can I get a hold of that video? Thanks!
-
@ Lisa, you'd be silly to pay the full amount, look into Oscars letter program, for 195.00 you can make it go away for the most part.. But like I sai the chamber will have to retain Oscar and you will need to make arrangements to credit it back or pay it back to the chamber.. I'll hvae to search out the video...but now that I think about it a bit more, it may not apply to them, even tho they are "non-profit" doesn't mean they aren't making money and they most likely are making money in some capacity..
-
@Lisa I believe that this is the video Robert was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T0mSYjL44n0
I concur with Robert but there is no way I would pay them the full amount they are asking for, I understand you are caught in the middle and I think in your situation Oscar's program might be a very good fit for you. I hope this video helps and please keep us posted as to your situation.
-
@Lisa, This post will explain why it is unlikely that they will ever sue your client.
http://performancing.com/5-reasons-you-shouldnt-fear-being-sued-too-much/ (http://performancing.com/5-reasons-you-shouldnt-fear-being-sued-too-much/)
But they can harass them for three years. That is why Oscar's letter program can be a good option. It takes you and your client out of the loop of the harassing letters, emails, and phone calls. You need to decide if you would rather fight, or hire someone to fight.
To my knowledge, no one who has ever taken Oscar up on his letter program has ever had a judgement won against them.
The other thing you should be aware of is that it appears to many on this forum that Getty has various ways of seeding the market with images that appear copyright free, and then comes back and threatens lawsuits to those that fall for the seeding.
There is lots of information in these forums. And there are some very good people willing to help. You need to determine what works best for you in terms of supporting your client's interests.
-
Ok thank you all for your help.
I'll let you know where things go.
Keep up the great work folks, you helped calm some of my concerns.
Have a great day
Scott
-
Ok thank you all for your help.
I'll let you know where things go.
Keep up the great work folks, you helped calm some of my concerns.
Have a great day
Scott
Hi Everybody,
Scott, you are not the only one. I have also been sued in Canada for one image only and naturally a mistake like so many of us. What I was wondering: Who decides what penalty we have to pay? Their charges out outrageous to say the least.
Thanks everybody for all of the info. Will help me enormously:)
Silvia
-
Hi Everybody,
Scott, you are not the only one. I have also been sued in Canada for one image only and naturally a mistake like so many of us. What I was wondering: Who decides what penalty we have to pay? Their charges out outrageous to say the least.
Thanks everybody for all of the info. Will help me enormously:)
Silvia
Silvia, have you actually been sued??? Have you been properly served official court documents stating such?? Or did you just receive a demand letter? There is a huge difference, it's important that when we post we try to be as accurate as possible. To answer your question greatly depends on my questions..are you in fact being sued??
-
Silvia, can you give us more information please. Who sent you this letter, is it Getty Images? Also are you sure you are being sued? These letters are designed to give the appearance of an emanate lawsuit, this is the way companies like Getty operate by using fear to get people to pay to make the threat go away.
Please let us know, thanks.
Ok thank you all for your help.
I'll let you know where things go.
Keep up the great work folks, you helped calm some of my concerns.
Have a great day
Scott
Hi Everybody,
Scott, you are not the only one. I have also been sued in Canada for one image only and naturally a mistake like so many of us. What I was wondering: Who decides what penalty we have to pay? Their charges out outrageous to say the least.
Thanks everybody for all of the info. Will help me enormously:)
Silvia
-
As far as I know, NO ONE has been sued over one stinking low-resolution image. Just because someone gets an extortion letter does NOT mean that is a lawsuit. Once again, we appear to have the legally ignorant making statements that are incorrect.
Someone would have to PROVE it to me. That means a legal complaint would have to be written, filed, paid for, AND served. Absent all of these steps, there is no lawsuit.
Lisa is looking to be rolled over by sheer ignorance here. She needs to get it together and just hire Oscar. She is nowhere qualified to advising anyone including the Chamber over this.
-
Apparently, Masterfile, has sued over a single image in Canada.
Probably just to send a message. These guys are vicious and desperate.
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_moreInfo_e.php?T-1469-10
They actually went after this poor chap pretty hard:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1469-10
Getty hasn't sued anybody in Canada in years. I don't see that changing.
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-529-08
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2264-07
S.G.
-
Keep in mind also that the one for copyright infringement was for a large number of pictures (over 20 I believe), and the other one was actually for trademark infringement.
Getty hasn't sued anybody in Canada in years. I don't see that changing.
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-529-08
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2264-07
S.G.
-
@ SG do you have anything else in regards to the single image lawsuit and Masterfail? Does Canada make court dockets public record?...
-
@SG Also do we know how the image was used? I could see them doing it if the image was used in a book or magazine say as opposed to just used the usual image on a webpage.
-
@buddhapi:
The "dockets" are public record. But, that's normally just a summary of procedures/decisions in the case.
The actual documents/evidence, etc are public record. But, they're only available for a nominal fee in person or by fax.
@Greg Troy
My understanding is that the person involved is a real estate agent, and it was used on a website.
This is one of the few cases wherein the actual image infringed upon is mentioned online.
For some reason, MF went after a few real estate agents around the same time.
---
These types of lawsuits are NOT very productive in and of themselves.
However, I think that MF wanted to transmit a message they practice zero tolerance.
Here's one wherein they sued over three images:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_moreInfo_e.php?T-1965-09
There's about 6 other cases in which they filed over 4 images.
It's not my intention to alarm readers of the forum; but, we always state the facts here.
In any case, such lawsuits are still very rare given the number of claims made by MF.
S.G.
-
Thank you for the information SG!
-
Thanks for the info and links, it seems we will be looking into Oscar's letter program, however The Chamber would like me contact him and take care of this. Is this possible? And Is it possible for there to be more costs other than the $195?
-
I could be wrong here, you should probably confirm this with his office, but I think in order for him to represent the chamber, someone from the chamber will have actually pay the fee, and you would need to re-imburse the chamber somehow.. the 195.00 covers the letter and one response if needed, there could always be additional charges if the case were to progress, but that would be discussed prior too..You're in good hands with Oscar, he is more than fair and he is certainly honest.
-
No, Robert, anyone can pay the fee as long as the end user agrees to the representation. The draft letter is usually sent for approval to the end user also. Lisa, There has never been an expense beyond the initial fee for the letter, because it has never gotten beyond that in a Getty claim over a single image (or two or three or fifteen). Ever. You should also spend some time looking at some of our videos to get educated about the letter defense program.
-
Thank you Oscar and Robert, I have known about this issue and your organization for several years. It is well known in my industry. This is such a small chamber ( 60 members) with no money. And the BOD are truly scared, this is why I recommended using your service. A unseasoned employee 8 years ago used this image. briefly, but none the less used it. I am authorized by the BOD to take care of this for them. I watched the videos Robert sent me and will be contacting the office through the link provided within a week to get this started. Thank you again for your advice gentleman.
-
I have just received a letter from Masterfile for one image. I recall getting the image from Google at one point but seeing no copyright information stated on it. I do plan on joining the letter program Oscar offers but does this include dealing with Masterfile or just Getty? They are demanding just shy of $2k for the one image and I can't afford to pay that. I am trying to read up as much as I can on this forum and Internet but I just want to thank you all for helping us who are in panic mode after getting these letters.
-
Oscar can handle Masterfail and has a lot of experience dealing with them.
I have just received a letter from Masterfile for one image. I recall getting the image from Google at one point but seeing no copyright information stated on it. I do plan on joining the letter program Oscar offers but does this include dealing with Masterfile or just Getty? They are demanding just shy of $2k for the one image and I can't afford to pay that. I am trying to read up as much as I can on this forum and Internet but I just want to thank you all for helping us who are in panic mode after getting these letters.
-
Thank you for your reply Greg. The letter was actually sent to someone elses name at my address but it is for my website. The name on it is from the guy who used to own the web address but it is now my site. I have no idea what to do so after doing more reading here and watching the videos after my first post I will be contacting Oscar for the letter.
-
It doesn't have your name on it??!!
little hard for them to collect from you then...return to sender comes to mind.. Clearly you have an "out" here. The site was owned by someone else who may have been responsible for using the image. You purchase the site...completely innocent infrinement, IMHO you re in a good position here.
-
Not so sure. I know the guy it is sent to and I am friendly with him. The website was changed by me and I added the photo after I had found a cropped version of the original on a search. The photo never showed any copyright and was modified from its original (I found the original after getting the letter) from where I had found it. I do not want this guy dealing with any problems from a photo I put up. He lives in another state and hasn't had anything to do with this business in many years. I think his name still shows up on the whois search so that is likely how Masterfile sent it to him at my address.
-
he is probably the "legal" owner of the domain name if his name appears as the registrant on the who is..chances are good getty may not want to even deal with you, as we have seen this in the past..
::EDIT:: Ultimately the domain owner is responsible, is what Getty will claim, thus taking you out of the picture and dragging another party into, in the hopes that they will roll over and pay..
-
Thanks Robert. The domain is listed in and part of my account with a registrar along with a few other domain names. I think somewhere along the line we forgot to remove his name after he transferred it to my account. I just don't want to cause any headaches for him when he wasn't even involved. And this was from Masterfile and not Getty so I am not sure if that even changes how to deal with it.
-
if the domain in question is the one associated with your email address, then you do not own the domain from a legal standpoint, regardless if it is in your account..the whois record indicates a completely different owner. Which could also be considered to be inaccurate whois, which could cause other issues as well with ICANN. If you don't want this other person involved, you might want to update the whois to show the proper info..then go from there.
-
Great advice Robert. There seems to be a LOT of that on this site. ;D
-
You might want to sign this petition to help make our government aware of the issue.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/work-modify-copyright-laws-end-predatory-practice-copyright-trolling/3cGn2JFL
And get all your friends and business acquaintances and their friends and acquaintances, etc. etc. to do the same.
It's an opportunity to have a voice about this issue.