ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: mikejl46 on August 22, 2012, 06:41:46 PM
-
I have read through this website quite a bit and I now have no worries about Getty. Especially if you only had one image.
So what is the point in writing letters and communicating back and forth with Getty, When so far, we can see it does no good. Why even waste your time worrying about it when so far Getty has done nothing. Wouldn't the best strategy be to not worry about it at all, throw any mail from Getty in the garbage, and go on with your life like Getty never happened. That's what I plan on doing. I removed image, I didn't pay, I win.
Thanks again for the great website. I will stop back in about three years let you know how it turns out.
Mike
-
Well thats certainly an option, and it may very well be the right choice...then again, there are reasons why we suggest what we do.. Yes getty has'nt pulled the lawsuit trigger over 1 image, but it is always their option to do so. At the very least by writing to them and either making an offer, or requesting proof, you have something in paper, should it ever go to court, which is much better than standing in front of a judge saying. "no your honor, when they contacted me I did not try to resolve the issue, I just threw everything in the garbage" That would not look to good to a judge I'm afraid...whereas, IF you had to go that far and were able to state the opposite..the judge would probably look down at Getty..
-
Mike,
Overall, I can't say I disagree with you. However, one little CYA letter can go a long way on the tiny chance that things go differently.
People do stress way too much over Getty Images. 4 years of reporting has shown that Getty Images is in it for the money machine aspect, not the lawsuit aspect.
You will easily get another half dozen letters from various parties with varying messages by ignoring it.
-
Mike, do keep us posted on the follow up by Getty and their compliance peons. The general inclination of the forum has been to respond at least once asking them to make a better case for why one should be writing them a check.
Like Robert and Matthew say, responding once with a request for real, tangible proof of their claim will show "good faith" on your part. They never answer in a satisfactory way anyway, but at that point it becomes justifiable to ignore their unreasonable demand.
I do think you're taking a very healthy approach by not worrying about it. Let them worry about it, they're the ones who huffing, puffing and bluffing.
-
I agree with Matt's position and would not write more than one letter if i were you. Doesn't pay to engage them beyond the one time.
-
You stole an image, got caught, removed the image and moved on? Good job I guess. Maybe next time you shouldn't steal the image to begin with?
I interned at Getty Images when I was in college, many years ago. The company pays thousands of professional photographers worldwide to snap pictures, nonstop. Out of every 100 professional-taken photos the company pays photographers to snap, only 1 makes it to their archive for resale.
When individuals like you steal their images without paying their requested royalties, you cause the price of images for all other paying customers to go up.
If you have an oz. of integrity, you'd pay them for the image you stole and then proudly display it on your Website, since you know it's a very worthy image to display.
-
You stole an image, got caught, removed the image and moved on? Good job I guess. Maybe next time you shouldn't steal the image to begin with?
I interned at Getty Images when I was in college, many years ago. The company pays thousands of professional photographers worldwide to snap pictures, nonstop. Out of every 100 professional-taken photos the company pays photographers to snap, only 1 makes it to their archive for resale.
When individuals like you steal their images without paying their requested royalties, you cause the price of images for all other paying customers to go up.
If you have an oz. of integrity, you'd pay them for the image you stole and then proudly display it on your Website, since you know it's a very worthy image to display.
WOW! Here we go!
-
Peeved,
You know you have been waiting for something like this to happen! ;) I know Robert has been chomping at the bit for something. Wait long enough and you shall receive!
WOW! Here we go!
-
I believe you have achieved a stunning victory with your insightful points.
At the end of this month, ELI will begin wrapping our affairs up nice and neatly and concede defeat.
We will then fold up our tents, go home, and ELI will cease operations of helping defend and educated against the copyright extortionists and their extortion letters.
Well done.
You stole an image, got caught, removed the image and moved on? Good job I guess. Maybe next time you shouldn't steal the image to begin with?
I interned at Getty Images when I was in college, many years ago. The company pays thousands of professional photographers worldwide to snap pictures, nonstop. Out of every 100 professional-taken photos the company pays photographers to snap, only 1 makes it to their archive for resale.
When individuals like you steal their images without paying their requested royalties, you cause the price of images for all other paying customers to go up.
If you have an oz. of integrity, you'd pay them for the image you stole and then proudly display it on your Website, since you know it's a very worthy image to display.
-
ha!!! an ex getty "intern" who obviously doesn't get it! I generally refrain from being upfront and honest with most new users, but you my friend are an asshat!
Do you have any proof the OP "stole" this image? (I think not)
Do you have any proof that this image even belongs to Getty? (I think not)
Do you have any idea how the actual "legal system" works? (I think not)
You my friend have absolutely no right to determine who here has integrity, as a matter of fact you'd be better served to keep your pie hole shut, until you see and understand what ELI is about. Every single one of us are content creators of some sort, and every single one of us respects copyright. What we don't respect are companies like Getty images that try to twist the law, and use fear as a means of making money.. As far as I'm concerned you automatically fall into this category, just because of your own ignorance.
You stole an image, got caught, removed the image and moved on? Good job I guess. Maybe next time you shouldn't steal the image to begin with?
I interned at Getty Images when I was in college, many years ago. The company pays thousands of professional photographers worldwide to snap pictures, nonstop. Out of every 100 professional-taken photos the company pays photographers to snap, only 1 makes it to their archive for resale.
When individuals like you steal their images without paying their requested royalties, you cause the price of images for all other paying customers to go up.
If you have an oz. of integrity, you'd pay them for the image you stole and then proudly display it on your Website, since you know it's a very worthy image to display.
-
Personally, I want to hear more from the former Getty intern.
If somebody from Getty can educate me about Getty's business model, and how Getty employs copyright laws, I would be quite grateful.
I'm also curious as to what industry the former intern works in now?
Does he/she feel that the Getty experience enriched his/her career standing?
S.G.
-
You stole an image, got caught, removed the image and moved on? Good job I guess. Maybe next time you shouldn't steal the image to begin with?
I interned at Getty Images when I was in college, many years ago. The company pays thousands of professional photographers worldwide to snap pictures, nonstop. Out of every 100 professional-taken photos the company pays photographers to snap, only 1 makes it to their archive for resale.
When individuals like you steal their images without paying their requested royalties, you cause the price of images for all other paying customers to go up.
If you have an oz. of integrity, you'd pay them for the image you stole and then proudly display it on your Website, since you know it's a very worthy image to display.
I did pay for a template with an image Getty claims is theirs. They haven't proven to me they own it, but they send me a nasty extortion letter. Thanks Getty
Who in their right mind would steal a $875 image of some clouds, when you could purchase similar cloud images for $2, or take your own. There is nothing special about those clouds. They are every where.
If it is proven that the image is Gettys, then I may have unknowingly purchased a product from a template company that may have possibly contained one of Gettys image. I'm not a thief.
Getty lost a customer. I will not be purchasing any images from Getty in the future.
Again, I'm not a thief.
-
One more thing. I purchased this template about 4 years ago. I did a search for this template image, without the aide of some hotshot super image searching ap, and was able to find out that this exact same web template as of right now, is still available, and now being offered as a free download in a few places. If it is their image as they claim, why do they continue to allow this image to survive at the source, where many more innocent people will fall into Getty's trap?
-
Mike, that's a very good point which also applies to some of the more notorious trolls: They apparently have websites "seeding" their copyrighted content. How can Getty send hundreds of extortion letters a month and not catch even one of the seeders?
Same goes for Hawaiian Art Network and Vincent K Tylor. They claims they've send hundreds of cease and desist letters. Google doesn't show even one single DMCA removal request from either of them. There are literally HUNDREDS of sites seeding VKT images. Shouldn't they be interested in having those removed from Google results? Many of them are hosted in the US or have their domain registered in the US and can be taken down with one simple email to the ISP, domain registry or search engine(s) of one's choice.
Mike, why don't you post the website that's seeding the images for Getty? Let's see how long PicScout takes to find them once we actually provide them with a URL. My bet is NEVER.
-
I agree that Getty has to be aware of many sites offering their images as free or public downloads. As in my case to show that it was innocent and nonwillful infringement I provided screen captures to where I obtained the image in question. It has been five months now and the image is still there available for download labeled as belonging to the website owner offered in a free public directory. I think of Getty were truly interested in protecting the intellectual property rights of their artists as they claim and not using this as a business model they would have sent one of their letters along with the cease-and-desist having the picture removed but since the site obviously can generate income for Getty from unsuspecting people downloading the image Getty turns a blind eye to it and leaves the image there.
I personally feel Getty is on the same par with Hawaiian Art Network and the VKT as far as knowing of sites containing their supposedly images and doing nothing about them allowing the spread of them so more extortion settlement letters may be sent out.
-
Mike, that's a very good point which also applies to some of the more notorious trolls: They apparently have websites "seeding" their copyrighted content. How can Getty send hundreds of extortion letters a month and not catch even one of the seeders?
Same goes for Hawaiian Art Network and Vincent K Tylor. They claims they've send hundreds of cease and desist letters. Google doesn't show even one single DMCA removal request from either of them. There are literally HUNDREDS of sites seeding VKT images. Shouldn't they be interested in having those removed from Google results? Many of them are hosted in the US or have their domain registered in the US and can be taken down with one simple email to the ISP, domain registry or search engine(s) of one's choice.
Mike, why don't you post the website that's seeding the images for Getty? Let's see how long PicScout takes to find them once we actually provide them with a URL. My bet is NEVER.
This link shows the template with the clouds.
http://puzzso.biz/template-11.html
Here are a few sites.
At this link there is another template with the same clouds to the left of it.
http://nsitestore.com/website_templates.html
http://www.ecademy.com/module.php?mod=list&lid=63383
http://www.primabiz.com/produk8.html
http://aerohost.com/FreeTemplates.htm
There also many websites using the template like this.
http://www.mortgagenow.net.au/loans.html
-
Interesting, I've seen these templates before, they are offered as part of a reseller package, thur a hosting provider. I lease rack space from a company, and they offer me templates very similar if not identical to these..I think maybe i'll be contacting to ask them some questions this Monday, even thought I don't use them..
http://templatedemo.com
http://templaterover.com/
From the "terms of use"
II) IMAGERY, CliPARTS AND FONTS
All imagery, clipart and fonts used in our templates are royalty-free and are the integral part of our products. Limited-usage License gives you the right to use images, clipart and fonts only as a part of the website you build using your template. You can use imagery, clipart and fonts to develop one project only. Any kind of separate usage or distribution is prohibited.
VI) OWNERSHIP
You may not claim intellectual or exclusive ownership to any of our products, modified or unmodified. All products are property of independent content providers. Our products are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. In no event shall our juridical person be liable for any damages including, but not limited to, direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages or other losses arising out of the use of or inability to use our products.
this second is the kicker..."independent content providers"....don't blame us if you any issues, while at the same time saying in section 2 , there is a "royatly free" license
-
I agree with Soylent. I, too, would like to learn more from the former Getty intern.
Specifically, during what time period were you there? Who owned the company at that time? At the time you worked there, was there anything on Getty's Royalty Free Images page that:
- Indicated that Royalty Free Images required a license and payment?
- Indicated that any of the images were subject to copyright?
- Prevented a user from right clicking and copying an image (like most reputable photographers web sites)?
During the time that you were there, had Getty restricted access to their Royalty Free Images pages at archives.org prior to 2009? Have you ever seen what Getty's Royalty Free Images (seeding) page looked like in 2005?
One would think that a company the size of Getty would take precautions to prevent their assets from being mis-appropriated.
On the other hand, if a $2 photo can earn me $1000 just one time in 10 that I catch someone using it without a license, I am making 50 times more money by seeding the market with the photo and making people think it was free to use, than I would by just licensing the photo. That's quite an incentive to become a troll.
-
It's been about three months, I haven't responded to the first letter and so far have not heard a peep out of Getty. My strategy is to do nothing and see what happens. I'll stop back in about 6 months and let you know how that strategy is working for me.
-
I have absolute faith they will swoop around and make another pass at you. These guys are very persistent because persistence often works on many people.
There are a lot of merits and upsides to simply laying low. However, for others such as myself who have a significant web/online business presence, it really isn't possible.
It's been about three months, I haven't responded to the first letter and so far have not heard a peep out of Getty. My strategy is to do nothing and see what happens. I'll stop back in about 6 months and let you know how that strategy is working for me.
-
You will soon receive Step 2 - a letter from NCS IP Solutions or Timothy McCormack. Much has been written about both on this site.
-
You stole an image, got caught, removed the image and moved on? Good job I guess. Maybe next time you shouldn't steal the image to begin with?
I interned at Getty Images when I was in college, many years ago. The company pays thousands of professional photographers worldwide to snap pictures, nonstop. Out of every 100 professional-taken photos the company pays photographers to snap, only 1 makes it to their archive for resale.
When individuals like you steal their images without paying their requested royalties, you cause the price of images for all other paying customers to go up.
If you have an oz. of integrity, you'd pay them for the image you stole and then proudly display it on your Website, since you know it's a very worthy image to display.
I live in Seattle. I was there as a personal friend of a key founder when Getty started. Not sure that trumps an intern but I will say this. This is not the old Getty Images. This is the new creepy Getty Images. Are you aware that the lawyers that claim to be fighting for the photogs keep nearly all - if not all the money they get from filing copyright claims? The photogs don't get that money. If you can prove that they do, then you should post what you know to be true from your experience at Getty. Getty legal is not fighting for the photogs - they are fighting for their own bank accounts. You should read through every single post on the forum and you will soon discover that most people who share a photo or put a photo on their websites and blogs really have no idea about copyright infringement. They ARE ignorant because there has been no Public Service Campaign warning people and almost no discussions in the media about this issue.
Remember when the cellphone law started? We didn't suddenly get busted for using our cell phones while driving. Before we got ticketed years were devoted to warning and educating people through Federal and States campaigns and years before that, tons of publicity about accidents caused by cell phone usage while driving. Extortion Letter Info is one of the few resources for people to get help and fight back. Getty does not want the general populace to be informed about copyright infringement or fair use. Ignorance = money to them. They have done very few interviews educating the public. There are no PSA's. Nothing. Photogs should stop using Getty, Istock, etc. and build a reputation through their own individual promotion and websites. Each of those people you call a thief is a potential customer depending on how they are "sold" on that photographer during the initial contact. Photogs are being used. Period.
I would like you to clarify this - "The company pays thousands of professional photographers worldwide to snap pictures, nonstop." Are you sure Getty has thousands of photogs on payroll to shoot photos? Or are you saying Getty pays photogs for photos after they submit those photos and then reject 99% of the submissions? There is a big difference.
-
Just an update.
I received first letter back in July 2012, and so far have not received any more letters from Getty.
-
That is great! Thanks for the update and let us know if anything changes.
-
The statute of limitation will expire July 2015 -mark your calendar!
-
Another update
It has been almost a year now since I received my letter from Getty. My strategy has been to totally ignore the letter, and so far I have not heard a peep out of Getty since the letter I received July 2012.
2 years to go.
-
That's great news, thanks for the update!
-
Just Another update
It has been over a year now since I received my letter from Getty. My strategy has been to totally ignore the letter, and so far I have not heard a peep out of Getty since the letter I received July 2012.
-
Glad to hear it!
-
Another Update
It has been 2 years now since I received my letter from Getty. My strategy has been to totally ignore the letter, and so far I have not heard a peep out of Getty since the letter I received July 2012.
-
Nice. One year to go.
-
I have about 1/2 year to go, no peep out of Getty since day one. crossing my fingers.
I hope it's working out ok for others here.
-
I hit my 3 years. Wooo hoo!
It would be nice if they told people they internally dropped things. :)
On the one hand: I knew they had no case against me. Hot linking-- among other things. But there were other issues: creator: original owner had died. That specific images was offered free for personal use on a site with her name on it-- run by someone whose name suggested they were an heir. Names of companies etc seemed to change (last name .inc, personal name and so on.). So, any licensing paperwork might have been difficult for Getty to present in their favor with all sorts of potential slip-ups on who owned, who signed forms etc. So, there really was no way Getty could win a case if they filed it.
On the other hand, there was no communication from them saying "Whoops. Our bad. You're right.
-
Congratulations Lucia! I know they had no case against you but it is still nice to hit the 3 year mark.
-
Just an update, same as my last post, nothing new to report.
About 3 months left,
-
Almost there!
-
Well, it's been 3 years now, I have never heard a peep out of Getty since the letter I received 3 years ago. I never replied to them. The only thing I did was not worry about it, and that worked for me.
-
Congratulations Mike!
A smart and efficient plan.
-
Congratulations! Well played.