ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: RyanHealy on October 12, 2012, 10:00:40 AM
-
Hey Guys,
My first post in these forums...
I've gotten three settlement demand letters from Getty. I then hired Matthew for a 30-minute call over the summer, which was super helpful. At that time I told him I would right an expose on my blog about Getty's unethical actions.
Well, I finally got around to publishing my expose earlier this week -- with links back to ELI for anybody facing a similar situation.
At first, my readers were sympathetic, and I expected most people would be sympathetic. But now I'm getting slammed with comments from photographers about how I should quit whining and just pay up. (!!!)
I'm responding to their comments as best I can, but my responses carry less weight since I'm defending myself.
Anyway, if you'd like to respond to any of the crazy comments I'm getting (or just see how people respond to this issue), feel free to do so here:
http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/ (http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/)
And if posting this link is not appropriate, feel free to delete it. Thanks.
Ryan
-
Ryan, that's a good article you wrote. As for the photographers bitching and moaning, I'd personally either not approve their comments (it's your freaking blog) or write a short one paragraph boilerplate response crucifying their stupid arguments and then paste that in every time a new photographer posted.
If these photographers are losing so much money, how do they have time to write these super long comments crying about how copyright infringers are screwing them all the time? I don't see why you feel you have to defend yourself. You made your case so why repeat it endlessly for tools who are trolling your site?
-
Ryan, I thought your article was very well written and explained your points concisely. As for the negative comments from photographers what they don't seem to realize or understand is that no one is advocating copyright infringement nor does anyone here on ELI support anyone that knowingly takes a person's intellectual property and uses it without permission or paying for it. What we are against his Getty's business model of legalized extortion and using it as a business model to make money rather than truly protect their artist intellectual property rights.
-
Mulligan - Thanks for the feedback. I thought about turning off comments, but comments are good for SEO. I want my article to be found to warn others about the dangers of using images on websites.
Greg - Thanks for the feedback. I totally agree with your analysis. The photographers keep harping on about the need for them to be protected, etc. But they fail to grasp the situation. In cases of innocent infringement, a simple cease and desist would do. These settlement demands are just outrageous (unless you're a photographer -- then screw the little people!).
-
ahemmmmm, I'm a photographer, so I get the luxury of seeing both sides of this.. Yes "most" photogs will jump on the "you stole it, now pay" bandwagon, but not all.. There are also a very large number of photogs that no longer work with Getty, Istock and other agencies because they basically have been selling them short. It's these narrow minded artists that will never make any money from photography, unless they take off the blinders and do things differently..
Mulligan - Thanks for the feedback. I thought about turning off comments, but comments are good for SEO. I want my article to be found to warn others about the dangers of using images on websites.
Greg - Thanks for the feedback. I totally agree with your analysis. The photographers keep harping on about the need for them to be protected, etc. But they fail to grasp the situation. In cases of innocent infringement, a simple cease and desist would do. These settlement demands are just outrageous (unless you're a photographer -- then screw the little people!).
-
I no longer buy images from Getty, Istock and others. I buy photos directly from photogs or hire my favorite photog, Dave Sizer, to shoot content for me. I want the photog to get a fair fee that he or she negotiates with me directly.
-
Good idea. The photog probably makes more that way - cut out the middle man.
By the way, here's the thread on Shutterstock in case anybody is interested in seeing the discussion there.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt125330-0-asc-0.html
-
Ryen, I was about to put myself into the conversation but after reading your posts, I don't think you need any help. But if I were to post I would write " If I am at the offices of Getty Images and decide to use the toilet and tear off 4 squares of TP and wipe my arse , I would consider that Fair Use. But if I took the entire roll of toilet paper and stuffed it into my purse, I am pretty sure I know I am a thief. I won't go to jail for taking a shit but I could go to jail for the latter. Not for theft but for disorderly conduct. Note to self: white senior women don't get arrested these days for stealing $2.00.".
One more thing. If I am in the grocery store and pick up an apple, take a bite, then put the apple back, the damages would be assessed at the value of the apple at the time of the bite. Not on the fact that I deprived the store from finding another customer who "might" have bought that apple to make a pie. Further if I put the apple in my purse and walked out of the store, the apple is still worth $2.39 a pound, not $2,390 a pound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ_yQ02xwsM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ_yQ02xwsM)
-
Ryan,
Glad to have you join us here on the ELI Forums. I have no problems you asking for ELI Community help. You have done a great service in using your platform in getting the word out. Thanks for referring people to ELI to get help.
The reason why they are picking on you is that you are the sole blogger of your website. They figure they can badger and insult you there. They figure they can gang up on you. The truth of the matter is that you really hold all the cards on anything anyone posts on YOUR blog/website.
We don't see many of those big-mouth photographers come here running their traps. There are too many equally big-mouthed "friendlies" here to counter them. Plus we don't put up with a lot of their propaganda BS here.
As a fellow blogger, I believe that when people post comments, they need to be mindful of where they are and who they speak to. Remember, it is YOUR website and your HOME. Don't let anyone shit in (or on) you or your house.
I have no problems with people disagreeing with me as long as they are respectful. But if they decided to cross the line, I will not hesitate to "evict" them pronto. I suggest you do the same.
You don't have to defend yourself on your own blog/website. It is YOUR article and YOUR opinion. It is YOUR platform they are using to attack you with. You don't have to be "attacked" by freaks that have really nothing with the main subject matter of your blog which is copywriting.
These people can piss and moan all they want. If they are upset, they can launch their own blog/website and vent all they want instead of using the bandwidth of well-established blogs/websites such as yours and mine here.
As you can see, I am not very patronizing and have little tolerance for disrespect.
Hey Guys,
My first post in these forums...
I've gotten three settlement demand letters from Getty. I then hired Matthew for a 30-minute call over the summer, which was super helpful. At that time I told him I would right an expose on my blog about Getty's unethical actions.
Well, I finally got around to publishing my expose earlier this week -- with links back to ELI for anybody facing a similar situation.
At first, my readers were sympathetic, and I expected most people would be sympathetic. But now I'm getting slammed with comments from photographers about how I should quit whining and just pay up. (!!!)
I'm responding to their comments as best I can, but my responses carry less weight since I'm defending myself.
Anyway, if you'd like to respond to any of the crazy comments I'm getting (or just see how people respond to this issue), feel free to do so here:
http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/ (http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/)
And if posting this link is not appropriate, feel free to delete it. Thanks.
Ryan
-
Absolutely agree here. I try to take most of my photos if possible. However, I have also hired a professional photographer on a work-for-hire. I pay them to use their expertise/camera/equipment to take good digital shots.
But those digital image files get delivered to me to be used/modified/edited/transformed wherever I want, whenever I want, however I want. If they can't agree to that then I find another photographer to work with or I find an alternative to a photo.
There are still a number of photographers who think they are so uniquely qualified (some might bet), that they can command control of the images their employers/clients spend money for them to take.
Wedding photographers come to mind.... You spend all that money to have them take photos but then they decide how many copies you can make and what you can do with them? GMAFB.
I no longer buy images from Getty, Istock and others. I buy photos directly from photogs or hire my favorite photog, Dave Sizer, to shoot content for me. I want the photog to get a fair fee that he or she negotiates with me directly.
-
Wedding photographers come to mind.... You spend all that money to have them take photos but then they decide how many copies you can make and what you can do with them? GMAFB.
Totally agree with you on that. Family photo studios are the same way. They charge you big money for a sitting fee, charge big money for prints, but then try to retain copyright of the photos -- which are of your own family!
Even more irritating, they delete your photos after about 1 year if you don't buy any more prints during that time.
Last time I got family photos taken, I negotiated copyright as part of my purchase so I could use the photo on my annual Christmas card. If I had not of done this, I would have been in violation of copyright.
-
Ryan, Thanks for taking the time to publicize this matter. I was going to add some comments in support of your position, but it seems that you have matters well in hand.
Still, if you feel you need a third party to respond to any particular Getty backer on your blog, feel free to call on me. You can find me scanning ELI at least 3 days per week.
We do not advocate copyright infringement. However, we do believe that using the law to extort money in innocent situations should be a far worse crime than copyright infringement.
-
There are a couple of legitimate comments from the Getty supporters on that blog. I agree that some images may be worth $1000 or more. However, I really doubt that the vast majority of the stock shots are worth anywhere near that. I think the vast majority of the innocent infringement cases like those found here on the ELI site are in the < $20 market value range.
In my opinion, if Getty were being genuine, they would base their demand on past sales history for each particular image, and supply that information to the alleged infringer to support their claim.
-
stinger - Thanks for the offer to help. I appreciate that.
Also, I've just published a 2,200+ word follow-up post called:
"Attack of the Trollogs! Plus More Thoughts about Getty Extortion Letters"
If you are interested, you can read it here:
http://www.ryanhealy.com/attack-of-the-trollogs/ (http://www.ryanhealy.com/attack-of-the-trollogs/)
Ryan
-
Good article, and kudos to you for writing it! It reminded me of the case of a Getty images customer AND contributor, yes I said contributor ( ie. photographer) that was out of the country on business and upon his return he realized that the license for his image had expired..well he only realized it because he had a letter from getty images waiting for him..mind you, this was not only a customer, but one of their "suppliers" as well!! and to boot, the license was expired something like 1 week..
stinger - Thanks for the offer to help. I appreciate that.
Also, I've just published a 2,200+ word follow-up post called:
"Attack of the Trollogs! Plus More Thoughts about Getty Extortion Letters"
If you are interested, you can read it here:
http://www.ryanhealy.com/attack-of-the-trollogs/ (http://www.ryanhealy.com/attack-of-the-trollogs/)
Ryan
-
That is a crazy story, Robert. I can't believe they'd go after a customer/contributor for that type of accidental violation.
But it confirms my suspicion that Getty will come after you if you accidentally let the license on a RM image expire.
-
Unfortunately with Getty it is only about the money. We have seen this time and time again where people come on the forums proving that there infringement was completely innocent and nonwillful yet Getty could care less and continues to insist if not on full payment then they offer their so-called "reduced"amounts which are still unreasonable and completely out of line with the value of the images. The only thing you have to remember that this is a business model for Jonathan Klein and Getty images and it is just about the money plain and simple.
-
Brian, you are not kidding when you say:
"SXC offers free images, but now that Getty has purchased the company, I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to retroactively enforce copyright on all the images SXC has offered for free."
The way to protect yourself against this is to keep evidence that you were offered the images for free. Keep copies of the web sites that were offering them.
Getty will remove old copies of web sites from places like archive.org to make it difficult for you to prove that you were given a valid license for free. Get and keep that proof now if you want to keep using the images. And if you decide to stop using the images, ask archive.org to remove the pages where you have used them because Getty seems to point picscout at archive.org to chase people, as well.
Respect copyrights, but do not respect copyright Trolls.
Live long and prosper!
-
Good suggestion, Stinger.
By the way, thanks for the comment on my blog. It went to spam for some reason, but I just published it.
-
Happy to help. I learned the hard way.
-
Our own Oscar Michelen jumped into the fray on Ryan Healy's blog. I would provide a link if I could to Oscar's specific comments. However, since there is no apparent way for me to link directly to Oscar's comments, I will copy and paste Oscar's comments here. I am fairly certain that Oscar will be okay if I ENTIRELY copy and paste his comments here on the ELI Forums.
Don: You make many valid points about the worth of a digital image and the need for enforcement of infringement but fail to realize what I am talking about by referring to Getty’s tactics as extortionate. Making legal demands in a letter that you are not entitled to (statutory costs and legal fees for example) and calling folks “thieves” when they hired a third party web developer to create a site for them or when they even have a receipt from their developer for the purchase of the image is simply not fair. Getty’s heavy-handed tactics and those of their enforcers are well documented on the ELI site. As for the site – you ask “Have they ever had a victory?” and then say you could not find evidence of one. Well, we founded the site over four years ago. The site now receives about 11,000 unique visitors a month the vast majority of whom (99.9%) do not pay me to write them a letter. Why? Because the point of the site was never to make money but to educate the public about this issue. The site was the first one to take this issue head on , provide solutions and offer advice FOR FREE. We have helped people from all over the world learn about digital imagery and the rights of photographers and how to properly place images on one’s website. Of the 850 folks who have decide to use the letter program, none has ever been sued and Getty has stopped communicating with them. You can insult me all you like by calling my $195 letter a $4 letter, but take a look at my credentials and just like there are stock photos worth $6,000 and stock photos worth $6.00, a letter from me to Getty is lengthy and thorough and worth every bit of $195. I am personally responsible for the content of each and every letter and am proud that it has allowed many folks to rest easier after receiving Getty’s communications. If all of that isn’t enough to have you declare the ELI site an unqualified success, then look at the recent case I handled in California Masterfile v. Chaga International where I obtained an important decision from the Federal Court in California regarding the proper method of registering digital images. I would probably be able to show more examples of court victories except that Getty does not go to court over these cases, so them leaving my clients alone is going to have to do for a “win.” I encourage you to spend some time visiting the site before attacking it.
Another reply by Oscar:
Harry: Demand letters are usually not sent initially by Getty’s lawyers but by Getty itself – through a mechanized process that costs them next to nothing. So “attorney’s costs” are not the reasons for the high demand – looking to scare folks into paying more than the image is worth is the reason. But let me say that I have proposed on my blog, a system for registering photographs by individual photographers in groups that would allow those photographers to obtain copyright protection without having to register each individual photograph separately. As someone who represents photographers as well, it is difficult to enforce infringement for small thumbnail images with low value. You can;t go to small claims because all copyright claims must be brought in Federal court and small claims or even full State courts do not have any jurisdiction over copyright. So if that’s been done by anyone successfully, their adversary was ignorant of some basic law. But digital imagery is worth protecting and on my site we tell people all the time how to legally acquire imagery for their websites. We constantly tell them that even if their web developer got them their images the end user is also responsible and can be held liable. We have promoted proper use of digital images just as much as we have decried Getty’s methodology. With respect to your and Don’s issue that I have earned $160K in defending against Getty claims over 4 years – both of you have decided to ignore the hundreds if not thousands of hours over the 4 years of free advice, videos, free letters to non-profits, veteran groups, knitting bees, etc, blog posts, commentary, review of issues for folks, which when put into the calculation means I would have probably made more per hour managing a McDonalds over the same time period. “Stealing” implies intent but the vast majority of my clients employed and paid third parties to set up their sites and were not web or copyright law savvy. They made a mistake – they were willing to pay a fair amount for that mistake. Before signing on as a client of mine I have advised every single letter recipient I have represented to offer $200 to Getty for the image before paying me my letter fee. Believe me Getty paid $20 Million for PicScout because it is a huge moneymaker for them and they don’t need to address my clients because the folks I represent are less than 1% of the folks receiving letters. They are sending out countless letters per week.
On the issue of Masterfile v. Chaga do some research. My client had settled a claim over these same images for a substantial amount of money. Why? Because I recommended they settle as the images appeared to be registered with the Copyright Office and their developer used MF’s registered images improperly. MF later claimed they found the same images on deadlinked pages from the site. We argued that any claims over these images were settled and no additional new use was made of them. MF disagreed and filed suit. Copyright law and registration is very exact and must be followed to the letter. They didn’t do that I moved to dismiss and it was granted. But even if this “technical” argument did not win the day (and all law is technical so I don’t know why “technical” arguments have less value than non-technical ones”) we had many other substantive defenses to MF’s claims. But you asked me for a win and I gave you one. There are many others from all over the country. Copyright law is national so I don’t need to know each individual states law and I can therefore write on behalf of clients everywhere (just like when Getty’s uses lawyers they are based in Seattle but write letters all across the country). But if a case goes to litigation, I have the client retain local counsel who moves my admission into that State. I have done so in California, Georgia and Texas. So please don;t worry about my ethics and my clients. I am more open and above board than any other lawyer I know – look I volunteered how many letters I have written and here I am still having to defend myself against representing small business owners against a giant company on some blog I have no connection to, on a Sunday afternoon with the Yankees and Giants on TV. So that’s it. I have made my last comment on this issue. If you want to continue the discussion, come on over to the ELI forum and post there. We welcome all opinions and have frank and open dialogue on this topic all the time.
-
Very well put Oscar! Thanks for sharing this Matthew.
-
Oscar, very good and generous of you to take the time to post this in defense of Ryan's blog. Just another example of your going the extra mile for that which is right.
-
Yes, BIG thanks to Oscar for commenting. I did not expect that at all, and was pleasantly surprised that he participated.
THANK YOU, Oscar. :-)
-
As always, great work, Oscar. Thank you!