Getty Reply With A Twist

[ellie]

One of my web clients recently received the Getty letter demanding $780 for a thumbnail image on a secondary page (done by an Indian designer - innocently I might add). We immediately pulled the image down and wrote an apologetic letter to Getty while not admitting any liability. In my reply I asked for proof that they actually have the license rights and please to provide the date with which they signed the agreement with the photographer. To this they have replied:

Do you have a sales order number for purchase of a license that would allow display of the image of the [XYZ Company website]?  If so, please provide that to us so we may research its coverage.  If there is no license, and we have not been able to locate one that would allow display of the image on that website, the settlement amount must be paid on or before September 12, 2011.  After that time, we will direct our claim directly to [XYZ Company].

 
Obviously they are not willing to give up their dates or any information. Meantime I have found a nearly identical image on iStockphoto that sells for.....are you ready??  2 credits! $3.26 for one year! Now here comes the twist.......in the Getty correspondence they copied in a patient who had written a testimonial on the website in question! Because the website did not show a contact email address and merely has a contact form, they swiped the email address from an innocent third party and copied them on the correspondence demanding money! We are investigating how they got the email address but think it may have been in the background somewhere. Surely this would give me some legs in this situation? I hope so, since I am trying to fight this myself due to financial difficulties at the moment. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated before I draft my next reply.

Thank you.

Ellie

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

istock photo is owned by getty, which I find interesting, why doesn't istock send you the letter?? because they can't claim as much is my guess. It's not strange that they won't give you the info you request..they like to keep that to themselves and state they'll show you the info in court..another strong-arm tactic IMHO.

I'm a bit confused with the email part, are you saying they sent the letter to your client and a second persons email?? If so that's a twist for sure..maybe you can clarify this so I can try to wrap my head around this one!

[ellie]

Hi Buddhapi...

Thanks for your reply..for clairification...

1) the image on iStockphoto is not exactly the same image but almost identical (a man with a paper bag over his head wearing a suit). In other words, they are selling an image that is the same in all respects except the tie and suit are different, for $3.26 yet demanding $780 from us!

2) The email. The website in question does not display an email address, they have a Contact Us form. Getty sent a physical letter to the website owner (my client). However, on the website was a testimonial from a patient of the business. The writer of the testimonial had included an email address in the original testimonial which may have been linked to in the patient's signature (still researching this) or was in the background html (copied and pasted by web designer but not showing on the physical site). When I received the email reply from GI I noticed a very strange email address that GI had copied in on the correspondence. Upon further inspection I realized that the name was of a person who had written a testimonial for the website. GI in their search for a contact email for the website owner, copied a third party who has NOTHING to do with anything! I immediately wrote back saying I had received their reply and would respond in time, in the meantime, CEASE AND DESIST copying a third party, xyz@xyz, on this private business matter. They did not mention this in their reply to me. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I haven't heard of them ever sending emails as a first point of contact, perhaps they are making some changes.. first thing i would check is the whois on the domain, maybe they got the email from there, as this is where the generally get the name/address of whom to send the letter to. They could care less about who designed it or who is responsible, that's always the domain owner..private registrations would help in this going forward..

[ellie]

The email did not go to anyone related to the website - it went to one of the website owner's customers!!!! An uninvolved third party. That is my point....how dare they! And then I wonder if I am able to use this in my fight with them.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

well if you try to negotiate with them it might be worth bringing up again, but negotiating usually doesn't lead anywhere, they always want way to much...then again 3 cents would be to much..

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

>> in the Getty correspondence they copied in a patient who had written a testimonial on the website in question!

I agree with buddhapi that you need to bring up the unprofessional manner in which they involved your client's customer at EVERY point of contact. This could have had potentially disastrous results. I think it is important to send another letter asking them why they saw fit to copy this third party. Is this Getty policy?

Squeeze 'em a little. For them, this is embarrassing at a minimum and they might just want to drop the whole thing.

[ellie]

Agree, and thanks for the advice to bring it up repeatedly, my reply states it once and suggests that if they drop their outrageous claim I will not pursue damages. Will keep everyone posted on the outcome.