ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: VictorB on June 28, 2017, 04:56:14 PM
-
ImageProtect.com is now another copyright troll except they are right in my back yard - located in San Clemente. Same approach as the Getty Extortion Letter only now I am much more educated. The image (retro women with tattoo) they say they own the copyright to was found in the public domain on several web sites, including one where the poster encouraged people to use the html code to reproduce the image! On all of these web sites with said image, there is no reference to copyright, ownership or the "client" ImpageProtect represents, PBNJ Productions. If it is in the public domain, can the copyright be enforced?
I took the image down, forgot it was even there, posted in 2009. Responded with the standard response. Also said, unless they return requested "proof" I would consider the matter closed. Of course, they responded with a standard form response. I will not respond back.
-
This is the problem. Just because a website says that an image is "public domain" doesn't make it so. Just because someone claims they own an image and to go share it, doesn't mean they are the original owner or that they have any right to tell people to share it.
People are falling into these traps by being sloppy without verifying these claims.
You claim the image is "public domain" but how do you know for sure? And just because it was found on multiple websites doesn't mean much either. It could simply rampant piracy.
There are lots of sleazy websites that are untrustworthy. And people use them at their own risk.
-
We HAVE had instances of Getty Images trying to sell a license to an image already in the public domain. They even tried to enforce a claim on someone a few years back.
I worked on a television show and they were about to buy a very expensive license to about a half dozen World War 2 images. I found these same images available in the public domain courtesy of the US government. Even though I had to jump through a few hoops with the network legal department, if felt good to deprive these hucksters of several thousands of dollars and save the production that money.
-
Using"html code to reproduce the image" is most likely NOT copying/reproducing the image,it's most likely linking to the image, which we all know is not infringement, as no "copy" is made.