Client Received Getty Letter

[timworx]

Hello,
A client of mine just received the Getty Letter yesterday via mail. I told him I would handle it for him - I'm certainly not going to let something like this be a weight on a client's shoulders.

Here is the situation, I either purchase stock from a stock photo site, or use photos from a few free stock photo sites that I trust. (Including one that has coincidentally been acquired by Getty). For this particular image I can't track down where I got it from... yet I can for every other image on the site. I must have made a stupid mistake at some point, and trusted a source, caption, or otherwise that I shouldn't have, because the image apparently isn't publicly licensed.

Getty is asking $780 - a price that seems to be common among others recently. It was a small image used on one page of a local business site. Upon notification of the letter I immediately removed the image.

I have a few questions -

• Of those who wrote a letter in themselves using the info on this site (or in my case, I would write one up for my client to send in), what types of responses have you seen?
• What types of success has there been with the $195 letter? Do they lower their demand? Make it go away? I know this was addressed once before, but I need some type of answer for this. I don't like blindly going into anything.
• Should I contact Getty in my name, on behalf of my client, or is that opening a can of worms/wasting time. The reason I ask, is that I would suspect they might be more willing to work out a deal for company who's website was made for them, vs for a web designer... either way, I'll be footing the bill for this.

Any thoughts and responses will be greatly appreciated... starting my Tuesday with a cup of coffee and a lawsuit wasn't in my calendar this week. 

[timworx]

Anyone willing to comment on or point to a thread with their experience with Oscar's $195 letter? I searched and couldn't find much on what the outcomes were when it was used.

Thank you!

[Matthew Chan]

In case you haven't done more digging, all of your questions have been answered many times in the past as your questions are frequently asked by others. No offense intended.

Also, No one is going to tell you what YOU should do. Every person's individual disposition and case is somewhat different.  LOTS of advice and viewpoints have been given in the past. You have to compare and contrast what has been said before to your situation.

Regarding Oscar's $195 letter, no one is trying to sell you on it. If you don't want to go into it "blind", that is ok, you are perfectly allowed to represent yourself.  Many people have (including me) and it turned out fine.  I often recommend it when possible as long as you get educated on the matter.  There are several reasons for silence on Oscar's letter.

1. People have asked about the letter repeatedly in the past and don't wish to answer this again.
2. Any settlements would stay confidential.
3. Some cases may still be pending where there is nothing to report.
4. No one is motivated enough to write a rave review or a scathing complaint.

This forum is accessible and read by all including the stock photo companies. Some things are not going to be spelled out explicitly.  Sometimes you simply need to read between the lines and make your own judgment call.  There is no singular right path. I have heard the full spectrum of responses.  Some lawyer up all the way paying full fare for legal fees.  Some use Oscar's program. Some pay the full demand.  Some represent themselves. Some pay a settled demand.  Some tell them off and pay zero. Some simply ignore it.  A case can be made for each scenario.

Most people who have settled it put the matter behind them and don't come back. I can't say I blame them really.

Matthew

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I cannot address the question of Oscar's letter because I wrote my own correspondence. But let me address your last question first.

 * Should I contact Getty in my name, on behalf of my client, or is that opening a can of worms/wasting time. The reason I ask, is that I would suspect they might be more willing to work out a deal for company who's website was made for them, vs for a web designer... either way, I'll be footing the bill for this.

In my opinion this is a no-win idea. They know that it is uncomfortable for a developer to admit they made a mistake. So they will turn up the heat, not on you, but your client. They have no interest in letting you take responsibility for the image and know that it is more effective to pester your client (and suggest that they pester you).


    * Of those who wrote a letter in themselves using the info on this site (or in my case, I would write one up for my client to send in), what types of responses have you seen?

They follow up with a reply saying, basically, yes but you are still responsible. From what I have seen on this site you can play that game a few times. But eventually they will send it to a collection agency.


    * What types of success has there been with the $195 letter? Do they lower their demand? Make it go away? I know this was addressed once before, but I need some type of answer for this. I don't like blindly going into anything.

Short of paying the whole bill, I would say convincing the company to hire Oscar and offering to pay for it is your best option in this situation. If you go this route, all communication will have to go to Oscar's office and they won't be able to pester your client anymore. If you try and go any other route, they sort of have you over a barrel because they can just refuse to deal with you and continue to threaten your client.

A plan "B" would be to contact them and tell them that you have convinced your client (probably convince your client first) to hire Oscar, but you have decided to make a last ditch effort to just pay them off to make the whole thing go away. But they probably won't accept less than $600 and I'm betting you don't want to pay that.
   

[BadLuck]

Have you come up with an action plan to approaching this?

[timworx]

Thank you everyone for the info.
I wish I'd read them sooner - but either it doesn't e-mail you when there are responses on the thread or my spam filter got a little overzealous.

At this point, I may just end up paying the $780 to not have it hanging over my own or my client's head. It's not as exorbitant of an amount as some others have faced, fortunately. Although still a ridiculous and unfortunate fee to come across. From what I saw in a case or two, and from mcfilms above, when you defend yourself at the $780 level they only drop it to $600. I would almost rather just have it resolved then save the nice $180 chunk.

Either that, or write an e-mail this evening for my client to send off to them (as if it were coming from him.).

I have a hard time going for the letter without having some idea of the typical turnout in a case like mine. It's under a thousand dollars to begin with, so there's only so much they can lower it. Which makes me concerned of whether or not it would even save me anything.

Thank you everyone for your responses here!

[Oscar Michelen]

Just to chime in here, It is highly unlikely that Getty will sue over a single image claim though it is possible.  You don't need to spend the $195 on the letter but you should make some reasonable settlement offer (less than their current demand) and see if they accept or lower their demand.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I often wonder what happens in a case like this. It kinda looks like Getty scored an easy $780.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

More money in the budget for paper and stamps...sad

[lucia]

They follow up with a reply saying, basically, yes but you are still responsible. From what I have seen on this site you can play that game a few times. But eventually they will send it to a collection agency.

They will do this even if they are clearly wrong about infringement.

What types of success has there been with the $195 letter? Do they lower their demand? Make it go away? I know this was addressed once before, but I need some type of answer for this. I don't like blindly going into anything.

I didn't use the $195 letter program. However, one of the advantages to the having a lawyer write a letter is that afterwards, the stock company must talk to the lawyer.  Unfortunately, if you write the letter for your client, that doesn't prohibit them from also discussing the issue with your client.  The now just have two parties they can potentially claim were involved in the violation: You who they previously didn't know about and your client who hosted the material and who they already identified.

If a lawyer writes the letter, they will a) be required to discuss the issue through a lawyer, b) know they are talking to a lawyer and c) know the lawyer is not a potentially liable partie and so is less emotional.  In contrast, if they judge it likely you don't know law and you are in a position to get scared, they are more likely to judge they can buffalo you.   Oscar happens to be very familiar with the issues, and had dealt with Getty which is a big advantage.   But whether or not your issue "goes away" will depend on factors  that may be unrelated to Oscar. For example: you say this is over 1 image. Evidently Getty has never sued over  1 image.

But also: If your friend's site is commercial and you did host and display the image, you likely should make some sort of settlement offer but offer a much lower amount. When making the offer, do not admit infringement. You could base that amount of your offer by considering the market value and also looking at the lowest amount that a judge might award if he decided you did unintentionally infringe. (I think that's $200.)   Maybe they will accept. In the event that Getty wouldn't have had proof of exclusive license or registration and so on, some might see the settlement as having paid Getty when they would have lost in court. This notion sticks in many of our craws that Getty can sometimes make money when they don't have a right to a particular photo.  But the alternative is paying lawyers or spending your own time diverting you from more productive activities. And settling will make the issue go away.

On the other hand, Getty  probably won't accept a reasonable offer.   But in the unlikely event that they sue, your lawyer would be able to show that you made an offer but Getty declined.  This fact will be relevant when the judge considers how much to award Getty.  It seems Oscar is suggesting offering a settlement-- and I suspect his letters often make an offer. 

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

If were to have  gone the "Lawyer Letter" route I wold ask that verbiage be included along the lines of:

"Please remind your client that the U.S. Copyright Act is one of the few that grants legal fees and costs to the prevailing party. And I am very expensive."