Introduction

[havenotreceivedaletter]

I guess I should introduce myself somewhat.  Have never received any letters wanting to bankrupt me for life so I'm not here because anyone is threatening me per se or anyone I know.  Of course, it seems like anyone who has a website and for the most part lives from paycheck to paycheck seems to be the target so I guess everyone may one day wind up in this predicament.  Forewarning and education is definitely in order here.  Learning a lesson from other people's mishaps is of utmost importance.

Due to my interest in photography and music, someone told me about this particular situation and I and a few others started doing a lot of reading on this.  I have photographed many bands as well as interviewed purely for the love of music.  There is absolutely no monetary compensation involved in this.  That's what I have a day job for.  If I found my photos or interviews on someone else's website, as long as I get credit in name only, it's an honor and pleasure.  A compliment if you will. 

After a few of us read these horrific stories a website has dealt with any infractions.  Due to the nature of the website, there is no reason to get sued by anyone over pictures.  No monetary compensation is made for any reason and no one involved even has any money.  I would say maybe only a couple of hundred bucks would be affordable for any infractions.  No one intentionally wanted to hurt anybody or cause a lack of revenue or what not on photos and any stupidity has been rectified and continues to be.  Valuable lesson learned with hopefully no horrific financial consequences.  We can keep our fingers crossed.

This whole situation really bothers me in retrospect and I'm not trying to malign anyone but I get this eerie feeling that this is being done in the same way the RIAA has done this.  Not really with the artist in mind because no artist gets any revenue from what the RIAA has done and in my research I'm not sure that any photographer is getting revenue out of this either.  I could be totally wrong on this of course but I haven't turned anything up yet.  This does appear to be an issue of wanting to add extra revenue to coffers and nothing more.

Whether you committed an error out of stupidity or unknowingly, to be sued into extinction over one photograph or a handful is absolutely horrible and unnecessary.  A few of us have done some looking into the stock photography thing and unless you photograph major political, celebrity, or sports events, I don't think this sort of thing is going to rake in any major bucks and the rental prices seem to be extremely low from what some of us have found. 

We seem to have found that at least 98% of those targeted run small businesses and as a result of nearly or lost that business.  I wonder if that is one of the intentions.  Small businesses while lauded in political circles seems to be on the chopping block in major business circles.  The other 2% of those targeted seem to be people with no money whatsoever and I don't think that GI or anyone else really has much hope in extracting large sums out of people who have no money so I guess collecting a couple of hundred here and a thousand there eventually winds up amounting to a lot of cash once it is all tallied up.

The Getty family has a very interesting and lurid history to be sure.  GI apparently is now owned by an equity firm that buys up a lot of businesses and perhaps it is their intention to ultimately own every photograph known to mankind and therefore will extract money from probably everyone that has ever had a website or close to anyway.  I find this whole thing to be absolutely shocking and will continue to read up on this and be a small part of this community.  If I or anyone I know should ever be on the receiving end of this either through stupidity or unwittingly, probably more so stupidity in our case, at least we know who to come to for advice or help and when I have a few bucks to spare and I may have some actually, I will make a monetary donation. 

I have been reading a lot of your comments for a few days now and I figured I may as well join the forum and offer any humble input that I can in light of reading this extremely unnerving stuff.  I guess I may well be in the minority of not having been contacted by anyone for any reason.  No one has even been asked to remove anything much less threatened due to the nature of the website in question so anything done in stupidity that has not been rectified will be. 

http://www.artisticrepresentation.com/2011/05/courtoom-sketch-artist-sues-ap-getty.html

This is something one of my associates came across.  There definitely seems to be a good amount of suing going on on either side of the fence.  I myself am not really fond of people suing each other as it seems to have become a national pastime and it seems to have gotten way out of hand.  So hello to everyone.  I look forward to reading more discussions.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Hi. Welcome to the ELI site havenotreceivedaletter.

Maybe the stock agencies really are targeting small businesses and individuals. Or maybe the large companies just work out a settlement. I suppose if Coca Cola (as an example) was caught with an infringing image, they would be pretty quick to work out a settlement.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Welcome to the forum! I like the fact that others are getting educated about this, even if they don't need to..strength in numbers! I think I can speak for everyone here, that we all respect copyright and even the protection of ones copyright, afterall most of are publishers of content in one form or another. Yes there are those who unknowingly grab images from google and soon land here.

As you can see from our posts, it's the method employed to extract extortion like amounts over images that are sold on the web for a few dollars.. You are correct in assuming that these companies don't make much in terms of licensing images, so they seek to boost their revenue with alternative means, I assume any monies collected stays mostly with getty, and they may give the artist a small percentage if that..

 

[havenotreceivedaletter]

Well, it seems like you need to be educated because nothing has happened as of yet.  LOL.  Something can definitely go wrong at any time it seems.  Especially if you had no idea about a lot this stuff.  Most people who create websites have no idea about many things.  They just want to have something out there. 

I just find the whole thing to be really creepy.  Disturbing if you will.  With some people only for example wanting the Internet to be filled with nothing more than corporate websites of a major level, this type of thing may very well be a tool utilized in that.  I don't know.  Perhaps major corporations do settle this but you would think you would hear of that.  At least none of us in our circle have come across that yet in our reading.

Stupidity is no excuse I suppose but I would rather see errors in judgment rectified than someone winding up living under a bridge eating at the Salvation Army.  This whole situation has come as a shock to the system to say the least. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I have some thoughts on the idea of big corporations and us little guys.

They may send letters to big corps. but they have deep pockets and probably just pay it and make it and away for the most part, hence we don't hear about it much hear, they have legal teams that direct them...we don't.

I also believe they really depend on the "fear factor" by targeting small mom and pop businesses. naturally it freaks most people out, and most likely a large percentage roll over and pay, and a smaller % lands here, gets educated and fights..

It would not be good PR for a large corporation to get dragged into a suit for infringement, hance another reason to just settle and sweep it under the rug.

One case I am going to follow closely is the HAN v Moku-Aina case, they are a larger company that apparently run/manage resort hotels around the world, and they are fighting back on multiple fronts..so much for the fear factor here, you'll also notice that GI and the others rarely file suit over 1 or 2 images, again IMHO this is purely for financial reasons nothing more.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76416831/Hawaiian-Art-Network-Vincent-Tylor-vs-Moku-aina-Properties-Complaint

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/hawaiian-art-network-v-moku-aina-properties-observations/msg4989/#msg4989

[havenotreceivedaletter]

I'm glad to hear that they rarely file over a couple of images.  I imagine a handful of images would probably require a lawyer for sure.  Going price seems to be $1000 per photo and I don't personally know of anyone who can afford that.  I know I couldn't.  I read that someone was actually threatened with imprisonment for a photo.  That surely is over the top in anyone's eyes. 

I do intend on warning anyone I know of who has a website for any purpose that they can have their lives ruined.  I definitely want to ensure that people know about this and how it could possibly affect them in the future seeing as these people sometimes discover an error in judgment many years after the fact.  Hopefully people I know can learn from a mistake without it costing them dearly.  That's the way I feel many mistakes should be.  A learning experience.  Considering that there are literally billions of websites in existence, collecting money from people could literally wind up to a real profitable enterprise.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Agreed!

We know of 1 attorney who did threaten jail time, not only is this way over the top , it is also reason for this attorney to be reported and a complaint lodged against him with the Bar Association. This is a civil matter and there would never be any jail time, and any self respecting, half smart lawyer would know this. again IMHO he should not be able to practice law..

[havenotreceivedaletter]

I just want to say that it is wonderful to come across a place where you have a support group, educational material, someone who can assess how much in deep crap you are, and someone who can then handle the crap.  Running a website has so many pitfalls.  I now go back to my reading.   

[Lettered]

HNRAL,
Welcome to the forum.  Just wanted to point out that in the link you posted (good info, btw, so thanks!) that the plaintiff seems (to me) to be very reasonable in what she is seeking:
"Lopez is seeking an injunction preventing the defendants from selling her images and damages in the form of all profits obtained from the alleged sale of her copyrighted work"
As described in the linked to article, I find this very different from Getty's behavior.  If the article, is indeed accurate, I wish Ms Lopez luck in her complaint against Getty.  I only wish that Getty would be as reasonable with their demands.

[Oscar Michelen]

Welcome to the discussion.   It is always great to have added voices that take this topic seriously and contribute intelligently. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm glad I qualify for the first part at least! 

[havenotreceivedaletter]

What I meant about not being fond of the practice, I do understand that sometimes it is necessary to pursue litigation, however it's gotten to such an extent that way too many people are pursuing this and the courts are being rather overtaxed.  Thus if there is an actual need to pursue litigation, it sometimes takes over a year to do so. 

And yes, I definitely take this very seriously as do the people I know.  None of us have money aside from what we earn in our day jobs.  We are quite horrified to have read what has happened to people.  Who on earth has $8000 stashed away for a rainy day?  Not many.  We all dabble with websites and one person does web design but doesn't exactly make a comfortable living from it so to be threatened or sued would be horrible to say the least.  I suffer from compassion and these are human beings who are suffering.  That always bothers me.  I am deeply disturbed by all this and very concerned. 

I imagine this may be in some other topic but one of my associates found this

http://rising.blackstar.com/getty-photographers-pessimistic-about-the-future.html

I noted that none of the photographers unless I missed it attributed this to all out piracy of images.  They seem to be having a difficult time getting photos submitted and then most turned down.  It interests me as an amateur photographer who's pretty handy with a digi cam. 

Thank you Oscar.  I'm glad that you've been able to help people in this situation.  Most people do become frightened when faced with what seems like the end of the world.  I hope that in spreading this website around that it will cause people to act calmly and rationally.  I will do my best.   

[Matthew Chan]

I have not formally written an article about this but I think I am going to at some point because not one is saying it LOUDLY.  "Professional Photography is a Dying Industry" and the stock photo companies are going down with it. Images are quickly becoming commodities because there is so much of it.

For the moment, I am going to plagiarize myself by simply cutting and pasting one of my earlier comments in another thread.  It concerns the Professional Photography as a dying professional industry. And yet photography as a while is growing.  Why is that?  The power of photography is shifting from the pros to the everyday person who can now afford high-quality cameras and inexpensive digital photo editing software. Nearly every smartphone has a digital camera and video camera built within. Guess what that means?  Bad news for the professional photographer and videographer.
=====

You are correct in that the stock photo companies have lost their way. However, I also think photographers have lost their way also. There is an entitlement mentality by photographers that they deserve to make a living as they have done in years past.

The problem here is that since the advent of digital photography, the Internet, and the ever-decreasing prices of digital cameras, ANYONE can be a photographer and people can actually take some nice photos with relatively inexpensive cameras. Further, the people who invest in nicer cameras can take photos that match those of so-called professionals.

When you have an abundance of imagery, over time, it becomes a depreciating commodity. Being in "professional" photography in most cases is like trying to get into desktop publishing, printing, or secretarial business. These are functions that still exist but FAR smaller than before advances in technology.

Professional photography is a dying industry because nearly everyone has a nice camera.

I would venture to say that many of the smaller stock photo companies would go out of business without the revenue stream from the extortion letters. In fact, I t believe very few stock photo companies can stay in business WITHOUT being in the extortion letter business. I would venture to say it is the MAJORITY of their revenues.

I put the stock photo companies among the dying, antiquated businesses such as the newspapers, book publishing, and music publishing business.  These are people who tried to make money off the artists they sponsor without providing much value.  Now, the biggest value stock photo companies provide is PicScout and their "extortion letter" "shakedown letter" campaigns.

I imagine this may be in some other topic but one of my associates found this

http://rising.blackstar.com/getty-photographers-pessimistic-about-the-future.html

I noted that none of the photographers unless I missed it attributed this to all out piracy of images. 

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I disagree that professional photography is any more of a dying industry than that of a musician or writer. There will always be a need for talented artisans with an eye for color, composition, and detail; and the ability to create great work.

But I wholeheartedly agree that the premium "rights-managed" stock industry is dead (or dying). In fact I believe this Extortion Letter hustle is the last gasp of this particular industry as their old-world pricing model dries up. The future will belong to microstock companies that can work out a business model that convinces photographers they can still make some money, while ensuring that web developers have some level of protection from claims of copyright infringement. There is a business model in there somewhere, but the old-world companies like MF, GI and HAN won't see it and won't adapt in time. It will probably be a newer, more nimble, start-up that will eat their lunch. And I'm sure the participants of this site will fell SO sorry for them when that day arrives.

[Matthew Chan]

When I say "dying", I don't mean it will become extinct. But let's face it, nothing technology related is what it was. Anything that empowers the individual often takes away from the old standby's. Having said that, there should be a new crop of photographer/artist adopting a new model of business.

Like the music business, the record/CD companies, music publishers hate all the digital distribution selling singles vs. albums. In fact, many musicians are no longer depending on music royalties for income. But they have gotten into merchandising, concerts, performances, branding, etc. to adapt to the new changes.

The days of photographers of simply taking all kinds of interesting photos and uploading them to some listing service is over.  The entrepreneurial ones will survive. Most will not and be relegated to hobbyists.

Even the paparazzi are starving nowadays. It is hard to catch "exclusive" photos when people everywhere have cameras in their pockets nowadays.

I disagree that professional photography is any more of a dying industry than that of a musician or writer. There will always be a need for talented artisans with an eye for color, composition, and detail; and the ability to create great