Is this sound legal advice?

[scoopsdad]

Well, like the hundreds and thousands of the other unfortunate ones - my business also received "the letter."

I'm a sole proprietor of a small web design/development business.  When I originally created our website about 3 or 4 years ago, I used a photo that I found on a free stock site.  Like most folks in this situation, I can't remember for the life of me where exactly I got the photo at - but I KNOW it wasn't from Getty since I've never even heard of these guys until I received their letter yesterday and I would never, ever, ever knowingly steal anything.  The photo was used on a page that's pretty well hidden within the site - like 3 or 4 page tiers in.

So, here we are, 3 or 4 years later, and I get the letter from Getty.  I immediately remove the image from the site to avoid any further hassle or issues while I have time to research the situation to see what may be going on.  Upon removing the photo, I notice that the version of the photo on the Getty site is a bit different than the photo we had on our site.  Just thought it was interesting.  Did a quick search in Google and found that quite a few other sites are also using the same version of the photo as we were using - not the version on Getty's site.  I'm aware this probably doesn't mean much, just found it interesting.

After finding this site and a handful of other sites about this situation, I decided there's no way on God's green earth that I'm paying Getty a single penny.  I was even going to contact Getty to offer to pay for their stock photo in good faith just to avoid hassle - but now I see how many hundreds of people have attempted that, amongst many other things, and Getty just doesn't care.  This is completely ridiculous.

As far as I'm concerned - if Getty can't prove to me that they legally and rightfully own that photo (either outright or by rights transfer/permission from the original photographer), and that the photo has NEVER been available for sale or for free on any other website since the photo was created - I have no reason to take them seriously and believe that what they're telling me is true.

Our lawyers advised me to: 1) not pay them a cent, 2) ignore their communication and don't participate in it whatsoever, and 3) to file a complaint with the attorney general.

My question to Oscar (HUGE thanks to you, sir, for helping all of us out through this situation) is if it would be a smart move to contact the attorney general?  If so, would I contact my state's AG or Washington's AG where Getty is located?

What do you recommend for the folks who Getty turned over to debt collection agencies?  I know that I for one have worked SO incredibly hard at building and maintaining excellent credit - just the thought of something so ridiculous tainting it is sickening.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.  Best of luck to us all!

[Matthew Chan]

Hello ScoopsDad,

This website was created to deal with situations like yours.  There has to be some "common sense" applied by Getty.  They are taking the approach that everyone who receives a letter is automatically "guilty" and liable.  I don't buy that at all.

I cannot remember who mentioned it but some photographers have been know to sell the same photos to more than one company.  You may be caught up in something like that.  That is why Oscar and I recommend for people to ask for their claim of license and ownership.

I have not yet filed with the AG or any public officials because I have not been pushed to that point.  But it is one of the VIP contacts I have listed on our website.

Regarding debt collections, you need to read the links I have posted.  There are clear procedure and protocols for it.

MatthewC

[Oscar Michelen]

Dear scoopsdad:

Thanks for the post.  Yes, it is certainly a good idea to contact your local Attorney General. They may already have received a number of complaints about Getty Images and they do not charge for help! Of course, it can be difficult to get a gov't bureaucracy to move on anything, but they generally don't like improper collection techniques. Since I can't post every State's Fair Debt Collection practices, go to your attorney general's website. Most have them directly online.  Filed complaints would also help to maintain a record of Getty Images' abusive techniques.

With respect to the rest of your post you are essentially following the advice I have been giving my clients with one exception - rather than ignore it and hope it goes away, I advise sending a simple letter demanding Getty prove its copyright or license. Without a registered copyright, they can only get actual damages at best and considering that most of these images are available on their own site for $50 that would hardly make it worth their while.  

I have not heard from someone in my home state yet (New York) but once I do, Intend to recommend they file a complaint with NY's Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. A secondary letter to Washington State's AG (their address is available on this site) couldn't hurt either.

The whole purpose of this site is too inform people of their options and to try and balance the scales.  Getty Images is engaging in bullying tactics like the 800 pound gorilla in the room. And it has been working because most people get scared or nervous when they get their letter and their first reaction is to call Getty.  Once they do, Getty will work out a settlement.   If collectively, all letter recipients start demanding proof of Getty's claim of right and sending a message to Getty that they are not backing down and paying their demands, then Getty will be placed on the defensive; that will be heightened if in addition, State Attorneys General begin to get involved.

Once again, thanks for the post, and keep up the good fight!

[dorim]

scoopsdad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Our lawyers advised me to: 1) not pay them a cent,
> 2) ignore their communication and don't
> participate in it whatsoever, and 3) to file a
> complaint with the attorney general.
>

My lawyer gave me the opposite advice; he told me not to ignore the collection agency's demand letters and he told me I am responsible for the image on my website albeit I had nothing to do with creating the website or stealing the image. He said he could write to Getty and ask for a lower settlement dollar amount. I said no thank you.

[Oscar Michelen]

Only thing I want to add to last post is to look up our topic on this forum on "collection" They cannot put you into collection This is not a debt it is a claim There is a big difference

[scoopsdad]

It's been nearly a year since my original post and I just received the "offer of settlement" letter from NCS yesterday.

To update everyone what has happened between the time of my original post and the receipt of the NCS letter yesterday:

After receiving the original letter in July 2008, as per my attorneys' advice, I did not enter into any communications with Getty and did not pay them a penny.  I also filed a complaint with both the Washington attorney general and the Pennsylvania attorney general.  I received a letter back from the PA Bureau of Consumer Protection which basically stated that since my problem arises from a business to business relationship, they cannot assist me.  I received a letter back from the WA attorney general stating that they have forwarded my complaint onto Getty and included a two-page reply from Getty Images basically just stating that I AM guilty and I DO have to pay.  According to the WA attorney general, my complaint has been noted and filed but there's nothing they can do.

I received a second letter from Getty Images on October 20, 2008.

Now just received the NSC collection letter yesterday, September 1st, 2009.

Not too sure where to go from here now.  My attorneys will probably just tell me to ignore this one too.

[Matthew Chan]

ScoopsDad,

I would have to say I disagree with your attorney's advice.  Historically, ignoring the communications does not make the situation go away as you can see.  Answering them does not necessarily make the situation go away but I believe it generates more goodwill than simply ignoring it.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to take the time you need to gather your thoughts, do research, and the like to prepare a solid answer to them.

Essentially, in my case, I apologized for the incident, I assured them the image was removed, I also told them the circumstances of how I ended up with the image unintentionally.  I was responsive, timely, and respectful.  I took the time to both speak with them and write to them.  Obviously, in the end, we disagreed but they did thank me for responding and acknowledging the situation.  They also stated they believe my story because I had provided background information.

Ultimately, I have not heard from them for a year now.  Of course, that can change at anytime but there was a great deal of interaction and communication before they let up.

You don't have to hire an attorney but we do have lots of written and audio information that can assist you in responding to Getty Images.

MatthewC

[Oscar Michelen]

I agree with Matt that I would not just ignore it but respond in a way that also lets them know that you will not pay unreasonable settlement demands.  Keep us posted

[Wen]

Dear Sirs,

I am so glad that I am on this site. I have very similar situation like Scoopsdad.  I got the letter from Masterfile a few days ago for one small image on my website. My website was created in 2001 by a freelance web developer. All images were obtained from a free image site except this one that's from the freelancer. She may have bought for royalty free. In any event, is there a way I can find out whether Masterfile bought the copyright for that image after I did?

They are asking for $2000 for this image that's not even completely identical to the one they have.

I appreciate greatly for your responses on the web site. Thank you!

[Oscar Michelen]

It is difficult top search for this on your own, but if you ask Masterfile in writing for the registration information they are likely to provide it to you.  Unlike Getty, Masterfile almost always registers its images, normally in compilations of several hundred images. I doubt it was registered though back in 2001 as I think they began registration around the time they started using PicScout (2005 or so). At least those are the oldest registrations I have seen in my 30 or so Masterfile cases. You mayhave bought that image even before Masterfile owned it. Keep us posted and let us know what you find out.

[Wen]

Thank you so much Oscar. I will keep you posted.