John Deboer Letter and Registration

[lw1990]

I received a letter stating that I infringed copyright of a single photo and may owe $150,000 as you have heard before, however this time the letter states the image is registered and gives a Certificate of Registration Vau number. Where can I go to verify this number? I tried the UPSTO website which is for patents, is this the same as a Certificate of Registration?

I also need to know whether to respond to them or ignore them.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

To look up records go here

http://www.copyright.gov/records/

Before I can give any other opinions I would need to know more information about your case.  What was the image (a picture of a sprinkler head is not the same as a picture of a famous person), how you got it, how it was used etc.

I would start by reading through the forums and educating yourself before I would even consider contacting them.

[lw1990]

It's interesting you say that because it actually was an image of a sprinkler head. I obtained the image from a third party website where no copyright notice was visible on the smaller-than-original image. I was notified of infringement of the original large image with the copyright text on it.

The company I web mastered for is the owner of the website, I did their website for free since they are a very small company. They had no idea about it, although apparently it is ultimately their responsibility. It was used on the homepage of the website which had nothing but contact details such as phone number, and a short 1/4th of a page description of the business. It was a single-page website with only one image, which almost no one knew about outside the company. Certainly, web crawlers found it or some other bots and not human searchers.

I've read as much as I can here, and am pressured for an answer right away as the web master is seen as the responsible party. Of course, ultimately the owner of the business is liable even though they are innocent victims just as everyone is due to the extortionate amounts of money demanded for measly images. Clearly these people are capitalizing on a lawful venue for an extortion scheme going beyond reasonable demands, what is extremely unclear to me is how many single-image cases like this lose in court, and what the damages usually are. If there is any practical risk of losing upwards of $2,000, does it really make sense not to settle?

[stinger]

It makes sense not to settle if they don't have the rights to the image that they claim to have.

If you decide to settle without verifying that they have the rights they claim to have, you should not advertise the fact that you may be a willing patsy, lest others choose to come after you.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

My comments will appear in line in bold.

It's interesting you say that because it actually was an image of a sprinkler head. I obtained the image from a third party website where no copyright notice was visible on the smaller-than-original image. I was notified of infringement of the original large image with the copyright text on it.

Well I definitely would not say that there was no copyright on the smaller image to them. Copyright exists from the moment the pictures taken, whether the image is labeled or not in less it is public domain someone owns the copyright to that image.

The company I web mastered for is the owner of the website, I did their website for free since they are a very small company. They had no idea about it, although apparently it is ultimately their responsibility. It was used on the homepage of the website which had nothing but contact details such as phone number, and a short 1/4th of a page description of the business. It was a single-page website with only one image, which almost no one knew about outside the company. Certainly, web crawlers found it or some other bots and not human searchers.

I wish more people would be like you and step up to handle the situation when they are the ones who put the image on the website. Too often we see the end user here who had their website done and is now dealing with images someone placed on their website so kudos to you.

Having said that even though you are taking responsibility for it the odds are in less you are offering the amount they are requesting they will ignore you and continue to go after the website owner. I do not know the amount they are asking but I'm sure it is in far more than an image of a sprinkler head is worth.

I've read as much as I can here, and am pressured for an answer right away as the web master is seen as the responsible party. Of course, ultimately the owner of the business is liable even though they are innocent victims just as everyone is due to the extortionate amounts of money demanded for measly images. Clearly these people are capitalizing on a lawful venue for an extortion scheme going beyond reasonable demands, what is extremely unclear to me is how many single-image cases like this lose in court, and what the damages usually are. If there is any practical risk of losing upwards of $2,000, does it really make sense not to settle?

My normal stance is to say to fight them but I think in your situation since if they see any resistance from you they will just go after the website owner would be to look into Oscar's defense letter program.

Once Oscar since then the letter they can no longer contact you or the website owner directly. If you let Oscar know you are handling it for the website owner then they need not here anymore about it at all and you can let them know you have a lawyer that is handling.

To avoid this in the future I would not use any images found off of Internet searches, free picture websites or anywhere else unless you have either taken the picture yourself or purchased a license. If you go to sites like pond5 confined images generally for under $10.

I hope this helps and please keep us informed as to what you decide to do.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

While you are right on the mark with this Stinger, remember he/she is the web developer and not the website owner and generally if he/she offers any resistance they will ignore him or her and just pester the website owner.

I applaud him or her for stepping up and handling this especially since they did the website for free.

It makes sense not to settle if they don't have the rights to the image that they claim to have.

If you decide to settle without verifying that they have the rights they claim to have, you should not advertise the fact that you may be a willing patsy, lest others choose to come after you.

[stinger]

Good points Greg.  I agree.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Here's the thing... They may (or may not) own the exclusive rights on the image. It'll be interesting to see what your research turns up.

But what kills me is that Getty has ZERO interest in contacting the site you obtained the image from or maybe even told you the image was free to use. You'd think if they were wanted to maintain their rights to the image, they would at least ask you where the image came from. It's like they want to keep these free image sites up and running so they can send out more letters. A great business model if you don't mind turning potential customers against you.

[JLorimer]

But what kills me is that Getty has ZERO interest in contacting the site you obtained the image from or maybe even told you the image was free to use.

I completely agree, Jerry. 

To those who are a little more legally inclined, would there be any benefit, if any, in arguing to this point should it come to a lawsuit?  Once again, this is common man opinion, but it seems this could be an interesting partial defense.  If Getty could not answer why they are not chasing other sites that are sourcing these images then it seems they should have less right to pursue you.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

In my opinion I would absolutely use this if Getty took me to court. This is also the reason why I prefer all communications to be done via Postal Service rather than email or telephone, that way I have a paper trail on their letterhead with their signature.

I think Getty would have a hard time explaining why they refused to send proof of claim in order to facilitate negotiation, why after refusing to send proof they tell the letter recipient pay us or will sue and many other things.

In my opinion Getty is taking a risk with the single image lawsuits they are filing as they are going to pick on the wrong person who will file a counter suit and demand answers to these and many other questions.

I truly feel that if Getty Images or McCormack IP Law were ever to half to face a lawyer of Oscar Michelen's caliber it could end up being a precedent-setting case that could change the way these companies handle their settlement demand programs.

But what kills me is that Getty has ZERO interest in contacting the site you obtained the image from or maybe even told you the image was free to use.

I completely agree, Jerry. 

To those who are a little more legally inclined, would there be any benefit, if any, in arguing to this point should it come to a lawsuit?  Once again, this is common man opinion, but it seems this could be an interesting partial defense.  If Getty could not answer why they are not chasing other sites that are sourcing these images then it seems they should have less right to pursue you.