Just got my letter - I'm a fighter

[DoctorC]

I just got my letter.  Thank you for the site.  I host about 15 websites and they only cost me about $10.00 per year (not mentioning any names)...  All comments below are made in my opinion. So, in my opinion...

We have a site that we maintain that was done for a certain industry as a reference site.  It is not income producing, it is strictly community service for a certain industry.  The intern that did this site 15 years ago used an image that Getty claims is theirs.  The website has banner advertisements that are free to the advertisers because they host the site and do some of the maintenance.  There are is no income and no expense.  They want $965.00 for the past.  We took down the image immediately.  I tried to contact Getty by phone but the message said to leave a message and so I e-mailed them my response and case number that basically covers what I wrote above.

Let me see if I get this right.  They would need to sue me here on the East Coast of the USA and hire an attorney.  Even if they won for exactly $965.00, then they would have legal costs of several times that.  Makes no sense.   The website was started for a  friend to drive traffic to his company (banner advertising), but that company is now bankrupt.  It is sort of funny... Hey Getty, the originator of this was a college intern that downloaded the image from somewhere for a company that is now bankrupt."

I will of course cover this with their $15.00/hour intern.  They will of course try to collect in letter 2.  I will of course say go sue the original site creator who is now bankrupt.  They will attack me since I now run the site (for free) and I will request documentation for EVERY sale that they had from 15 years ago and ask for proof of the copyright and payment to the original owner of the image.  And we'll see how much money they want to spend coming after this.

What a waste of time on a site that is a community resource and has no revenues at all.  INSANE!

Part of what we do here is websites and some of them are "revenge" websites like this one.  The key is to keep it to the fact to prevent defamation or commercial defamation.  So sticking to the fact and using words like "in my opinion" are important.  I strongly recommend that members here should BLANKET e-mail on a daily and repeated basis every news agency that shows Getty Images.  Same goes for any talk show or local news show.  SLAM them with e-mails daily.  Complain loudly that Getty is "in your opinion -- out of control, Etc."

I respect intellectual property rights.  I use intellectual property, I sell intellectual property and I license images from istockphoto and photolia at about $1.00 - $5.00 per image.  I always and only buy royalty free images.  This one image was no my doing, I am just the owner of the URL, a community service site with no revenues.

I will report back as this goes a bit further.

[Katerina]

Welcome to our club! And good luck with your fight!
If Getty really bring you to the court room, and if they win, then they may request you to pay their legal fees. So be careful, and do your homework first...

[Helpi]

"They would need to sue me here on the East Coast of the USA and hire an attorney.  Even if they won for exactly $965.00, then they would have legal costs of several times that.  Makes no sense. "

It goes both ways.

Also, see section 505 of the Copyright Act.

[Helpi]

PS, before Matt jumps in. I'm not opining on your situation, I'm suggesting you send anyone a dime, I'm not telling you they have a strong case on either liability or damages.

I'm just responding to the point that it is often uneconomic to pursue small dollar infringement even when the case may be solid on liability. Section 505 is helpful for plaintiffs.

[Oscar Michelen]

Helpi - you only get atty's fees if the work was registered prior to infringement. But if the work was registered, then attorneys fees are a real deterrent. The first circuit court in a case called Schooner upheld $98,000 in atty's fees when the court only awarded $10,000 in statutory damages. The best way to avoid payment of excessive atty's fees in registered image cases is to make a reasonable settlement offer prior to litigation. 

[SoylentGreen]

Helpi, you're an "attorney".
You're supposed to know this stuff.

S.G.

[Helpi]

"Helpi - you only get atty's fees if the work was registered prior to infringement. But if the work was registered, then attorneys fees are a real deterrent. The first circuit court in a case called Schooner upheld $98,000 in atty's fees when the court only awarded $10,000 in statutory damages. The best way to avoid payment of excessive atty's fees in registered image cases is to make a reasonable settlement offer prior to litigation.  "

Oscar, I won't insult you if you don't insult me, OK ?

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

How is this insulting? This is simply pointing out that it appears that in many cases Getty has not registered the work. In some cases they may not even hold an exclusive license. Oscar is explaining that in those cases Getty could not get legal fees even if they win. I didn't read an insult?

[Helpi]

Oscar: "Helpi - you only get atty's fees if the work was registered prior to infringement:"

Me: "Actually that is only the rule for unpublished work, you have a 3 month grace period from first publication for published work."

And I pretend he doesn't know basic copyright law when of course I know he does.

Will that improve the quality of the discussion if we each talk down to each other ?

[SoylentGreen]

None of what you just said proves that everthing that Getty has is copyrighted.
Nice try.

Lame troll is lame.

S.G.

[Helpi]

"None of what you just said proves that everthing that Getty has is copyrighted."

I got it now. If I say you can't know something without seeing the relevant document that means you can know without seeing it. If I say get a lawyer, it means don't. If I say no one should take a settlement demand's assertions at face value because your own lawyer should evaluate them it means take them at face value and don't seek legal advice. And if I say I am a lawyer, it means I'm not.

I decline to play with you further.

Regards.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Helpi -- Either you are intentionally being vague or I just don't get you. You say: "Actually that is only the rule for unpublished work, you have a 3 month grace period from first publication for published work."

Can you site a specific source for this?

[Helpi]

"Either you are intentionally being vague or I just don't get you."

Different audiences, different delivery. Don't construe it as being vague. I assure you Oscar is familiar with the relevant statute. And I was being snarky. As in he wants to recite copyright 101, at least be accurate.

In any event, section 504 of The Copyright Act provides for statutory damages, "except as otherwise provide in this title."  The otherwise provided in this title is contained in section 412 which limits statutory damages to registrations made within certain time limits:

Section 412, in part:

"...no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for —

(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or

(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work."

There is a grace period of three months in the case of published work.

The definition of "publication" doesn't address online display.

The Copyright Office position to "asks applicants, who know the facts surrounding distribution of their works, to determine whether works are published."

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl107.html

Your welcome.

And I'm starting to think it not only not strange that Oscar declines to go into copyright law but understand why.

I'm remarkably starting to come around to Matt's view. Cheer people on, collect any and all arguments (without attempting to correct any misstatements or making any fine distinctions among cases) and direct people to see a lawyer if you have an actual letter you are concerned about.

[Helpi]

I've no idea why certain sentences just posted with a strikethrough.

[Matthew Chan]

The strikethrough was a result of your accidentally triggering the markup code within your post. I removed the offending code.