just received an email

[rudy]

Hi, I just received an extortion style email from a company called AMA Sports Photo Agency located in the UK. I'm new here and I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this in but the email mentioned GettyImages which is how I found my way here.

So far I've removed the image from our server. The image in question actually wasn't hosted on our server but we used the same image for the "featured image" in wordpress which automatically creates a small thumbnail and uploads it to the server. The full size image used in the blog article was embedded from another server.

I'm wondering what my next step should be and if I should even bother replying to their email. The company is clearly not as powerful as GettyImages and I highly doubt they are serious about taking this to a court.


Here is the email.

Hi *******

Firstly many thanks for getting in touch with us directly.

I write concerning the illegal publishing of some of our images.

We are an independent sports photo agency who supply images to newspapers and magazines. We have to fund the travel, photographers wages and of course expensive cameras. Our income is from licencing our images to paying contributors. We are not a charity and actively seek payments from websites who steal and then publish our images without prior agreement or authorisation. Sometimes we do deals with newspapers where we sell exclusive content to them. This means that under contract it is our responsibility to ensure that no one else reproduces the images, something judges take into consideration when such delicate matters end up in court as we can be sued hundreds of times more than the payment of the picture for not protecting the image rights purchased by the client.

I am sorry to say that after finding some of our images on your excellent website, the author of the post, "@******" simply laughed off our suggestions via communication using Twitter.

Equally as our Twitter feed is published on our live website, we found his comments of "LOL at his tweets" and in particular the antagonistic reply of posting this : **mocking image** something which I hope you agree is very enticing and very harmful to our integrity. Therefore we are seeking damages and payment of the unauthorised use of images posted on ******.com

If you want us to remind you of the Copyright law, we can, however basically, authors of artistic content are protected under the copyright law and as the owners of the website ******.com housed at your server (who we have also been in touch with) you are liable for such breaches. Also we notice that you have advertising on the site, therefore under law, the website is classed as a commercial website and not just something like an amateur blog.

Therefore can you tell us on how you wish us to proceed.

Either we can go guns blazing and serve notices on the server and seek payment via the courts (which is expensive for us both) or reach an amicable agreement.

Also Getty Images are also aware of stolen content on your site. Perhaps you should google what Getty charge for copyright infringement.... sometimes is it $14,000+. They have $35M worth of lawyers behind them. I can assure you that you will not win!

Should you have purchased the image from a third party agent then please accept my full apologies but all I ask is details of the picture sale to satisfy us that we do not have to proceed any further.

I await your reply ***** and thank you for your time in dealing with this delicate matter.

The images we are concerned about are: Link To Blog Post

Manchester Untied player Javier Hernandez which we feel has been stolen from The Guardian newspaper site.

We also feel that you should remind your contributors of the severity of posting illegal content on your website. We are not a nasty bunch of people, but simply want our just rewards for paying huge wages to our photographers who have over $30,000 of photographic kit to produce such images. There is simply no argument to suggest that your website can publish these pictures free of charge.

Regards

Matthew Ashton



AMA SPORTS PHOTO AGENCY
PO BOX 979
SHREWSBURY
SY3 7XB
UNITED KINGDOM

W : www.amasportsphotoagency.com
E : [email protected]
F : www.facebook.com/AMAsportsphotoagency
T : twitter.com/AMAsportsphoto
S : SKYPE : ama_matthewashton.com
T : 07885 163164 / 0208 133 6612
F : FAX : 0709 224 6960

----------------------------------------

I appreciate any guidance or support you can provide.

Thanks

[SoylentGreen]

AMA sounds really butthurt over this.
I hope that the "mocking image" was some version of the "trollface" or an arse.

Are they actually affiliated with Getty?  If so, why wouldn't Getty handle it?
In any case, Getty's one of the most prolific, but most fail-worthy trolls.
If they're paying 35 million to lawyers, they're getting ripped off.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

AMA sounds really butthurt over this.
I hope that the "mocking image" was some version of the "trollface" or an arse.

Are they actually affiliated with Getty?  If so, why wouldn't Getty handle it?
In any case, Getty's one of the most prolific, but most fail-worthy trolls.
If they're paying 35 million to lawyers, they're getting ripped off.

S.G.

Timothy B. McCormack makes somewhere between 30% -40%...which according to my math is nowwhere near that....30-40% of ZERO = ZERO...this thread is now on my list of comment worthy threads...I really want to start the new year of right...these trolls are going to get fed to the dogs...

maybe i'll start sending emails with invoices to random people...then I can be a scumbag along with AMA Sports Photo Agency

[lucia]

rudy--
Is your site hosted in the UK or the US? 

I'm not sure I understand the references to the exchanges on Twitter. I'm guessing you edited the letter a bit.  Do I understand correctly that the photo company requested the copyright issue be discussed on Twitter? Then did someone respond to them rudely on Twitter?  If so, their suggesting conversation on Twitter would strike me as a very odd thing for them to do. (I don't know if it's relevant to the copyright issue. But if they did that, it's odd. )

[SoylentGreen]

I'm a bit foggy on UK law.
But, it's probably of interest that the image was only "linked" to, if I understand correctly.
If the blog automatically made a thumbnail that was stored locally, I wonder if that would be a very minor infringement (if any).
A weak infringement case..?

S.G.

[rudy]

rudy--
Is your site hosted in the UK or the US? 

I'm not sure I understand the references to the exchanges on Twitter. I'm guessing you edited the letter a bit.  Do I understand correctly that the photo company requested the copyright issue be discussed on Twitter? Then did someone respond to them rudely on Twitter?  If so, their suggesting conversation on Twitter would strike me as a very odd thing for them to do. (I don't know if it's relevant to the copyright issue. But if they did that, it's odd. )

The blog post in question was written by someone on my message board. All the articles on my blog are user submitted and this AMA guy tweeted threats to the author who had his twitter account listed on the blog post containing the alleged copywrite infringement. He initially thought the tweet was a prank and responded with a link to the movie poster of "Catch Me If You Can"


Also, I'm located in the US

[Lettered]

have you complied with all of the provisions under DMCA to have "safe harbor"?  If so I think all he can do is send you a take down notice ... which seems moot as youve already taken it down.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

rudy--
Is your site hosted in the UK or the US? 

I'm not sure I understand the references to the exchanges on Twitter. I'm guessing you edited the letter a bit.  Do I understand correctly that the photo company requested the copyright issue be discussed on Twitter? Then did someone respond to them rudely on Twitter?  If so, their suggesting conversation on Twitter would strike me as a very odd thing for them to do. (I don't know if it's relevant to the copyright issue. But if they did that, it's odd. )

The blog post in question was written by someone on my message board. All the articles on my blog are user submitted and this AMA guy tweeted threats to the author who had his twitter account listed on the blog post containing the alleged copywrite infringement. He initially thought the tweet was a prank and responded with a link to the movie poster of "Catch Me If You Can"


Also, I'm located in the US

I highly doubt these asshats would file suit here in the states, this letter sounds more like a scam than any of the others we've seen..they certainly deserve to be humiliated in public, via here, FB, twitter and anywhere else..

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

have you complied with all of the provisions under DMCA to have "safe harbor"?  If so I think all he can do is send you a take down notice ... which seems moot as youve already taken it down.

Most folks don't do this, because they don't even know about it..hell ELI doesn't even have a registered agent..then again this is ELI.. : )

[rudy]

rudy--
Is your site hosted in the UK or the US? 

I'm not sure I understand the references to the exchanges on Twitter. I'm guessing you edited the letter a bit.  Do I understand correctly that the photo company requested the copyright issue be discussed on Twitter? Then did someone respond to them rudely on Twitter?  If so, their suggesting conversation on Twitter would strike me as a very odd thing for them to do. (I don't know if it's relevant to the copyright issue. But if they did that, it's odd. )

The blog post in question was written by someone on my message board. All the articles on my blog are user submitted and this AMA guy tweeted threats to the author who had his twitter account listed on the blog post containing the alleged copywrite infringement. He initially thought the tweet was a prank and responded with a link to the movie poster of "Catch Me If You Can"


Also, I'm located in the US

I highly doubt these asshats would file suit here in the states, this letter sounds more like a scam than any of the others we've seen..they certainly deserve to be humiliated in public, via here, FB, twitter and anywhere else..

I was thinking it would be unlikely a UK company would bother to fly over here to the States regarding a picture that is worth between $20 and $50.

They have now started harassing me on my site's facebook account.

As far as DMCA, I have removed the actual file from the server and pulled the blog post. Is there other actions I need to take? Also, should I even bother to send a reply email to these people?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

get screen shots of everything they post, report them to facebook, multiple times if need be...expose them on twitter, don't respond via email..but keep records of everything. research the company, get names and publicly expose them at every opportunity... DO consider setting up a registered agent to afford you safe harbor via DMCA, or do NOT allow random people to post. People that post images should link to them as opposed to uploading them to your server.read on , get educated, the more you know the easier it will be to defeat these trolls.

[SoylentGreen]

If they are a UK organization, I doubt that they've made any US copyright registrations.
Also, the louder and more obnoxious they are, the less likely that have anything concrete to fall back on.

S.G.

[lucia]

Also, I'm located in the US

Good. Knowing that helps us take certain issues "off the table".

If you are in the US, the hotlinking part is not copyright infringement as per Amazon. v. Perfect 10. (We can give more details.) That's off the table in terms of anyone suing you and hoping to win.

The thumbnail is trickier. OTOH: It's a thumbnail.

Have you registered a DMCA agent?  If you permit users to submit content, it might be wise to do so. This is especially true if they can do something that results in images stored on your servers (even thumbnails.)  Having a DMCA registered would take even more things off the table.

I'm not a lawyer-- but I can't see how you could be liable in anyway for Twitter postings by a person who merely visited your site. If I posted something insulting about 'person X' on Twitter, Mathew Chan would not become liable merely because I also post comments here.  So unless I misunderstand that aspect, I don't see how that can be an issue between you and the copyright holder. 

[lucia]

They have now started harassing me on my site's facebook account.

Can you block them?

[Couch_Potato]

Doesn't the US have a law that any organisation situated outside the US trying to sue in the US can be made to post a bond in case they lose?

Can't see anyone posting that for a small copyright claim.