ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: luanne415 on November 03, 2015, 11:10:47 AM
-
Who knows why but Troll McGee aka Trunk Archive aka LCS aka Getty decided that I'm not a worthwhile pursuit after sending me a couple of letters since August 2015.
Perhaps they'll read my blog post and close my other case too. Either way, whatever :)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0twulsayggfm9io/case_closed.png?dl=0
-
well done!
-
Luanne- how much were they originally seeking ? what was your strategy?? Going dark,, Oscar.. ??
-
Luanne- how much were they originally seeking ? what was your strategy?? Going dark,, Oscar.. ??
Zazen,
One was originally for over $500 then reduced to $400+, now it's at $382 (it fluctuates and changes just like the wind based on whatever they feel like) and the other is for $478 (the case they closed).
1) My strategy was being upfront and calling them out the moment I got the email because I was appalled at their business practices from the start (this was before I discovered this forum and the thousands of others experiencing the same thing).
My email response here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2uzgfwjvpt4imb7/response.png?dl=0
2) Once I did some digging, I took it further and wrote a full blog post on the situation. They are outright bullies and trolls and I would rather go out in flames than cower in fear from these asshats.
http://mini-moe.blogspot.com/2015/08/internet-trolls-why-getty-images-will-die-a-natural-death-online.html
-
I own the copyright of "asshat", you owe me a six pack....or else!
-
I own the copyright of "asshat", you owe me a six pack....or else!
:o :o :o :o
Here's your six pack payment for copyright infringement
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=6pack.jpg
-
Very good news. Out of curiosity, did you have a DMCA agent for your site? Was it in place prior to the use of the image?
-
Very good news. Out of curiosity, did you have a DMCA agent for your site? Was it in place prior to the use of the image?
I don't know what DMCA is so my guess is a no :D
-
most people don't have a registered agent, it is really only beneficial if your site has a forum of sorts or allows users to post. Users meaning anyone not employed by or the actual owner of the site.
-
Hello all - I'm new to the site, but our business received an extortion letter from LCS on behalf of Trunk Archives several months ago. I did my research and believe they have no case, but obviously we're worried. This is the first thread I've seen that mentions Trunk Archives, so I'm glad to see that they are included in this scam.
Long story short, we used an image for NY Fashion week that appeared in Vogue online, in a blog post about Fall Trends. We discontinued the blog this past spring and all posts came down. My first notice from LCS came in September. I promptly notified them (They asked for $1000) that the image was no longer on the site. The response:
"The image was captured by the software on 03/16/2015. Even with removal of the image, the prior unauthorized use of the imagery on the website is considered a violation of Federal Law. Since copyright infringement already occurred, payment for that unauthorized use is also necessary. There is a three year statute of limitations from the time of capture in which this case can be pursued."
I followed some advice on here and from our attorney, and let them know that we believed the image was fair use. Needless to say, I wasn't stern enough because the threats kept coming, and the last email stated the latest offer of $900 to settle would expire tomorrow (12/12).
I feel that we have a pretty strong case, but the photographer does have an account with Trunk Archives, and of course we did not pay any license fees for the photo. Is the fact that we took it from Vogue after they published it matter (and linked back to them and their photo credit)? In the board's experience, is this total BS or am I the one case where there really was infringement?
Any advice appreciated!
-
I wanted to add that in my written response, I asked for proof of ownership, and they sent 2 letters from Trunk Archives executives claiming 1. Ownership and 2. Giving LCS rights to pursue infringements on their behalf. I believe that is a joke because Getty owns both Trunk and LCS, right?
-
couple of points..
LCS is actually Picscout, which is owned by Getty, but a seperate entitiy, Trunk archive is not related to Getty in any way other than being "clients" of Picscout.
Chances are good that Vogue either licensed the image from Trunk or Vogue may own the image outright ( I would research this if I were you) Either way you infringed by not licensing the image.
LCS is correct in stating there is a 3 yr statute from the date of discovery.however IF ( and it's a big IF) they were to file suit and you explained to the court that the image in question was actually removed BEFORE you were ever notified, it MIGHT put you in a better light to the judge.
I think you would have a hard time arguing "fair use" as you have to meet certain criteria ( explained in other posts here).. but it's highly unlikely they will file suit, they are just a bunch of asshole trolls that seek low hanging fruit to grab cash.
you need to search the copyright database to see who owns the image and to see if it's even registered, if it's not, you're on better ground in terms of a lawsuit.
-
Thank you for your reply, and that confirms some fears - namely that we infringed at all - I believe that we do indeed meet several criteria of Fair Use based on what I have researched, but it's not a slam dunk. While the image was not altered, it was used in an educational way, the photo was journalistic, not artistic, we didn't make any money off of it, and it has already been published in the public domain. Lastly, the settlement amount is far beyond "Fair Market Value". Still, Your opinion is persuasive.
I have a hard time with the dollar amount, seeing that a license might have cost about $100 at the most. My biggest fear is that once you pay, they will target the business. As a lifestyle related business, publishing photos to our online media feeds (Instagram, e.g.) is key. Most all the work is original, but not all. Is there any story of a business being targeted after paying?
I am planning on making a $250 good faith settlement offer today.
-
Fair Use is never a slam dunk as it is open to a judge to decide.
a blog article about "Fall Trends" doesn't sound to me be educational, and if the site serves ads, it would be deemed commercial for all intents and purposes.. If the image is "public domain" ( which I highly doubt) they have NO CASE whatsoever..don't offer them anything in that case, simply respond with solid proof it is in public domain, but again unless it is a picture from NASA, the government or like 100 yrs old, it's most likely not public domain.
offering them 250.00 will only give them cause to continue to hound you, that offer will be quickly rejected..
Keep the following in mind:
1. LCS does not have the authority to file suit, the owner of the image would need to do that.
2. They would have to file suit in your home state..meaning, they would have to hire a local lawyer, and spend the 495.00 to file
3. chances are good if they filed, and won, they very might well only be awarded the minimum 200.00.
which in real terms put them in the negative.
Keep reading the forums, get educated and learn so bits of the law and how these turds operate. To my knowledge TRunk Archive has NEVER filed a single lawsuit as of yet, and they send out 100's if not 1000's of letters.
-
Thank you, Robert.
I guess I shouldn't throw around "public domain" in a forum like this! For clarification, we don't serve ads, though it is a business, not personal site. Also, our argument (which you seem to reject!) is that fashion/beauty experts, commenting on what is trending is educating our audience. We didn't use the image to promote the business, we used it to illustrate the topic. To your point, it would be up to the judge and it could go either way. Shakey case in the end, perhaps.
It's disheartening to hear they would reject the offer. It sounds like, even though they hint litigation is their next move, it never has been. Others here seem to indicate that if I don't pay today, I'll just get another threat in a few weeks. Am I picking that up right?
Also Oscar's post indicates that the courts have not/will not impose "multipliers" or other associated fees to an award. My thinking is that the most they could win is the original amount of $1000, because if the photo was worth more than that, they would ask for more. Is that sound logic? Is Oscar's post still true?
Lastly, Oscar mentions that if I make them aware that we have counsel, they are no longer allowed to contact me directly. I let "Samantha Clemens" know form our second email that I was being advised by my lawyer. Have they broken the law?
-
you will most likely receive additional letters, especially since you responded to them already, they now think they have a fish on the hook. By you telling them you are being advised by your lawyer is not sufficient, kinda the same as them telling you they own the image. Now if your lawyer sends them a response, that would be different, as then you would be represented by council, and they would have to send everything through him/her. I'll reiterate again, it's not in their interest to file suit, it would cost them more then it's worth, they know this or they would be filing suit daily.
I'm not "rejecting" anything I'm simply disagreeing, I don't see how "commentors" can make it fair use..they did not post it, using it to "illustrate a topic" ( your words) is not fair use... Using Public domainis fine on this forum, but public domain images do not fall under copyright and that term is often misused as is Royaly Free..
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty-free
-
I understand your point. I also understand where the word "extortion" comes from on this website! I can't believe these people have this business model. I would note for the board's use that I contacted Trunk Images directly asking about the image. They do represent the photog and handle licensing for him. When I asked about the price I got radio silence. Do you think they pinged LCS to see if I was a troll victim?
Thank you again for all your perspective. I am going to ignore this deadline, then whenever down the road they want to send more letters, I will have our attorney respond. I would guess that they would cool it after that unless they intend to go to court. It would make sense to harass my attorney, right?
-
it's possible. anything is possible...it's also possible that the photog never signed a contract with Trunk, don't take them at their word..we've seen Getty state that exact thing in acourt room, but had no signature from the photog...end of case right there... remember with many of these firms, it's about money andnot about protecting copyright or the artist. If you know the artist name, search their works n the copyright database, if it's not registered better for you.
-
Very true. The photog's website makes no mention of Trunk. all requests and inquiries go to him directly.
-
I've also seen a case where Getty tried to enforce copyright, and the artist had previously pulled his artwork from them, and did not renew the contract....these douche bags can be slippery as eels.
-
Lets not forget the couple of times we have found out about them trying to collect on public domain images.