Letter Received But No Such Image

[eznoh]

I recently received the letter from Getty Images including the supposed image but there is no such image on my site. There must be a lot of these "false positives" if a bot is being used to identify these images, but I haven't seen anything here or on the web about such case. I'm wondering if anyone has had this happen and if they contacted Getty Images about it.

Mike

[lucia]

We've heard of this happening.

One way the bot can get a screen shot is if the image is displayed in the frame of an ad from your advertisers banner ads. You are not liable in this instance.  If you are in the US, you are not liable unless you hosted on your server. If it has not, you are in a darn good position.

Do you run ads?

[eznoh]

I do run ads but they are all music ads. The image they provided in the letter is of a bird escaping a cage which I have never seen before and doesn't have much to do with music.

Mike

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Your might want to check all the directories and sub-directories on your server.  Once Pic-Scout gets in it will look through all un-password protected directories.  I have seen where there has been a placeholder image left over from the site design in a directory that is not listed.  look everywhere on the server and you may find it.

[eznoh]

I checked, besides doesn't it have to be displayed in order for me to be guilty?

Mike

[lucia]

Yes. It has to be 'displayed'. It also has to be 'copied'. But the side pursuing the case is likely going to say that the fact that someone can load the uri for the image and see it means it's "displayed".   So having it on your server is more important than embedding it in a page you intended to call the uri so that it "displayed" in the page.

[eznoh]

My site has hundreds of links, could the bot have found the image on one of those sites?

Mike

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

IF that is the case then there was no infringement as the courts have ruled the linking is not infringement.  See the Perfect 10 cases for reference.

[lucia]

My site has hundreds of links, could the bot have found the image on one of those sites?

Mike

Yes. But linking to an image is not copying it under US copyright law. So that would be the bot's problem not yours.

[eznoh]

But how do I prove it? They send a letter with no proof, just a photo with no link and a threat.

Mike

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

But how do I prove it? They send a letter with no proof, just a photo with no link and a threat.

Mike

It's not up to you to prove anything, it's up to them to prove you did....remember this is America..innocent until proven guilty...

[eznoh]

When you receive a letter like that it makes you wonder ...

Mike

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Clearly this thread is in need of our #gettyflubs tag.

Eznoh please don't loose any sleep over this. At this stage you could argue that it seemed like an Internet scam. Please keep us posted on how this develops.

If Getty really wanted to, they could make PicScout do a better job checking if the image in question was hosted on the actual site. Or they could do the courtesy of actually having someone look at the page before sending out a letter. But for some reason they'd rather piss off current and potential customers and convince them to never do business with them.

[lucia]

When you receive a letter like that it makes you wonder ...

Mike

Sure. The letter is worded to imply Getty has some sort of airtight case. In fact, they sometimes have totally screwed up. The bot might have "seen" an image in a ad banner. The bot might mis-identify. The bot wasn't programmed to see whether the image was hotlinked and so on. The human 'checker' don't necessarily check these things properly.

Just because Getty's letter is over-confident of their case doesn't mean you need to prove anything *to them*. If they take you to court, *they* would need to present their evidence to the court. You would also get to see their evidence in discovery. 

Bear in mind: If you ask for evidence, they will say they can't provide you anything until discovery. But the same holds for you. You don't have to tell them anything prior to discovery either.

[eznoh]

I'm wondering how you think I should proceed. I thought I would wait to see if I get a second letter, I've read that they have sent out hundreds of thousands of these letters, I'm thinking they will concentrate on those that respond. Or do you think I should reply now?

Mike