ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: eznoh on March 19, 2013, 03:59:25 PM
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
I checked, besides doesn't it have to be displayed in order for me to be guilty?
Mike
-
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.
-
My site has hundreds of links, could the bot have found the image on one of those sites?
Mike
-
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.
-
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.
-
But how do I prove it? They send a letter with no proof, just a photo with no link and a threat.
Mike
-
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...
-
When you receive a letter like that it makes you wonder ...
Mike
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
If you are not responding the letters seem to come on a 2 to 3 months interval. If you do respond a reply will usually come as soon as your letter is read or about two weeks after you mail it.
If it were me I would send them one letter letting them know that there is no such image on your site and that Pic-Scout picked up an image that was hotlinked, cite the perfect 10 v. Google case that ruled linking is not infringement and let them know you consider the case closed and will no longer respond to any letters. You may also want to add if they choose to continue sending you letters you will file complaints with the Washington state Attorney General's office, the Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission.
-
If this happened to you then it must be happening to others. Yesterday I heard from someone who got a Getty letter but the Getty image while similar was NOT the image they had on their web page. They are reluctant to share it for fear of retaliation, but I am still trying to get them to send it to me - PicScout slipping?
-
Picscout does slip. I created some simple graphics and then used their image recognition tool to 'find matches' and got some pretty hilareous results. I would have blogged-- but I don't know whether 'fair use' would cover my screen shots of the copyrighted images used to show how hilarious the image recognition can be. Hilareous can be: My image is nothing but a square with an X from corner to corner. It matched something a bird on a telephone wire. I figured the matching element was the telephone wire was one of the legs of the 'X' going from corner to corner. No human would ever have made this mistake. It also matched a bannana on some sort of grid background.
Some matches are, on the other hand, sort of awesome and explicable. Example: Photo's from the of Romney on a platform triggered matches with different photos of Romeny on the same platform. Many elements were shared but the photos were different.
Their tool has aspects of awesomeness, but a human does need to visit to see whether the images that supposedly matched do match. If the human is either lazy, inattentive or something they could make a mistake too.
-
It seems a bit odd to me that Getty Images didn't provide the URL to the image in question.
At this point, it's a bit irrelevant in my opinion.
Getty images have never filed a lawsuit over a single image, so it's unlikely that anything would ever come of this.
S.G.
-
Yes SG, you're right this discussion is largely academic.
-
I have had a similar issue; they pointed out an infringing image that was similar to one of their images (but not same image). I removed the image asap and sent them an email about it (along with the discrepancy in the infringing images). Didn't hear from they for 3 months. Then received another copy of same letter again. I ignored it. I then received a letter from a collection agency. I ignored that too. I finally received a letter from their hired attorney. Again no mention or reference to my email. Any idea what the next steps are?
Also, the infringing image was hosted by Microsoft and embedded in my site. How does this effect things?
-
Also, the infringing image was hosted by Microsoft and embedded in my site. How does this effect things?
Are you in the US? The highest court ruling on the issue is the 9th circuit. It's Amazon v. Perfect 10. Amazon won: They ruled embedding the image is not copying or displaying as defined in US copyright law. So, it's ok to do and Amazon owed Perfect 10 $0.00. Nothing. Zip. Perfect 10 lost.
Perfect 10 did not appeal so we have no ruling form the Supreme Court. But if you are in California (and possibly a few other western states-- then you are in the 9th circuit and all courts will follow the 9th court ruling. If you are in another state, Getty would have to <i>hope</I> that courts in those states would rule differently than the 9th circuit. And they'd have to have rocks in their heads to expect it because the 9th court was upholding the lower court ruling.
I'm pretty sure that so far, no court in the US has ruled that embedding an image hosted elsewhere violates copyright. Tell Getty to pound sand.
I then received a letter from a collection agency. I ignored that too. I finally received a letter from their hired attorney.
Whoo hooo!! Both the collection agency and the escallation to attorney are way out of line -- especially if you embedded the image and also especially if they mis-identified the image. If you embedded the image, this is actually a great opportunity. You should write a complaint to the Attorney General on this one. Especially if you are in the 9th circuit jurisdiction. Get your ducks in a row and we can get the information into this.
-
I have had a similar issue; they pointed out an infringing image that was similar to one of their images (but not same image). I removed the image asap and sent them an email about it (along with the discrepancy in the infringing images). Didn't hear from they for 3 months. Then received another copy of same letter again. I ignored it. I then received a letter from a collection agency. I ignored that too. I finally received a letter from their hired attorney. Again no mention or reference to my email. Any idea what the next steps are?
Also, the infringing image was hosted by Microsoft and embedded in my site. How does this effect things?
They are threatening legal action over an entirely different image that they potentially don't own? Why aren't you on the phone screaming at somebody?
Seriously, them wasting your time over an image that they don't represent AND wasn't even hosted on your site? For me it would be time to yell at someone, and then insist that they send a letter absolving me of responsibility for this particular image and issue an apology.
Please let us know where this goes. (Tagging as #gettyflubs)
-
Got the 2nd letter dated exactly one month after the 1st. It referenced the first letter and said they were "willing to offer me one last chance to resolve the claim". It also said to contact them immediately if I believed I had received the letter in error. I sent them a letter to that effect.
-
Just got another letter, "Fedex - Urgent". Turns out the image was on my site, sort of. It was an album cover, my website is devoted to promoting music, but had text added and color added so it's not the exact image, I'm wondering if that has any effect? The tone of the letter was amiable, not threatening in any way. I removed the image and wrote back.
Mike
-
That nasty little PicScout bot can find even part of a Getty image. So if someone altered the image with the copyright holder's permission and then you used that altered version of the image, that still could count as infringement. But the value of the infringement is what we disagree with on this site 99% of the time. They will likely not sue over a single image but you can also check out all the videos and forum posts about the issue to get better educated on the topic now that you have resolved the image issue.
-
More on this ... turns out the image was on my server but not being displayed. A record company sent me a bunch of album covers about 15 years ago and I never got around to making up a thumbnails page.
Mike
-
If it were me and I was absolutely certain that this image had never been published on a page on my site, I would just ignore future letters.
-
I would agree with Jerry, if this is the case I would just ignore them.
-
Ditto
-
To follow up on this, I sent a letter back in early May stating that I had removed the image and that it had never been published, I haven't heard back from them in 3 months so I assume the issue has been resolved. Soon after I sent them an email asking them how I could avoid this in the future since I'm always publishing album covers but they did not respond.
I'd like to thank everyone for their helpful advice in this matter, I donated to the site several months ago.
Mike
-
Itt's not uncommon for them to go months between letters...don't be surprised if you here from Getty or Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack at some point.
-
I understand, I'm just thinking since it was a matter of days between letter 2 and letter 3 which was delivered as "Fedex - Urgent", that the matter might be resolved.
Mike
-
I understand, I'm just thinking since it was a matter of days between letter 2 and letter 3 which was delivered as "Fedex - Urgent", that the matter might be resolved.
Mike
Unless you receive notice from Getty that they are "no longer pursuing the matter", do not consider anything to be "resolved" and expect more harassment. If you don't get it, that's good news but don't expect it.
-
A record company sent me a bunch of album covers about 15 years ago and I never got around to making up a thumbnails page.
Sounds more like images covered by First Sales Doctrine. Where the record company, with physical possession of the record cover (with record), advertises them for sale, asks for reviews, etc.
In the old old days manufacturers mailed out stacks of paper, or computer tape. Now inventory images and specs are emailed; the hard way. Or distributor's systems provide direct downloads to front line sellers ( examples Tower Records, iTunes ), advertisers, AND REVIEWERS ( examples Eznoh, Rolling Stone Music Album Reviews ).
Getty Images would have a field day at www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews; followed by a thrashing within a millimeter of their ...
If you have an online mail server, Getty Images will find those images.*
If you receive product downloads, Getty Images will find those images.*
Eznoh and the record company appear to be making 'fair use' of the images. It's just taken 15 years to review the products. Procrastination is not copyright infringement.
* Of course the areas would have to not be password protected or encrypted, but like many things silly sites like that exist.