ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Darkbotic on November 04, 2014, 08:27:16 PM
-
Hello,
I would like your help regarding a new company that has sent me an extortion letter via e-mail.
This company is very similar to Getty Images. I don't know if they're the same but they certainly do the same thing. The new company is called "August" or "August Image".
I made a website recently. As it was my first website ever made, a novice like me, used some photos I got from Google Image Search. I didn't knew that some photos there were copyrighted until recently when I received the e-mail.
This company took a screen capture of my website showing a photo that they say they own the rights to.
I removed the photo right away along with all the photos in the website. However, in the e-mail they said that this is not enough and that they want compensation because I have "benefited from the unlicensed photo".
They want a $600 dollars settlement payment. I don't have that amount. In fact, this website is not even finished yet. No ads. No customer. No nothing.
I'm really scared because of this and I would like your help in this matter. I have a few bucks in my PayPal account that I can send you as donation, but again, is not that much because I don't even have a work yet.
Please, read the complete e-mail they sent me. I posted the link below.
I removed all the personal information.
Here's the e-mail link:
http://i.imgur.com/Wpkpslm.jpg
or
http://imgur.com/Wpkpslm
I really hope you can help me with this. I'll be really thankful.
I'll wait for your response. Thanks in advance.
-
The address is the same as Getty Images. If this is not a part of Getty they may be trying to collect on behalf of August since it was discovered through Pic-Scout which is owned by Getty. The phone number is Pic-Scout's phone number.
Copyright exists from the moment the picture is taken, watermarks are not required to be on the photo either. I would not contact them until you educate yourself or you may say something to harm your case.
I am not aware of August, perhaps you could provide some additional information. What was the picture of (a tree, a person a celebrity). Start reading the forums as there is a ton of good information here and I will do a little digging and see what I can find out about August.
-
The photo was from a celebrity named Jaimie Alexander. I didn't knew it was from her until yesterday.
Would you like a link to the photo?
-
please. You actually had the photo on your site or was it hot linked?
-
So it looks like Getty is trying to disassociate its name from trolling while continuing their trolling activities in the names of their client/photogs - albeit at a slightly lower rate than they used to.
It looks like changes are coming to this industry. What won't change is that those who have been burned in the past will not trust Getty in the future.
Gregg's advice is good. Get educated. Admit nothing. Don't let their artificial deadlines intimidate you into acting before you are ready. Once you have figured out how you want to deal with this, do so. Make sure you haven't misappropriated any other images. You don't want to find that this is only the beginning. Take down anything you don't have a license to or that you did not take personally.
-
I already replaced all the images on my website with others that I found here: www.pixabay.com
Others have just ignored the e-mails from Getty Image. Is this a good idea?
-
I already replaced all the images on my website with others that I found here: www.pixabay.com
Others have just ignored the e-mails from Getty Image. Is this a good idea?
ahhh yes a FREE IMAGE site!!! gotta love those "freebies"..
1. do you know where this "free image" site obtains their images?
2. do you have a license agreement to use these images?
3. did you purchase these images?
4 do you know the definition of "royalty free"
5. have you ever heard the phrase " you get what you pay for?"
6. or the phrase "nothing is free"
7. do you want more extortion like letters?
Thats exactly what you'll get by using "free image" sites..
-
So, you're saying that I have to remove all the photos from Pixabay as well?
How I'll get the photos? If I can't pay $600 for this settlement, I can't pay more than $1,000 to get all the photos I need from sites that provide them for a fee.
-
So, you're saying that I have to remove all the photos from Pixabay as well?
How I'll get the photos? If I can't pay $600 for this settlement, I can't pay more than $1,000 to get all the photos I need from sites that provide them for a fee.
Free photo sites are risky. Many are difficult to trace overseas companies that offer pirated images. If the image you got was copyrighted and the owner went after you fact you got it from them would not help you much in court. (It might a little-- but the issue is more 'how much' the judge will fine you.)
Why do you need lots of images at your site? If you have a business need for images to "decorate" the site with the idea that glossy and pretty attracts eyeballs, that is precisely the situation where you should be paying the photographers for the images.
-
I made this website for free as a gift for a relative who lives in the US. It's a website promoting his business.
Because of this, I used about 30 photos I found on Google Image Search (stupid move, I now know it).
But now, I already removed all the photos and replaced them with some I found on Pixabay.com because the website has some reputation providing Free Public Domain Photos from different photographers around the world.
-
I made this website for free as a gift for a relative who lives in the US. It's a website promoting his business.
Because of this, I used about 30 photos I found on Google Image Search (stupid move, I now know it).
But now, I already removed all the photos and replaced them with some I found on Pixabay.com because the website has some reputation providing Free Public Domain Photos from different photographers around the world.
I suggest your relative in the US pony up some money to acquire the needed images properly..why take the risk knowing what could happen? Technically and legally any owner of the images could just as easily go after your relative and simply cut you out of the loop, at the end of the day it is the business owner who is responsible.
The choice to remove images or not is completely yours.
-
from http://pixabay.com/en/service/faq/
Can I use your images?
You can copy, modify, distribute and use the images, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission and without paying attribution. However, depicted content may still be protected by trademarks, publicity or privacy rights.
{ red flag!}
Why do I find Shutterstock images on Pixabay?
Sponsored images are shown to finance Pixabay and to provide a choice of professional photos. Those images are marked with the Shutterstock logo.
{so right there tells us they are NOT all FREE}
and this is just full of nuggets.. http://pixabay.com/en/service/terms/
Images depicting identifiable persons may not be used for pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, or in a way that can give a bad name to people, or to imply endorsement of products and services by those persons, brands, organisations, etc.
Since Pixabay does not require a written Model Release for each Image that has identifiable people on it, We cannot guarantee that you will be able to use the Image for any purpose.....We do not represent or make warranties whatsoever as to the legality or validity of it.
Furthermore, certain Images may be subject to additional copyrights, property rights, trademarks etc. and may require the consent of a third party or the license of these rights. Pixabay does not represent or make any warranties that it owns or licenses any of the mentioned, nor does it grant them.
and this, leaving the user fully on the hook:
Pixabay cannot be held responsible for any copyright violations, and cannot guarantee the legality of the Images stored in its system. If you want to make sure, always contact the photographers. You use the site and the photos at your own risk!
Indemnification
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Pixabay, its subsidiaries, affiliates and contributors against any claims, damages, costs, liabilities and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of or related to your conduct, your use or inability to use the Website, your breach or alleged breach of the Website Terms of Use or of any representation or warranty contained herein, your unauthorized use of Images, or your violation of any rights of another.
Warranty and Liability
THE WEBSITE AND THE IMAGES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS". WE OFFER NO WARRANTY, EXPLICIT OR IMPLIED, REGARDING ANY IMAGES, THE WEBSITE, THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION, OR ANY RIGHTS OR LICENSES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. PIXABAY DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE WEBSITE OR THE IMAGES WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT THEIR USE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE.
PIXABAY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ANY GENERAL, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, OR LOST PROFITS OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF YOUR USE OF THE WEBSITE OR THE IMAGES.
-
Thanks for the advice about Pixabay. I really appreciate it Robert.
Now, I would like to read your opinion about the main topic: August Image and their extortion letter.
-
I looked at the image you provided. Images with people are more problematic as there are model releases involved. I would definitely get educated before taking any further action.
Stay away from the "Free Image" sites, you will be asking to get another letter if you do.
-
Darkhorse:
I have never heard of august images.
They appear to list a number of photographers.
The appear to make it difficult to browse their content.
Their 'whois' information is all private making it difficult to guess much about them.
Based on this: It is very difficult for anyone to tell you the likelihood that they
(a) actually own the copyrights.
(b) would be likely to sue if you didn't pay.
So: if they do own the copyrights and are aggressive, they may sue. If not... then not. It's very diffcult to give further advise about that company in particular.
It is worth noting that your issue on on the "more infringy" end of the spectrum of what we normally see here. Here are factors:
1) Your appear to be a business site. Often people who merely have personal blogs appear here.
2) You used a celebrity photo. The person in it is currently a major celebrity. It's even a very nice photo that was obviously well composed and created professionally. Even if you used it without knowing who the person pictured was, it is difficult to persuade a judge that it was just "a fungible images just 'like' zillions of others." This is not something like "a sprinkler head" or "random back yard lawn".
3) We don't know more about your site. But sounds like you were likely using other nice glossy photos to decorate a business site. Moreover, even here, it sounds like your view is you think your not having money yet is a defense. It's not.
These are factors that are going to tend to make things look worse for you rather than better. But as for August Images: It's likely no one can tell you much. That's a new name.
-
I tto have never heard of them, one thing I will point out is that the letter is coming from picscout with a Getty address in seattle, no where in the letter does it refer to the business of "August" except just to say the image is owned by "August".. IF I were to reply ( which I probably wouldn't righ out of the gate) my first question would be.
1. Who the hell is "August?"
2. Is this a company?
3. Why does this company not exist at the address in the letter.
the whole letters smells of scam. If I replied I would further demand to see a signed contract by BOTH parties giving picscout the rights to collect on anything. I would also demand to see copyright registration information, as well as any model releases. I would probably further that by taking a play from jerry's playbook, and state if they cannot /willnot supply the above information, they will be recieving an invoice from me to collect on my time that has been wasted.. ( naturally this invoice would be larger then the sum they are trying to collect)...
-
Sadly, I just found the photographer. :(
If you scroll to the right on his website, you'll find the photo.
Apparently he is a good one because he has a lot of celebrities photos. They're pretty good.
Also, look at his contact details. I'm definitely screwed. :'(
Google: Donfloodphoto.
-
How do you figure you are screwed? I looked up his name (Don Flood) in Federal lawsuit database and I didn't find anything. Unless he goes by another corporate name, I don't see any lawsuits.
Also, look at his contact details. I'm definitely screwed. :'(
-
does the photog have an exclusive signed agreement ( by both parties) with "August" to allow them to enforce his copyright? does the photog register his images and register them properly? does August and picscout have an agreement allowing picscout to enforce collections on copyright issues?...so many questions..
-
Again, you need to step back take a breath and get educated. Leaping to conclusions like "I'm screwed" is not helping you. Most all answers can be found here for those who look, read and learn.
-
OK. Thanks everyone. I will ignore their letter while I read the posts on this forum.
-
With respect to credibility of Augustimages:
http://donfloodphoto.com/contact/ Does link to augustimages.com
That suggests that he likely does have a contract of some sort with them.
-
With respect to credibility of Augustimages:
http://donfloodphoto.com/contact/ Does link to augustimages.com
That suggests that he likely does have a contract of some sort with them.
yes it does, but also remember one of the getty cases, where the photog was working with getty licensing images through them, the question arose in court of something along the lines of "show us the contract, that is signed by both parties", at which point getty did not have an answer, because the "contract" was supposedly done "online" by the artist and submitted to Getty, but there was never another signature. A contract HAS to be signed by both parties in some way shape or form..even a digital signature would probably suffice, but Getty did not have that either.
-
I'm not suggesting this means that we must automatically assume AugustImages is totally on the up and up and so on. But it is useful for a person getting letters to take things in context. Until I saw the link from the photographer to the site, the chicken entrails used for prognostication were suggesting AugustImages could be some sock-puppet entity with nearly untraceable ownership for its domain name operating... somewhere... sending out scary letters.
But the link from the photographer suggests an actual honest to goodness photographer, whose domain is registered under his own name (http://whois.domaintools.com/donfloodphoto.com ) and whose IP is in the US does have a contract with August Images. His photos are clearly high priced including lots of celebrities. This means it's unlikely that the photographer operates without good knowledge of contract law required to maintain value of his portfolio.
If August Images does come back and press for payment, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on "Getty Images -- and entity that seems to permit online registration by anyone and anything without checking has been sloppy in the past-- so I bet August Images is too." August Images at least looks like truly exclusive images. (Even when comparing celebrity image to celebrity images, Getty's are often "decent quality paparazzi", August are "the celeb came to the studio and posed" and "these were used by high end magazines and advertizers". These are different from each other.)
That said: for all we know, August Images tends to just go away if someone removes the images from their site. If so, Darkbotic may not hear from them again. We really don't know.
-
Never heard of August but it looks like they employed PicScout to develop their infringement program. As for the OP, they have not filed any lawsuits to date that I have seen but that does not mean they won't in this instance. Also, you cannot use the info on ELI that relates to stock photos of cacti, keyboards and the like, with high-res professional images of celebrities. So while you get educated tooling on the ELI forums keep that in mind.