OK ... A Friend Got "The Letter" from Getty

[bulldog92]

Site I did free for a friend ... It's his side business and the site A ) gets MINIMAL traffic and B ) has been up less than 5-6 months ...

Here's my response to the letter Getty sent;

"A friend of mine received a letter from your company today demanding a $600 payment for settlement in a copyright infringement. The site listed for infringement was www.champions-for-life.com and since I don’t have the letter in front of me yet, I am unaware of the Case ID or Reference#. When I receive a copy of your letter, I will use those numbers to reference the case … However, I hope the URL is enough to start a dialogue.

First off, thank you for bringing this very important information to our attention.  I am treating your letter with the importance and attention it deserves, as the offending image was immediately removed upon my learning of the receipt of the letter late last night. As the site’s designer (I am not a design firm – nor do I do this for a living – just helping out a friend), please understand that this was a completely innocent mistake as I saw the image on a different site – not watermarked or tagged – via a Google image search and decided to use it because of the assumption that it was public domain. Had I known that there were rights to this image and that it was *not* public domain, I can promise you that it would have never been used. Coincidentally, because of this incident, I changed other images that were grabbed via Google Image Search as well as my intention is not to steal other people’s work. However, please be assured that the alleged infringing file has been removed and will no longer be used in any way.

From what I understand, the initial settlement amount was listed at $600 … I would like to offer a one-time settlement of $200 that would be paid immediately should you decide to work with me on this. I am not in disagreement that the image is/was yours … I actually used your site for the first time early this morning and found the image in question posted, so I am not here to debate ownership. (Please understand that no one affiliated with Champions For Life, LLC had anything to do with the site’s creation. I offered to do the site for free as a favor and no one at Champions For Life, LLC was involved in the design or implementation in any way.)

All this being said, I would like to settle this *quickly* and *amicably* and I hope my actions have proven that … I removed the image IMMEDAITELY upon learning of the letter - this is most assuredly a case of unintentional (and far from willful) infringement – and lastly, it was (1) image on a sub-page of a website that receives minimal traffic and has been online for less than 5 months.

I would love to speak to someone at Getty about this as soon as possible in hopes that we can reach a quick an fair settlement in this matter."

Anyone think they'll settle or is a $150 retainer investment worth it? I figure I'm gonna pay something b/c I think it was a legitimate mistake.

Ideas?!? Help?!? Wait and see what Getty comes back with?!?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Just a guess on my part, they'll ower the amount but won't come down to 200.00, they also won't care who designed the site or where the image came from, they will want to go after the domain as ultimately they are the responsible party. I would be curious if they will work with on this, please kepp us posted.. I would personally pay Oscar the 150.00 and not give Getty 1 red cent, just out of principle.

[bulldog92]

I am willing to go to ~$250 b/c it was an honest mistake, but I wasn't gonna offer that off the bat ... However, I have contacted Oscar to pretty much let him know that if they don't accept my offer, I want to retain his services.

My offer is more than fair ... I'm a little concerned b/c I *do* admit guilt in my letter though ....

But, unless I'm mistaken, it seems Oscar can make this go away for $150. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about (1) image on a minimally visited site that has been up ~5 months.

[bulldog92]

Talked to them on the phone ... They very rudely offered to go down to $510.

What a joke.

Oscar, expect a call very soon.

[Oscar Michelen]

OK

[bulldog92]

Called your office and you were busy ... You should have a couple of e-mails from me regardless.

We can correspond that way unless there's anything we need to discuss via phone. I'm flexible.

Thanks so much ... E-mail will be coming from j_d_williams@bellsouth.net.

[Lettered]

Just so you know, I've heard Getty uses archive.org to look for offending material. archive.org can be used to view older versions of websites, even after the owner changes them.  It wouldn't surprise me if they went back to look for the other images you told them you removed to see if they are Getty's.

[Matthew Chan]

Lettered,

You brought up an excellent point and I just wrote a small commentary that the stock photo industry is actually helping to destroy the work the Internet Archive is doing to try to preserve Internet history.

Myself alone, I had many sites going on 10 years and there were many changes over the years. Unfortunately, they are no longer there at my request just because I don't need to take the risk there might be another stray image used by some Indian web and graphic designer.

I think the Internet Archive would just cringe over the advice we are giving people but the stock photo companies have left us no choice but to give such harsh advice.

Matthew Chan

[bulldog92]

Good advice, but the site is only 4-5 pages TOTAL (1 image/page) and I'm sure they would've already hit me up if if of the other images were theirs.

Plus, the site had only been up < 5 months, so the exposure is *very limited*.

Since yesterday, I have replaced EVERY IMAGE on the site with a picture I took or someone I know took ... Screw the stock photo industry and their tactics. Although it was an innocent mistake (thanks Google!), this was a valuable lesson learned and I'm happy to give Oscar my $150 when Getty took such a hard (and somewhat rude stance) on my settlement offer of $250 (which was quite generous considering the circumstances).

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Just for the record and not to open a can of worms, but google states on all of the images they serve up from outside sources the "This image may be subject to copyright.". I have now resorted to having in a section in all of my contracts releasing my company from any issues that may arise. I always explain in great detail to my clients the proper & improper way of obtaining images, invariably I'll ask where this or that image came from and they say I found it on google... Kinda an extra layer of protection for me, even tho i now Getty targets the domain owner. Understandably most people just aren't educated in these matters, and they have the mentality that "if it's there I can use it" I liken it to walking into the grocery store, all these products on the shelves, but you just can't help yourself, you have to go thru the checkout line. I hope that i'm doing my part to educate a small number of folks to help them avoid this matter altogether..

[bulldog92]

Definitely not blaming Google, as I understand there's an "assumed risk" in using *ANY* image you get from their search(es), my point was ... badly made ... that they have made it too easy to find images.

Since I don't do website design for a living (although I am in Information Technology) ... or even a side job ... Google is just such a quick and easy way to get some nice images (the others I used were obviously not owned by Getty) when you need something quick.

My mistake. Lesson learned. Turn the page.

What blew my mind was the forward tilted position of Getty when you call them and try to cordially reach a more reasonable settlement.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I think that forward tilted thinking will come back and bite them at some point, the more we educate people about these tactics the less people will use them which will in turn hurt their bottom line. One question thats been in my mind is if Getty is representing the artist / photog and paying them a percentage for every image that is licensed ( i think thats how it owrks) what happens when Getty collects these outragous amounts from the scared and un-educated, do they (Getty) also pay a percentage of that to the artist?? My guess is no, they kepp 100% and probably claim that it all goes toward finding the image, generating the letters, and writing out the deposit ticket for the bank. I would also take a guess and say they probalby treat thier artists much the same as they treat us..

[Oscar Michelen]

Good point buddhapi.  Getty asserts that they do share their recovery with the photogs but they have never offered any proof of that.  I don't know what Getty will do if it litigates and in discovery all the records of their program become available.  Getty is stating now that it is very close to filing lawsuits against several infringers and if they do that might change the landscape of this situation, but it might change it in favor of folks who receive these letters if a federal judge requires Getty to produce documents relating to the inner workings of this program. .

[bulldog92]

These arguments ring familiar with what you read about  the RIAA as well.