Received a letter... No longer own the site

[PittMan]

Yesterday, we received "the letter" from Getty Images dated March 5, 2013. It references one of their images on a site that we owned and operated up until the beginning of February of this year. However, we sold the domain, site, and all ip/content at the beginning of February. Considering the date of the letter, we assume that we received the letter because the WhoIs information was not updated until late February.

The problem that we have is that the new owner has taken down the website. We have no way of confirming that the image was used on the website, and if it was used during our time of ownership. Archives of the site do not contain the image in question. If the site did contain the image, it was provided by a third party. We understand that does not release someone of liability. However, with no way to prove that the image was used (other than the low quality screen capture in the letter), we are not comfortable in dealing with this situation. In addition to that, the domain, website, and all content were sold to a new owner. Unfortunately for the new owner, we feel that this matter is no longer our concern.

We had considered drafting a letter to Getty Images explaining that as of February, we no longer are affiliated with the site and to please update their records with the current WhoIs information. There was a delay of 20 days between the sale of the site and the update of the WhoIs information. We do have proof of the transaction (with date) when the site was sold.

Do you have any advice on this situation?

[Couch_Potato]

One thing you should do is write to the new owner and advise them not to use the image on the site if they put it back up or any other site.

I don't know where legal liability falls but don't make it easy for them. Just write back stating you are not the owner of the site in question. You do not need to tell them at this stage that you ever owned the site.

Never provide more information than necessary to make your point.

[PittMan]

We have already started contacting people that are currently affiliated with the site.

You bring up a good point about providing too much information. This is the current draft of my letter, as the letter from Getty Images came to my address (but did not reference my name).

Any additional input from anyone?
----------
Name
Address
Date

Copyright Compliance Team
Getty Images
605 5th Ave S
Suite 400
Seattle, WA  98104

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is in response to the letter that your company sent to this address regarding an allegedly infringing image on a website, ***** (Case Number: *****).

I regret to inform you that I do not own or operate *****.

I kindly request that you cease pursuit of this matter with relation to my name or address.

Sincerely,
Signed

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I think I would consider adding, that if they continue to harass you, you will file complaints with the Washington Attorney General, and that you consider the matter closed.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I agree with Robert,and let them know if they contact you again you will file complaints against them what the Washington state attorney general's office, the Better Business Bureau and the FTC.

[PittMan]

Is it better to be that aggressive up front?  I had planned to be short, but cordial in my response so that it didn't come off as overly defensive.  We wanted to come across as an innocent party, because I do believe that we are.

[SoylentGreen]

Getty doesn't have any track record of suing over one image.
So, you probably don't have to worry about that.

I would be simply factual in your correspondence.
Yes, if you're too defensive, some clerk/salesperson at Getty will think that you're scared, and come after you harder.
After you've explained the situation, just leave it at that.  They will send you letters from time to time, though.

I don't feel that they put much effort into investigating "innocence" or "guilt" in a small matter like this.
They chose you, and they'll bug you for money.

S.G.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Whether you are cordial, short or neutral, Getty doesn't care it is all about the money with them.  They do not however like the complaint letters and will generally end up leaving you alone if you file enough of them.  The last letter I received from Getty was the one stating they were escalating to their legal department which caused me to launch my campaign which I told them would happen if they did not either send me the proof requested or drop their claim.  After filing complaints with the Attorney General's Office, the BBB, the FTC my Congressman and Senator they spent about a month and a half answering one complaint after another I never heard another word from them.

Do not threaten to do this unless 1) You feel the letter or the way Getty is handeling it is misguided and misdirected and should be reported.  2) You intend to follow through with it, if you say you are going to do it and don't Getty won't believe you and will continue to harass you

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Is it better to be that aggressive up front? 

The anecdotal accounts I have tell me that the people that come back and firmly state their position and the consequences of continued harassment seem to get left alone quicker. The people that think they are going to "nice" their way out of it get pestered more.

If you are certain of your course of action, you are doing yourself and them a favor by firmly stating your position. That way Getty can turn their fangs toward some other party quicker.

[lucia]

Is it better to be that aggressive up front?  I had planned to be short, but cordial in my response so that it didn't come off as overly defensive.  We wanted to come across as an innocent party, because I do believe that we are.

I think your letter is fine. You could add "and did not own it on the 'date screenshot was taken'." Nothing more is required unless they respond to that letter. Oddly... they might.  But in that case, you can wait to see what they ask. If they want to know why you were on the whois, respond that you used to own it, but did not own the site or control the contents after the sale.  You might have to deal with them coming back for snippets of information. Depends on how hard they want to fish in your well.  The fact is: They probably have nothing.  Worse for them, even if they have something, *if* they took it to court, given the change in control of the site, if all they have is information you tell us they shows you, they would have one heck of a time establishing *who* controlled the site *when* any copying was done. Because they won't know *when* copying was done. If so... well... they can't possibly know *who* to sue.

(Presumably,  if contacted, the other company would say they just bought the site and the image must have been left over from you!! Heck, they might even thing that-- they wouldn't actually know.. right? So, Getty has bubkiss!)

[PittMan]

Thank you all for the advice. I sent the response that I listed above back to them. In my mind, there was no need to go further than that as a first response. If they come back (and I absolutely expect them to), that is when a more defensive, aggressive response makes sense.

I'm in no way worried about this going to court. My original concern was not even the subsequent letters from them. It was whether or not this could affect a credit report. After a little more reading, it seems that there's no way this could be put onto a credit report. For that matter, I'll gladly play the back and forth game with them. As pointed out above, a court case (while unlikely for one image anyway) would be a financial gamble on their end given the circumstances involving the ownership transferring prior to the letter date, and possibly the screenshot date.

I'll update this thread if/when I get a response.

[Lettered]

I think you're probably on the right track, PittMan.

As a purely academic issue I just wanted to throw out that I wouldn't be so sure you didn't technically own the site until the whois info got updated.  I can't answer that and would be interested in hearing an attorney's take on it.

I think its kind of like the old question "at what point do you own your car?  when you sign the bill of sale?  when you take possession?  when you transfer the title?"  I'm pretty sure that in Texas at least you can be held responsible for parking tickets on vehicles you've sold unless and until you've filled out and submitted the appropriate paperwork even after you signed the title and handed it to the buyer.
http://www.hagerty.com/classic-car-articles-resources/Resources/Additional-Resources/Registration-and-DMV/All-Articles/2005/07/05/When-Do-You-Really-Own-a-Vehicle

[Oscar Michelen]

I think lucia's comments are on point. There has been lots of litigation over when ownership is conferred with websites but the general rule of thumb is whenever the sale or transfer occurs is when the ownership is transferred regardless of when the whois registration is updated. There have been cases to force the registration change, to complain about getting sued after the sale because the registration was not timely changed, etc. There are forums and arbitration systems set up by ICANN to deal with these types of issues as well. When we arrange for the sale of website the agreement always requires the buyer to change the registration within a certain limited period of time or face a liquidated damages payment. Sellers should regularly check to make sure the whois registration was properly changed out of their name.