Recieved a demand letter today

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I also believe that Getty was caught in the past trying to double dip but collecting from TM and TM's users.

@ Mike you mention template, are you referring to a template from template monster? IF so TM settled with Getty and will supposedly handle this for you as part of the settlement agreement..

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

yup...since they are so organized, they would send out letter to template monster customers..if the customers did not know any better, they would collect, while they already collected on the settlement.. They would also try to collect if the TM customer did not have a receipt in hand.
It's always guilty until proven innocent with Getty Images.

[mikejl46]

@ Mike you mention template, are you referring to a template from template monster? IF so TM settled with Getty and will supposedly handle this for you as part of the settlement agreement..

It was not purchased from Template Monster, but was purchased from some company, I don't remember which one, it's been so long ago.

Getty found part of their image in a image of a template displayed on my website. That's just crazy.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Welcome the world of make believe and merry go rounds!

@ Mike you mention template, are you referring to a template from template monster? IF so TM settled with Getty and will supposedly handle this for you as part of the settlement agreement..

It was not purchased from Template Monster, but was purchased from some company, I don't remember which one, it's been so long ago.

Getty found part of their image in a image of a template displayed on my website. That's just crazy.

[Bob486]

I plan on not responding to any of their letters, What would be the end result If I totally ignore their letter?

    I received “the letter” from Getty and here’s what I did. I looked up the US internet copyright rules at:

    http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

    and click on “§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online” Go to about the 6th page of this document where it says:

    (g) REPLACEMENT OF REMOVED OR DISABLED MATERIAL AND LIMITATION ON OTHER LIABILITY.—
    (1) NO LIABILITY FOR TAKING DOWN GENERALLY. — Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider’s good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing

    I sent this to Getty with a cover letter telling them to read the friggin law and don’t contact me again. Haven’t heard from them. DON’T FALL FOR THIS EXTORTION !!!

[SoylentGreen]

This section refers to the third party liability of service providers.

The best defense against Getty has always been their lack of legal standing in regards to ownership of the actual content.
If they won't provide proof of their claims, tell them to piss off.
It's easy...  it doesn't need to be difficult.

Read the forum, guys.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This portion of the law relates directly to a "service provider" and not directly to the infringer..in other words if you were hosting your site with me, and you improperly used a copyrighted image, YOU would be responsible, not me as I am only the service provider.. Chances are good you will get another letter at some point..

It's my opinion that everyday people should never try to out lawyer them by quoting specific areas of the law, it can be confusing and come back to bite you..

I plan on not responding to any of their letters, What would be the end result If I totally ignore their letter?

    I received “the letter” from Getty and here’s what I did. I looked up the US internet copyright rules at:

    http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

    and click on “§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online” Go to about the 6th page of this document where it says:

    (g) REPLACEMENT OF REMOVED OR DISABLED MATERIAL AND LIMITATION ON OTHER LIABILITY.—
    (1) NO LIABILITY FOR TAKING DOWN GENERALLY. — Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider’s good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing

    I sent this to Getty with a cover letter telling them to read the friggin law and don’t contact me again. Haven’t heard from them. DON’T FALL FOR THIS EXTORTION !!!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

ah you beat me to it!!
it's one thing to "read the law" which differs from understanding it!

This section refers to the third party liability of service providers.

The best defense against Getty has always been their lack of legal standing in regards to ownership of the actual content.
If they won't provide proof of their claims, tell them to piss off.
It's easy...  it doesn't need to be difficult.

Read the forum, guys.

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

I'm with S.G. on the strategy with Getty. They have no legal standing unless they prove they do. Not paying a settlement based on their poorly substantiated claim is the most reasonable response anyone could have. Without proof of their legal standing, the letter amounts to  snail mail phishing.

[mikejl46]

Here is the a pic of the image and screen shot Getty sent me.

The screen shot they have is a screen shot of a website template that someone else created.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Wow. Getty's new motto:

"We Copyright the Sky"
©2012 Getty Images

If it were me, I'd write them back and say, "Good One. I thought I had really infringed. Just for fun, please send me the proof of registration and the agreement with the photographer." Then I'd leave it at that.

Can you imagine them suing for this? I believe they'd be laughed out of court.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

That's a good one Jerry and to go along with their new motto they should play the Rolling Stones song "Get off of My Cloud"

Wow. Getty's new motto:

"We Copyright the Sky"
©2012 Getty Images

If it were me, I'd write them back and say, "Good One. I thought I had really infringed. Just for fun, please send me the proof of registration and the agreement with the photographer." Then I'd leave it at that.

Can you imagine them suing for this? I believe they'd be laughed out of court.

[mikejl46]

Behind those buildings I think there is an ocean. There is a photographer taking a picture of the ocean and he happens to have clouds that look the same in his image and maybe his images are free. I think that is what happened. I feel better now.

[lucia]

At the scale you show the only similarity is the clouds and they don't look like the same image.  I think Getty would have a hard time winning a case where they are claiming that all photos of puffy clouds fall under their copyright.

If I were you I would super-impost the images just to verify they are not the same.  (I'd do it myself but the screenshot is small.)

[mikejl46]

I did an image search of the template screen shot they claim is a getty image and there was 250 results of websites using the exact same web template I purchased. They are still up and running. They must not have got their letter yet.