ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: mliggett on March 25, 2013, 08:46:07 AM
-
So I have had my website up for a while. Getty sent a Unauthorized Use Notification to me stating that one image on my site is part of their catalog.
I have removed the image.
The image in question was similar to a host of images on the web (search "hand shake" + jpg)
This image was no better or worse than any image that cam back from that search. However, there is no image of notification, or watermark or anything that would suggest the image was licensed.
I have tried to ensure to a high degree that images used on my site were in the public domain and free to use.
Getty is looking to me for $800+ immediately and of course remove the image.
I was planning on contacting Getty and offer them a settlement of $200.
I was considering asking them for MD5 hashes and actual date the image was added to their catalog. The MD5 hash is to validate their ownership of the image. The date the image was added to their collection is to understand better if the image I used was ever in the public domain to begin with.
Any suggestions?
-
Although I do not think they would accept the $200 offer, I would recommend against making it. If you feel compelled to offer something, offer what a comparable photo would cost if you licensed it today.
If you think it would be worth $200, to get this off your plate, I would consider Oscar's letter program. Although it settles nothing with Getty, you will not hear from them again.
Why I say this:
- From monitoring this and a number of other copyright troll sites for the last year and a half, it is clear to me that Getty isn't interested in clearing up a legal wrong-doing. They are in the business of sending these scary letters FOR PROFIT.
- They have never filed a case over one image.
- They seem to seed the market with their photos with no copyright notices. That make it easy to mistake their images for public domain, so they can later come after you for big bucks using the courts to promote fear and intimidation.
- Previous cases have shown that Getty really does not have their legal act together. Many of their photos are not registered and others are improperly registered. Their legal paperwork with photographers is also questionable.
If you really have a need to part with $200, I would recommend sending a portion of that to ELI for helping you find your way through this mess. But definitely, read through the Getty posts and find your voice in telling them to go pound sand.
-
I have read many posts on the forum and have watched the videos. I have had the image removed and cleared from google and web-archive.org.
I probably should write back to Getty to state my position and all. I am just looking at $200 to be a fair amount. The image is of a generic handshake, market value of it is seriously less (.20/yr up to .70/yr)
I will read more and see what tips from successful letters and positions I can gather.
Any links to threads on here would be good. Lots to look at and go through.
-
Read Gregg's "An experiment against Getty"
I know it is long, but I think it will give you a flavor of who they are. They don't care about fair. They are in this for the money - pure and simple.
-
Also, should you include an offer in your response remember to make that offer contingent on them supplying proof of registration, etc.
-
Has anyone tried to do this over the phone? I am sure it is a waste of time, but did not know if anyone has heard of or successfully negotiated from this stand point.
I am reading the Experiment with Getty post.
-
They are going to keep making runs at you to get your money. This is not about fairness. It is not about the law. They use those concepts to try and get more of your money.
If copyright trolls were serious about protecting their intellectual property rights, they would use watermarks and copyright notices everywhere. They make it very easy for the average person to mistakenly grab one of their shots and then they try to make it difficult not to pay them extortionate sums.
Negotiating via email only speeds the process. That means they have more opportunities to hammer away at you. Negotiating by phone speeds the process even more. Do NOT play the game to their advantage. Use the U.S. Postal service to slow things down. The statute of limitations on copyright claims is three years from the time they first discover the mis-use. Give them as few chances to hammer away at you during those three years as possible.
In short, refuse to speak to them by phone. Keep everything on the record. Use snail mail when you cannot find any slower methods. of communication.
-
don't call them, don't make it easy on them in anyway..
your statement "I have tried to ensure to a high degree that images used on my site were in the public domain and free to use." concerns me.. there are very few images in the public domain worth using...most of these would come from government sites or be very old.. I hope you are not confusing "public domain" with "royalty free"...2 completely different beasts, not to mention that "royalty free" does not mean "FREE"..
FYI, it's not required that images have a copyright notice, or watermark or anything, always assume that if you did create the image, someone else did and it's copyrighted.. copyright exists the moment of creation.
-
I recommend that people buy their images.
Royalty-free images are inexpensive, and the selection is very, very good these days.
The piece of mind is worth it. They only cost 50 cents to about two dollars for web use.
Some images that are advertized as "free" have been planted by copyright trolls.
People use them freely, and then the trolls catch you and charge 1500 to 14,000 dollars per "infringement".
Avoid Getty images "iStock" photos, and Masterfile's "Crestock". Those are troll companies.
Even if you've bought from them, if there's any future disagreement, they'll drive you nuts.
S.G.
-
Has anyone tried to do this over the phone? I am sure it is a waste of time, but did not know if anyone has heard of or successfully negotiated from this stand point.
I am reading the Experiment with Getty post.
Do not discuss over the phone. You will be at a serious disadvantage.
You want to carefully craft a letter. Make sure you
1) Do not admit fault. Don't volunteer details of how the image might have come to be on the server. Heck don't admit it's on the server. (If it's not on the server, don't offer any money... we'll tell you what to say.)
2) If you are going to offer something (which is fine) use language that says something to the effect that your offer does not represent an admission of fault but that you merely wish to put the dispute behind you. (Some of the people more familiar with legal language will know how this is often stated.) Make sure you make the offer contingent on (a) proof of registration showing who owns the copyright for that specific image, (b) proof they have an exclusive license with the actual copyright holder in place. Ask for the paper work on both.
3) Make sure any final agreement does not have a confidentiality agreement. You will want to discuss the matter.
4) Make sure any final agreement ends right to any further claim and that Getty will also pay any judgement in the event they screwed up and it turns out the real copyright holder still files a suit.
-
Do not try to get them to submit all the proof you desire, they will never do so nor will they likely accept $200 though it is smart of you to offer that.I would not engage them very much more than you already have. Please let me know if you want us to intercede with a letter
-
I recommend that people buy their images.
Royalty-free images are inexpensive, and the selection is very, very good these days.
The piece of mind is worth it. They only cost 50 cents to about two dollars for web use.
Yes, I have heard people advocate for shooting your own pictures. But let's face it, in the original person's example, a handshake, it would take 3 people and at least 10 minutes to shoot anything worth using. I presume a half-hour of time is worth more than $3.
I still advocate for sourcing some images on sites that provide public domain stock images (like http://www.sxc.hu or http://www.morguefile.com) with the caveat that you document (with a screenshot) your source. I still trot out my list of Public Domain Stock sites(http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/ (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/)) from time to time.
But I admit that some public domain stock can be less than perfect:
http://www.morguefile.com/archive/#/?q=handshake
I find myself using microstock more and more. For a few bucks (or even a dollar) you can get some pretty decent photography:
https://www.pond5.com/photos-illustrations/1/handshake.html#2
One more thing, if you decide to purchase microstock, I realize iStockPhoto advertizes a lot. However you might be interested to know they are owned by Getty Images. So purchases from them helps enrich that organization. Why feed the trolls?
On two different occasions I have confirmed that Pond5.com is not owned by any outside company and to my knowledge they do not participate in image trolling. I advocate for them a lot (and wish I was getting a referral fee, but I don't.)
-
Jerry makes some good points.
Pond5's good!!
I like Fotolia's royalty-free offerings, also. I'm not affiliated with them or anything, though.
S.G.
-
Just to play devils advocate: You aren't completely safe buying images from anyone. If you read the contracts on those sites you have to agree to in order to purchase, I think you'll find that they don't take any responsibility for any copyright violation issues that might arise. What's to keep a copyright troll from seeding on these sites? What's to keep a thief from selling someone elses images on these sites? Is anyone in the entire process verifying ownership? Is it feasible or even possible to verify ownership? Too many questions for me.
-
Getty even offers an insurance policy of sorts for the images you get from them in case someone comes after you. It's in their online brochure "Be Sure Of It"
Just to play devils advocate: You aren't completely safe buying images from anyone. If you read the contracts on those sites you have to agree to in order to purchase, I think you'll find that they don't take any responsibility for any copyright violation issues that might arise. What's to keep a copyright troll from seeding on these sites? What's to keep a thief from selling someone elses images on these sites? Is anyone in the entire process verifying ownership? Is it feasible or even possible to verify ownership? Too many questions for me.
-
Lettered, I hear what you are saying. But there are levels of risk and usually if you can show that you licensed the material the copyright holder will pursue the person who sold you the license. I say "usually" because i don't know what Getty images would do. But I do recall that their demand has some verbiage in there requesting you send a receipt if you have one.
There are no guarantees in life. You could ask a friend to snap a picture for you and years later they could decide to pursue an infringement claim (some friend!)
Also there are practical concerns. I live in southern California and if I want to shoot my own picture of a snowman, it's going to cost me a lot.
The other option is to make your web site into an image-free, text-only, 1997-style, AOL-friendly site. As a bonus it will load quickly even on dial up.
-
I have decided to go the full route and send Getty a letter with no offer of settlement, but to indicate i am no longer using the image and will not be settling with them based on the lack of information regarding ownership and license of the image.
I will add the other issues brought up in the forum and through ELI as well.
Is there a template on the forum or something that will expedite a letter without having to recreate the wheel we are all creating when we refuse to have Getty do this to us?
-
Templates are the Getty approach - which sucks.
We recommend you write your own letter. Each case is somewhat different. Protest letters to bar associations, Attorney Generals's offices, BBB, etc. are easily recognized as coming from a template.
Take the extra five minutes and tell your story. Frame it how you wish. Those who will ultimately judge Getty and McCormack will have no doubt in their mind when they hear the same story told thousands of different ways.
Good luck, and if you would like a second, third and fourth set of eyes on your letter before you send it, publish it here. You will get good feedback.
-
I sent a summary response to the cease and desist part of the letter and asking for the removal of any settlement. I am sure it wil be turned down, but I will go into evidence mode from there. I just wanted to get this into the mail and to Getty in a decent amount of time. From here the clock no longer ticks, it is correspondence and evidence gathering and so forth.
Will keep posted. I expect a response in about 10days
-
The deadlines that Getty tries to impose are artificial and designed to panic you into making paying or making a response before you have time to investigate the claims. I informed Getty in one of my letters that I reject their deadlines and will take a reasonable amount of time to investigate, research and consult before making a reply. Don't let them force you into sending anything before you are ready because of these deadlines.
I sent a summary response to the cease and desist part of the letter and asking for the removal of any settlement. I am sure it wil be turned down, but I will go into evidence mode from there. I just wanted to get this into the mail and to Getty in a decent amount of time. From here the clock no longer ticks, it is correspondence and evidence gathering and so forth.
Will keep posted. I expect a response in about 10days
-
I will see what their response will be. From there, I will respond with rejection of their timeline and settlement.
Thank you for the comments and tips. Your lengthy process with Getty has been an invaluable learning tool.
-
I see there is a ton of documents posted on SCRID. is there a better place to post these, or a place where we can have more open access tot he information? I think if we are serious about Getty and reeling them in, these documents should be more available and easier to handle to upload and if needed download to wage a serious campaign with Attorneys General and others to help end Getty extortion practice.
Thoughts?
-
I see there is a ton of documents posted on SCRID. is there a better place to post these, or a place where we can have more open access tot he information? I think if we are serious about Getty and reeling them in, these documents should be more available and easier to handle to upload and if needed download to wage a serious campaign with Attorneys General and others to help end Getty extortion practice.
Thoughts?
scribd is the best option, the documents are public, I don't know how much more "open access" there could possibly be... I guess for your own documents you can upload them to where ever you see fit.
-
Good deal. Was thinking maybe a free wiki or similar. Makes no difference.
Thank you again
-
Good luck
-
Getty sent me their "reminder" letter that I have not paid them yet. However it made no mention of my response letter. I am going to reply with the same requests I made in the original letter, with a copy of the original letter to remind them.
Any suggestions or insight on next steps? I do not want to fall into some sort of trap where a response or non-response is going to be a problem.
As a side note: The letters from Getty are coming standard US Mail. My response has been standard US Mail. Is there any need at this point to start sending certified letters or proof of delivery?
TIA
-
Just to play devils advocate: You aren't completely safe buying images from anyone. If you read the contracts on those sites you have to agree to in order to purchase, I think you'll find that they don't take any responsibility for any copyright violation issues that might arise. What's to keep a copyright troll from seeding on these sites? What's to keep a thief from selling someone elses images on these sites? Is anyone in the entire process verifying ownership? Is it feasible or even possible to verify ownership? Too many questions for me.
Welcome to some of the problems faced by rightsholders trying to do online business. I've had knock-down, drag-out fights with some people whom have laid (false) claim to ownership of my photographs. It can rapidly get very ugly. I even came across one instance whereby a particular jackass tried to offer my work under a creative commons license using their own name etc.
Fortunately, I shoot RAW files which I convert to JPGs for clients, so indisputable proof of ownership will never be an issuel; Simply put, no-one apart from me has access to my original files.
-
OK
I replied to Getty's letter reminding me to pay up.
In my reply, I followed their example, almost to the letter with a twist stating that any additional requests will be taken into consideration once they acknowledge or respond to my original letter.
right now, the letters are about 30days in separation, which tells me I am in their CRM system.
No notice about collections or such third party tools to get $ from me. I would expect this in the next letter I receive.
-
Yes , next you will hear from NCS recovery or Tim MCCormack
-
It has been a few months and I have not head back from Getty. I am not sure if they have turned my case over or are being held up on other issues before continuing.
Any breaking news on Getty and the legal systems reeling them in on this scam?
-
Yes , next you will hear from NCS recovery or Tim MCCormack
Yes indeed. Heard from mcCormack today. Wanting even more $ for the same issue.
Still no answer to my letter requesting the legal license and signed agreement with the owner.
Not sure if this matters, but I live in Louisiana, typically, the Napoleonic Code of law here is a little different when it comes to civil suits.
So, I guess I need ot know what is next and what if anything I should do in response to this new letter from McCormack.
Thank you
-
just aside. When does the legal statute of limitation begins? In other words, from teh time of notice from Getty? The time the image was taken down?
Not like it matters too much, but just to clarify.
-
The statute starts at the date of the first Getty letter, 3 yrs.. Being in LA has no bearing on anything, IF it ever went to court it would be federal court...they'll send at least a couple more letters, and then maybe you'll be passed off to NCS collections, whom have no power to do anything..remember it's a claim..not a debt..
-
Yes, forgot about this being a federal jurisdiction.
all good.
Thank you
-
We always use the date of the first letter you received because that's when Getty could not possibly deny they knew of the infringement. But under the law it's three years from the date of discovery of the infringement or from the date when the alleged copyright holder should have learned of the infringement.
-
OK, just to make sure I am not dropping the ball on the McCormack letter...I need to reply to that letter with the same requests for proof of license and all that I requested originally from Getty?
This time, I will leave out the offer for a deal though.
-
OK, just to make sure I am not dropping the ball on the McCormack letter...I need to reply to that letter with the same requests for proof of license and all that I requested originally from Getty?
This time, I will leave out the offer for a deal though.
You can reply or not, doesn't much make a difference, being as Getty Images did not address your request for information, neither will asshat Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack from mccormacklegal.com
http://copyright-trolls.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/timothymccormackcopyrig.jpg
-
got the McCormack letter at Thanksgiving and it was just a repeat of the Getty demands from the original first letter without addressing my request for proof
I am ignoring it, but was wondering if I should send a letter with delivery confirmation to have some sort of tangible evidence just in case.
I think I asked this or read on the forum, but these are Federal cases, not State right? I ask because Louisiana has a little different take on the legal system
-
It is not necessary but I sent my correspondence via registered letter with a signed return receipt. I wanted it to show that my letter had been received just in case, since Getty images and Douglas Beiker refused to provide the reasonable request of proof to continue negotiations.
-
There is no State copyright law - copyright and patent in this country were created by the US Constitution. All copyright law is Federal which is why all copyright lawsuits have to be filed in Federal Court.
-
LOL
Got a new letter from McCormack dropping the extortion amount from 1323.44 to 1124.92 or 15%.
Oh well, time is running out for them. 1 year down, 2 to go...