ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Asrael on June 04, 2015, 03:16:10 PM
-
Hi
I posted a while back about a stockfood photo I was emailed a Getty letter on. I immediately took the photo down and hoped that would be the end of it. I have never received a letter in the mail about this issue. I do receive a phone call/message every few months about it and it has been sent to a lawyer.
They have said on the messages that they have sent me letters- and that they want to keep this from escalating to court. I have not returned any of the calls except for the initial one from LCS, before I knew what this was about- that is when they emailed me the letter (Jan, 2014). My only question/concern is, this is not McCormick law firm, it is a law firm called Stern and Schurin. Is there a chance that this would head to litigation. I don't understand how.. as I have never received a letter in the mail- or they don't have my name (they have my nickname which is used on the site). Anyways- any thought on the matter would be great- or if you have heard of this law firm before:) Also I live in Canada, not the U.S.A..
Thanks for all you offer
-
It seems like it might be difficult for them to sue you if they don't know your name. Unless Canada makes that kind of thing ease, aye?
The law firm in question might be McCormack's counterpart in Canada. Getty does this around the world. In different legal systems they have to behave differently.
If it is just one photo and it doesn't contain images of celebrities or models, I wouldn't worry too much. Would a Canadian court approve of them suing you with no previous contact or attempt to settle? I would do some google research on the firm to check them out. Also, check out what kind of suits they file. McCormack IP Law threatens to file in the U.S. I don't know of any cases where they were allowed to file any cases on Getty's behalf.
-
Hi Stinger:)
Thanks for your response. It is a US company based out of NY, when I googled them nothing came up in association with Getty. They do deal with copyright. McCormack called once, and then I have had 2 calls from them- 1 month apart.
It is all very odd. It was a food picture- and I think it was originally from a German Stockfood site (a member here helped me to find its initial location), but of course I didn't know this when I used it (got it off google images many years ago- I have sure learned my lesson about that). My webhost is based in the states- but my business and me live in Canada. They probably have my last name.. but not my real first name..
Anyways thanks so much- I don't worry until I get the calls- then it shakes me for a few days!- and because this was a different firm, thought I would ask about it...
Thanks
Asrael
-
Seems like a New York Law firm might have a very difficult time suing you in Canada. I would keep quiet, rather than letting them know the error of their ways. The Statute of Limitations in the U.S. is 3 years from the time they discover the mis-use. Not sure about Canada.
If it's only one photo and no models, I would ignore them.
-
ewww! a new trolling firm!! I just might have some spare time to dig around a bit...someone warm up the bus!
-
Thanks so much again for the reassurance:) I know it.. but they always shake me up when they call!! I think I have about a year to go- Oh well!
Thanks again to you both:)
-
I just got an email today telling me that my case (see thread "The best defense..." in Getty Letters forum) has been escalated to the same law firm (Stern & Schurin). They are in New York; I am in another state. I used my full name in replying to them and the email says that I will be receiving a letter by postal mail.
I also get very shaken up when I am contacted, even by email. I have not phoned them or given them my phone number or street address and my web site domain registration is by proxy, so I don't know if they will find me easily, but it still feels like an assault each and every time.
I still have NOT been given proof that they (Getty or Science Library) own an exclusive right to the image or have standing to proceed against me. In fact, there are at least 3 different sites offering this image for licensing and Getty specifically says that it can't license it.
I wonder if they have a troll here on these forums to single out those people who are most defiant and punish them. I used ONE image (that is still being used worldwide) and took it down immediately. I claimed fair use and they have not shown how it's NOT fair use, either, but once the attorney contacts me, I think he are required to answer my questions on those points (or at least that's how I interpreted the Washington State Bar Association's ethics requirements -- now I have to bone up on the New York Bar Association's ethics requirements, which I just downloaded).
If anyone has any insight on this particular attorney (Steven Stern) and law firm. I would appreciate hearing it.
-
couple of nuggets for you...
1. They would have to file suit in your state.
2. Registering by proxy is largely an upsell by registars, if you used go-daddy you can be assured they will give up your info with a simple request to do so.
3. they don't have to offer up any answers to you in regards to fair use. They have to prove the infringement, but you can claim fair use as a defense. I'm not sure how the image was used, so i can't give an opinion as to whether it may fall under fair use.
4. Getty has nothing to do with this, it's not their image.
5. if there are more than 1 site offering a license for this , they would have a hard time proving you did not purchase it elsewhere.
6. The image being used "worldwide" doesn't mean anything in the scope of things.. other people may have licensed it,pilfered it, or linked to it.
7. Rest assured knowing People from Getty and Picscout and various other trolls visit these forums daily.
-
Robert,
Thank you very much for your "nuggets"!
1. I was wondering if they would have to file against me in my state, and now I know that they would have to do that. I have read that a copyright suit is tried in a federal court. What court would that be?
2. My registrar is not Go-Daddy. My registrar says the following regarding their privacy add-on: "We display a generic email and physical postal address in your domain's public WHOIS record … any email and flat mail received will be forwarded to the email address of your choice." They do not say they will tell the sender who I am or where I am located.
3. Here is a link (http://www.operationterra.com/Update%20100311.html) to the page on which I had used the image. It was the third one down and has been replaced by the one from nasa.gov. The page is something I wrote on October 3, 2011 to tie together other material on the site and put forth a possible explanation for how 12 different futures will split off from this one shared reality through linking 12 pairs of stargates via wormholes. A wormhole has never been seen or discovered, so one has to rely on conceptual illustrations.
The image I used was not a photo. It was a computer conceptual drawing of a wormhole, just as is the NASA image that is shown there now. This image is one of four on that page and one of 555 images that were on the site at the time I got the demand letter. The entire site is educational.
4. Science Photo Library IS part of Getty Images, sheltered by that corporate compartmentalization I have observed and spoken about elsewhere. I have a pdf file showing that image as it was on GettyImages.com when I was first contacted. It is watermarked gettyimages, Science Photo Library. I just tried to find that page again and it has been taken down. On that page (I have a pdf of it), Getty states that it can't license that image. Seems like I caught them in an "oops" position, which they have since covered over. I don't know how to attach the pdf to this post.
5. So the onus is on THEM to prove that I didn't purchase it elsewhere? I would think that I would have to prove that I had licensed the image from somewhere if this went to court. I didn't license it from anywhere. I do have pdf's of the pages from the other sites that are licensing it. I thought the strength of my argument is that they (Science Photo Library/Getty) don't have exclusive rights to that image and therefore can't seek damages for its unlicensed use. The image is credited to a Richard Harris.
7. I thought there might be trolls here, which is why I didn't list my actual physical location.
Under Oscar's letter program (if I have to make use of it), would this be considered a Getty or Picscout letter or something else? The email I got this morning said it could be several weeks before I heard from the attorney. I don't intend to reply to the email telling me that. I'm now waiting to see what the attorney does and if I get anything in postal mail or not.
-
Robert,
Thank you very much for your "nuggets"!
see my responses below:
1. I was wondering if they would have to file against me in my state, and now I know that they would have to do that. I have read that a copyright suit is tried in a federal court. What court would that be?
It would be the federal court where you are located, they would also have to have an attorney licensed in your state, or hire an additional attorney
2. My registrar is not Go-Daddy. My registrar says the following regarding their privacy add-on: "We display a generic email and physical postal address in your domain's public WHOIS record … any email and flat mail received will be forwarded to the email address of your choice." They do not say they will tell the sender who I am or where I am located.
most registars are spineless, and will give up your info fairly easily. A threatening letter to your registar would probably make them cave..bottom line if they want your info bad enough, they will get it.
3. Here is a link (http://www.operationterra.com/Update%20100311.html) to the page on which I had used the image. It was the third one down and has been replaced by the one from nasa.gov. The page is something I wrote on October 3, 2011 to tie together other material on the site and put forth a possible explanation for how 12 different futures will split off from this one shared reality through linking 12 pairs of stargates via wormholes. A wormhole has never been seen or discovered, so one has to rely on conceptual illustrations.
The image I used was not a photo. It was a computer conceptual drawing of a wormhole, just as is the NASA image that is shown there now. This image is one of four on that page and one of 555 images that were on the site at the time I got the demand letter. The entire site is educational.
The court would need to decide fair use, and it would have to meet the 4 major components ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use ). I certainly hope you culled those other 554 images and removed any that do not have a license or are in the public domain..lest you very well may get more letters.
4. Science Photo Library IS part of Getty Images, sheltered by that corporate compartmentalization I have observed and spoken about elsewhere. I have a pdf file showing that image as it was on GettyImages.com when I was first contacted. It is watermarked gettyimages, Science Photo Library. I just tried to find that page again and it has been taken down. On that page (I have a pdf of it), Getty states that it can't license that image. Seems like I caught them in an "oops" position, which they have since covered over. I don't know how to attach the pdf to this post.
I think you are mistaken here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Photo_Library )
"Science Photo Library (registered as Science Photo Library Limited) is a privately owned stock photography and, more recently, stock footage agency, founded. in 1981.[1] Its headquarters are in Maida Hill, in west London, U.K..
In addition to its commercial aims, Science Photo Library uses its media to sponsor and contribute to events aimed at popularising science to children, through educational multimedia competitions,[2] and to the wider public through exhibitions such as From Earth to the Universe[3] as part of the International Year of Astronomy, and its 2011 collaboration with RIA Novosti to showcase archive material covering the first human spaceflight by Yuri Gagarin.[4]"
It is very possible that the artist Richard Harris did license his image to Getty at some point in time, and he may have also licensed it to Science Photo Library.. There is also a chance that he no longer works with Getty, hence it may have been on their site, they are not the most organized.. again bottom line is chances are good that the artist himself holds the copyright, meaning only he can sue, not Getty, not Picscout, not Science photo.. have you checked to see if this image is even registered with the US copyright office?..if it is not this makes it even better for you.
5. So the onus is on THEM to prove that I didn't purchase it elsewhere? I would think that I would have to prove that I had licensed the image from somewhere if this went to court. I didn't license it from anywhere. I do have pdf's of the pages from the other sites that are licensing it. I thought the strength of my argument is that they (Science Photo Library/Getty) don't have exclusive rights to that image and therefore can't seek damages for its unlicensed use. The image is credited to a Richard Harris.
The onus of them is to prove you infringed, this is not a business, why would you have any records/invoices from 4 years ago?? you probably wouldn't, and this could be easily understood by any judge..especially if you have licensed a bunch of other images in the past, I think a judge would tend to believe you if you can show you have licensed images in the past.
7. I thought there might be trolls here, which is why I didn't list my actual physical location.
Under Oscar's letter program (if I have to make use of it), would this be considered a Getty or Picscout letter or something else? The email I got this morning said it could be several weeks before I heard from the attorney. I don't intend to reply to the email telling me that. I'm now waiting to see what the attorney does and if I get anything in postal mail or not.
yeah i would not respond to ANY emails, under any circumstances..let them do the footwork, I can't speak for Oscar as to whether this would fall under a "Getty" Letter..
-
Robert,
THANK YOU for ALL of that information! I have read it, absorbed it, and will make use of it, so please know your time was well spent in typing all of that.
I have one question: How can I find out if this particular image is registered with the US copyright office? I went to that site right off the bat and could not figure out how to find an image in their copyright database. It wasn't very user-friendly. I don't know the name or ID# of the original. I just know the name of the artist.
-
Robert, I just figured out how to do a search on the US copyright online database. I did searches on "Harris Roger" (that's the artist's name, not Richard as I stated earlier) and "Science Photo Library." No images came up whatsoever (except photos included in books), either as collections or individual images, so as far as I know neither the company nor the artist has registered a US copyright for that image. They CAN do so for up to five years after the image was created and still have it considered prima facie evidence of copyright, so from the correspondence I have received so far, my guess is that whoever owns the (unregistered) copyright COULD still register it if this case goes to court. I don't know when the image was created; I first used it on October 3, 2011, almost 4 years ago, so if it was created much earlier than that, it could not be registered (even retroactively) if the creation date was more than 5 years before now.
Given that I have identified at least 3 different companies offering this image, each licensing it and using their own watermark on it, it looks like only the artist holds the original copyright and has licensed its use through at least those 3 different companies, only one of which is trying to collect damages from me. THAT company (Science Photo Library) does not appear to have exclusive rights to that image and does not appear to have registered it with the US copyright office. Do they even have jurisdiction to make a demand in US courts (they are based in England), or does hiring a US attorney give them the right to proceed in US District Court?
-
plain and simple the owner of the copyright is the only one able to file suit.
-
Robert,
That is how I interpreted copyright law. Thank you for that summary of the situation.
Can the copyright owner appoint one of its agents to represent them in a suit or do they have to file the suit personally? Could the artist be named as ONE of the claimants and Science Photo Library be included as well?
In this case, it appears that there are at least three agents licensing that image and NONE of them (including the artist) have filed a copyright on it with the US office of copyrights.
One of my colleagues is a (non-PI) lawyer in New York and he has said that it makes no sense for Science Photo Library to take this to court because the potential recovery amount is so small and they would have to front the much larger costs for litigating it that it would not be worth it. He has concluded that the only reason this is being pursued is the hope that I will be intimidated into settling out of court. Is he naive or is his thinking correct on this?
-
I agree with your colleague. It is likely all about intimidation.
-
Yep, I have received 3 voicemaila from two doffered (so called) lawyers from this company out of New York. I repeat 2 lawyers. This is all a joke to me. My issue started back in October 2013 and my best advice is to call them once and go silent on these clowns. This has worked for me because all they do is send extortion emails to me and send me a random voicemail every now and then. I can prove fair use, so all they can do is attempt try and take me to small claims court. They want $600 bucks which they raised to $230 then dropped it back down to $420 because they want to settle. Ha! I am winning remaining quiet. Please do the same
-
This is not a "small claims court" issue, it's a federal issue, and "proving" fair use is not always a simple matter and is largely open to interpretation by the federal judge that hears the case, if it goes that far.. Care to share the 2 lawyers names with us?
-
Our business is in CA and I've received a few letters and phone calls from a law firm called Stern & Schurin LLP out of NY, stating they represent StockFood America, Inc., and that we have unauthorized use of an image(s), with a link to settle. Our website was created by a US third party company that creates websites for my industry, so I am not the only retailer that has been harassed. The website developer told me to ignore the letters and phone calls and referred me to this site in case I needed assistance. I did answer the phone call from the law firm once, I told the guy that our website was created by a website company and they should have the license for use of the images in question, but he told me that it is my company's responsibility and he was not going to contact the web company because it is my company's responsibility to know what is on the website and that I can sue the website company for the amount I am supposed to pay the law firm to be reimbursed. Website developer says ignore them or get help from ELI, so here I am.
I did go to stockfood to look up the images and found one image but not the other. It is easier to go online and grab the images off the internet on a google search than to find the images on their website. Also on stockfood's website they state:
"License Compliance Services
StockFood strives to protect the interests, intellectual property, and livelihoods of the contributors with whom we work, and for this purpose has mandated License Compliance Services to manage copyright compliance on our behalf." So Stern & Schurin who contacted my company does not even represent stockfood america.
After the first letter, I went to the website developer and they immediately removed the images, which were for recipes on the website and not just mine, other retailers as well. They also informed me that other retailers are receiving the same letters for copyright infringement on these or other images.
Could this law firm be working with LCS? Do I need a license or contract from the website developer that these images were part of a license agreement they have with stockfood america and because they hosted our website that we are in compliance with the images?
I'm going to ignore the letters and calls for now, but I do want to have what I need to make them back off.
-
Nice of the web developer to refer you here. Now they need to educate themselves about copyright law and stop grabbing images from the Internet and displaying them on the sites they develop. They could have easily licensed these photos for a few bucks. You need to go through your site and determine where the other photos came from.
In the very highly unlikely event that Stock Food takes you to court and is awarded a judgement, you will have a cause against the web developer. But the bottom line is that the odds are that if you ignore the emails and threats, they'll probably leave you alone.
By the way, you can find other sites that use the same image by doing a reverse image lookup with tineye.com.
-
"License Compliance Services
StockFood strives to protect the interests, intellectual property, and livelihoods of the contributors with whom we work, and for this purpose has mandated License Compliance Services to manage copyright compliance on our behalf." So Stern & Schurin who contacted my company does not even represent stockfood america.
According to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the only person or entity who can sue you for copyright infringement is the copyright holder. These rights can be transferred in whole to one entity, but the above quote leads me to believe that has not happened. It leads me to believe that they pay License Compliance Services to harass people to give them money under threat of the law (trolling).
I agree with Jerry's highly unlikely scenario.
Take this for what it is worth. I am just a guy who has been watching these copyright trolls for about 4 years now and that is what I would read (between the lines).
-
Something else to be aware of...Lets just say that your web development firm did in fact license the images in question ( which I highly doubt) that license is generally "non-transferable".. in other words they can't license it, then give it you and a bunch of other people.. If they had licensed the image properly, one would think they would know this.