ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on August 21, 2014, 08:21:27 PM
-
I have been saying for years that this was bound to happen. In Getty's relentless quest to prop up their diminishing revenues from the commoditization of digital content, they have overzealously and recklessly sent an extortion letter to the wrong party!
Techdirt has broken the story of a Getty extortion letter victim fighting back with their own lawsuit against Getty!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140820/18020328272/getty-threatens-wrong-ip-law-firm-its-copyright-trolling-efforts.shtml
That Techdirt article makes mention of an IBT article that ELI was quoted in.
http://www.ibtimes.com/getty-images-lawsuits-enforcement-or-trolling-fear-letters-dwindling-stock-photo-giant-hits-federal
Techdirt makes mention of the recent loss by Getty Images where Getty themselves were guilty of copyright infringement!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131122/16151225339/statutory-damages-strike-again-afp-getty-told-to-pay-12-million-using-photo-found-via-twitter.shtml
Techdirt also mentions the recent Getty Images embedding program which ELI feels is very risky for anyone to utilize due to Getty's reputation in the extortion letter business.
Ironically, it is another IP Law firm (Schneider Rothman Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC) that is suing for declaratory judgement against Getty Images that they did not infringe.
http://www.sriplaw.com/sued-getty-images/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237328425/Getty-Complaint
-
In SRIPLAW's recent lawsuit against Getty Images asking for declaratory judgement that they did NOT engage in copyright infringement, there appears to be some nice little nuggets for Florida extortion letter victims.
SRIPLAW is based in Florida. Notable assertions and defenses made in their lawsuit include:
Item 41: The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act broadly declares in §501.204(1) that “unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful.
Item 43: Getty’s practice of utilizing a computerized image matching system that searches the internet and identifies Getty images, including thumbnail sized images, on an individual’s or business’ website, and then automatically sending the individuals or businesses identified by Getty’s system a form letter alleging infringement, threatening lawsuits and demanding settlement payments, is an unfair or deceptive act or practice that violates FDUTPA.
Item 45: Getty’s practice is unfair or deceptive because the automatically generated form letters Getty sends demand payment in an amount that Getty would only receive for the highest resolution commercially licensed version of the image, not the lowest resolution thumbnail sized image the recipient is accused of infringing.
Item 47: Getty’s unfair and deceptive practice has damaged other individuals and businesses similarly situated to SRIPLAW who received letters from Getty that falsely claimed copyright violations and, because these other individuals and businesses lack the technical or legal knowledge and/or funds necessary to defend themselves from Getty false claims, have instead paid extortion money to Getty that Getty was not entitled to.
Item 48: Unless enjoined, Getty’s unfair and deceptive practice will damage other individuals and businesses who receive letters from Getty that falsely claim copyright violations and demand settlement payments to resolve such false claims.
-
This may be the beginning of the end.
-
Gotta like these guys. Anyone got any ideas of how we can support them.
Would any of the statistics Greg has been compiling, be of use to them? We should find ways to get on their bandwagon.
-
Getty will be begging to settle this, and will probably state it was an honest mistake. Too bad they couldn't wait until they got the asshole Seattle Attorney Timothy B. Mccormack letter with the jacked-up demand account, and they could have gone after that fuck-wad as well.
-
Here's my take with SRIPLAW...
I think it is largely a publicity play. No way they could do that kind of analysis and defense of the hot-linked image, Perfect 10, etc. without them knowing about ELI and all the information here. They had to know that Getty would likely not sue over such a piddly amount. But perhaps that they are an IP Law firm makes them extra sensitive.
My thinking is they could have taken their argument directly to Getty and they would have killed the letter.
Lawsuits become a public matter of interest and I think SRIPLAW knows this. Hence, they got some nice publicity with Techdirt, us, and who knows who else?
-
This is awesome!
I agree with Jerry's comments about the beginning of the end.
I hope that it is more than just a publicity stunt and they truly see what Getty Images and McCormack IP Law are doing is wrong and see an opportunity to do something. If it is more than a publicity stunt I have a LOT of information I would be willing to share if they are willing to get it into the records and make Getty and McCormack IP law do some splainin'.
May have to reach out to them over the weekend.
-
Hi everyone. Joel Rothman here. Partner in Schneider Rothman Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC. http://www.sriplaw.com (http://www.sriplaw.com)
We are the plaintiff in the case filed this past week against Getty Images, Inc. I have visited ELI previously, but did not realize there were forums here. I do now after speaking yesterday with Oscar Michelin. There seems to be a wealth of valuable information here and I commend everyone who is contributing productively to increase awareness and understanding about copyright and the law.
When we filed suit on Wednesday, 8/20/2014, I posted this on our website http://www.sriplaw.com/sued-getty-images/ (http://www.sriplaw.com/sued-getty-images/). Let me go into a bit more detail about our legal strategy (Getty's attorneys, please pay attention).
The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) broadly declares that “Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful. See s. 501.204, Unlawful acts and practices here:http://goo.gl/fi4PPa (http://goo.gl/fi4PPa)
We have alleged in our Complaint here http://www.scribd.com/doc/237328425/Getty-Complaint (http://www.scribd.com/doc/237328425/Getty-Complaint) that the practice of sending letters "utilizing a computerized image matching system that searches the internet and identifies Getty images, including thumbnail sized images, on an individual’s or business’ website, and then automatically sending the individuals or businesses identified by Getty’s system a form letter alleging infringement, threatening lawsuits and demanding settlement payments," is an unfair or deceptive act or practice that violates FDUTPA, "because a significant number of the individuals and businesses who receive Getty’s letters (i) are not violating any of Getty’s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106; (ii) are entitled to the statutory defense of fair use pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107; and/or (iii) are entitled to DMCA safe harbor pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512, and therefore have not committed infringement and are not liable to Getty."
We intend to demonstrate this to the Court.
If we are successful, then FDUPTA provides for the following remedies:
501.211 Other individual remedies.—
(1) Without regard to any other remedy or relief to which a person is entitled, anyone aggrieved by a violation of this part may bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that an act or practice violates this part and to enjoin a person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate this part. See: Fla. Stat. Ch. 501.211 Other individual remedies, here: http://goo.gl/ntlMvl (http://goo.gl/ntlMvl)
See also, Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Timeshares Direct, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)(Section 501.211(1), Florida Statutes, permits a claim for injunctive relief by “anyone aggrieved” by an unfair or deceptive act, which has occurred, is now occurring, or is likely to occur in the future. Accordingly, regardless of whether an aggrieved party can recover “actual damages” under section 501.211(2), it may obtain injunctive relief under section 501.211(1)). Case here: http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2012/090312/5D11-1577.op.pdf (http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2012/090312/5D11-1577.op.pdf)
We believe that Getty's past conduct demonstrates that the unfair or deceptive act it committed against our firm, has occurred, is occurring, and is likely to occur in the future and, therefore, Getty must be enjoined from further commission of said act in the future.
It is just that simple.
Comments? Questions?
-
Hi Everyone,
I am a colleague of Joel Rothman and recently posted an article on his case as well. http://artlawjournal.com/getty-images-sued-deceptive-practices/
I also have two other articles on tips for handling a Getty Extortion Letter.
http://artlawjournal.com/respond-getty-images-demand-letter/ http://artlawjournal.com/tips-responding-getty-images-demand-letter/
I hope you find them useful. Keep up the good work.
-
Welcome to the forum gentlemen! Not only does getty send out form letters without fact checking, when it gets escalated to Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack they don't bother checking any fact either, they just raise the demand amount to another absurd level. As far as I am concerned the Washington State Bar Association, should pull his license to practice law. We've seen letters of images that were hotlinked ( as in your case) letters with images in the public domain, letters with images where the photographer has severed ties with Getty, letters where the images were licensed in good faith (as in my case), and even a letter form a US war veteran that was collecting cigarettes to pass out to other veterans.. Getty and their ilk need to be stopped.
-
Steve and Joel, you guys rock!
I know you guys need to keep your case focused and to the point. But, if you determine that you need any particular kinds of examples of things that Getty or their close partners, McCormack IP Law, are or have been doing to targets, this is the place to ask.
Over the years the nature of their letters has changed somewhat. Bar complaints, Attorney General complaints, letters written to state and federal lawmakers have tended to modify their behavior somewhat. The readers of this forum have seen it all. Many have deep files on Getty, McCormack and their practices.
I am fairly certain that if you need certain evidence, just ask and there is a good chance someone will be able to provide something close to what you need.
Good luck in this suit. We are all behind you.
-
We've seen letters of images that were hotlinked ( as in your case) letters with images in the public domain, letters with images where the photographer has severed ties with Getty, letters where the images were licensed in good faith (as in my case), and even a letter form a US war veteran that was collecting cigarettes to pass out to other veterans.. Getty and their ilk need to be stopped.
I routinely represent photographers, illustrators, artists, writers, and architects in copyright infringement matters. If I routinely did to alleged infringers what Getty did to me, the bar would have my license.
-
Steve and Joel, you guys rock!
I know you guys need to keep your case focused and to the point. But, if you determine that you need any particular kinds of examples of things that Getty or their close partners, McCormack IP Law, are or have been doing to targets, this is the place to ask.
Stinger, thank you for the kind words, and for your offer of assistance.
There will likely be a need for us to take you up on it. That need may come quickly since we are assigned to Judge Middlebrooks who runs a "rocket docket" in the Southern District of Florida. I promise to keep you updated.
-
Funny thing is, most if not all of us active members here are content creators of some form or another, Getty and those other named copyright trolls, like to spew the BS that ELI is against copyright..Nothing could be further from the truth.. It's the heavy handed, fear tactics and general way they handle things, that pisses us off.
-
Funny thing is, most if not all of us active members here are content creators of some form or another...
Robert, you make a very important point. We are not against content.
For example, my firm and attorney Darren Quinn of San Diego recently filed a case against CoreLogic. You can read the Complaint here. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/237572244/First-Amended-Complaint-against-CoreLogic)
In the case of CoreLogic, the company has been systematically removing metadata from photographs (e.g. in EXIF) uploaded to CoreLogic's real estate multiple listing service (MLS) platforms. CoreLogic then offers MLS organizations a chance to make extra revenue by adding the photographs in their databases to proprietary CoreLogic subscription databases like RealQuest where the photographer is unable to identify infringement because the metadata has been removed, and where CoreLogic makes a profit from using photographs without compensating the copyright owner. Not to mention that most real estate agents treat their local MLS systems as free image databases they may dip into with impunity.
So, again, we are not against content. And as for what we are in favor of, I would say we are for fairness.
-
Steve and Joel,
Welcome to the forum! We knew the day would come when Getty Images would send one of their demand letters to the wrong person who had the resources to fight back in a court of law. I was planning to see if I could find your emails and reach out to you tomorrow. I have been researching Getty Images and McCormack IP Law’s business model for two and half years now and have collected quite a bit of information. If you feel any of it may help with your lawsuit I would be willing to share it with you.
I firmly believe that artists have rights and should be compensated for their work but my issues with Getty Images and McCormack IP law are that
1) They seem to ask amounts disproportionate to what the images are worth and/or what they could hope to win in a court of law. (They have recently lowered their demand amounts and are getting closer to what many would consider a reasonable demand)
2) When asked to provide proof of claim to facilitate negotiation all such requests are denied and met with statements stating that the proof requested will only be provided through the discovery process, in other words will show you when we sue you.
3) As you have seen their software is flawed and sends out demand letters for images that are hot linked, not visible to the public and even in at least two cases in the public domain.
I have been working gathering information in an attempt to hopefully submit this to Congress with suggestions for making changes to the current copyright law so that it not only protects artists rights but provide some protection for people who fall into the innocent infringer category (and those that are harassed like yourselves who have not infringed) from the heavy-handed tactics, implied legal threats and bullying from companies like Getty images and McCormack IP law.
Again, welcome to the forum and I look forward to following your case as it progresses. If you would like to discuss the materials that I have send me a PM with contact information and I will be happy to reach out to you.
-
Hello Joel,
As founder of ELI, I welcome you to the ELI Forums and pleasantly surprised you have replied to this thread. I was not aware that you had posted and I was notified by another forum user of your participation.
As you can see, the ELI Forums is where the action is at and we have been in existence for 6 years. I am going to tell you it hasn't always been an easy road being the sole advocates for Getty victims for so many years. Oscar Michelen and I have poured countless hours over the years and our personal time and reputations in assisting others.
Because ELI was founded by me (a non-lawyer) and our community / readership consists almost entirely of non-lawyers, we have taken unconventional approaches to fighting back the tide of thousands of letters that are issued each year that go beyond Getty Images that ask for disproportional amounts of monies. When asked for more proof and copyright registration, the standard bullshit answer (forgive my bluntness) is they will only provide such information if they filed suit and/or during a trial. The truth of the matter is they would be expected to provide such information beforehand.
There have been unexplained issues where they are charging SALES TAX within some of their extortion letters for what I believe is a retroactive license. In other words, they attempt to transform what is allegedly a copyright infringement settlement into a "coerced purchase". I take it to mean "you either buy this license" today or we will sue you. For non-lawyers, it is taking a legal gun to someone's head. Either they want to sell a license or they want to settle a complaint. It has a similar feel to a backroom "protection scheme".
Getty Images sloppiness is such that in Getty Images vs. Advernet in New York, the Court appears to show extreme disapproval of Getty actions and operations to the degree that they lost the case even though the defendant had not appeared and counsel was no longer representing them! Normally, you would expect to see a default judgment in such matter. But we were all astounded to see how perceptive that Court was in viewing Getty shenanigans.
You should be aware that high-ranking Getty Images corporate employees have engaged in backroom mischief in an effort to discredit and silence me and thereby crippling ELI and I have actual documents to show this. I also have documents that demonstrate backroom mischief by outside counsel of Getty Images. If you had waited longer, you would have seen a more expansive and complete cycle of how the Getty collection system works because Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack would have likely sent you a letter and you could have seen the misleading tactics being used by his office.
For example, I have an email by Getty corporate counsel trying to heavy-handedly advise Oscar Michelen (who does not own this website or these forums) to use his influence on me to NOT file State Bar Complaints against an abusive lawyer. Although, every private citizen has the right to do so if they feel they have been wronged.
Before we called them out on it, his operation had at least one paralegal (Ashanti Taylor comes to mind) appearing to engage in legal practice by a documented letter that says SHE would advise Getty Images of a course of action. I believe only Timothy B. McCormack would have such authority or representation ability.
In fact, it has gotten so personal Mr. McCormack has managed to inject himself in another lawsuit about me that entirely has nothing to do with him. But he wants to get at me.
Picscout, purchased a few years ago by Getty Images, reportedly routinely defies and ignores all Internet conventions and protocols and engages in invasive website scanning techniques to invade web servers throughout the U.S. and perhaps beyond. From what is reported to me, Picscout is fully owned, sanctioned, and endorsed by Getty Images. Picscout actively engages in online activities that come dangerously close to indiscriminate wholesale hacking and theft of bandwidth.
These are only small examples of details the ELI Community have been tracking over the years.
And if you think Getty Images is bad, you should see the larger picture of which ELI reports. There is a Hawaiian operation led by photographer Vincent K. Tylor (VKT) that routinely takes advantage of what appears to be "seeded images" of Hawaii scenery photos on the Internet under the guise of "free wallpaper images" and "free screensaver images". It does not appear he actively "seeds" the Internet but he fully, actively, gleefully, and vindictively capitalizes on it in a very big way if you look at his lawsuit and settlement record, in particular, the ones by Hawaiian Attorney James Stephen Street.
VKT used an alleged California law firm called Woolf, Gafni, & Fowler" for a number of cases. Upon investigation, we discovered there is no such law firm legitimately registered in California and there were only remnants of an old Texas registration found.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/hawaiian-letters-lawsuits-forum/info-on-woolf-gafni-and-fowler-llp/
When ELI reported on it, the suit was dropped within 48 hours but later refiled. It was even written about a Vermont newspaper.
http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_26247454/lawsuit-against-vernon-company-dropped-refiled
http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_25969243/vernon-company-faces-lawsuit-from-copyright-troll
We've another Hawaiian operation, Hawaiian Art Network, that used a California lawyer (Brandon Sand) to pursue and frighten a travel agent in Canada!
We've had a realtor (Jennifer Sherrouse) who was charged with housing discrimination by the U.S. Dept of Justice.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/September/09-crt-934.html
Despite her checkered past in the real estate industry, she is engaging in active litigation in Atlanta on a fellow real estate agent refusing to amicably settle over a minor matter.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/realtor-jennifer-sherrouse-files-suit-with-the-help-of-evan-andesron-and-carolyn/
The issue of copyright extortion goes beyond Getty Images although they have the largest trolling operation. There are countless examples of legal shenanigans pulled over the years by all kinds of parties. It is a HUGE revenue generator for those that engage in it.
There are a great deal of other information I have been compiling and holding but I cannot publicly write about them at this time due to the sensitivity of the information.
I commend your efforts to get a declaratory judgment to get clarification of how they work. It will set a precedent to all similar operations throughout the U.S. But more importantly, expose the internal operations. I believe upon a discovery process, you will find very "interesting information" into the Getty operation. In fact, you will likely find "interesting information" into most operations if you dig deep enough.
You may have visited the ELI Forums to respond to your lawsuit against Getty Images but I believe you will find a hornet's nest of transgressions that go far beyond Getty Images.
Because I am originally from Florida and have friends in South Florida, there is an opportunity to personally discuss these issues personally and privately. The issue has become so personal especially by Timothy B. McCormack's recent lawsuit shenanigans, that members of ELI such as myself are now having their legitimate First Amendment rights dangerously being threatened. We have numerous letters on file of attempts to censor, restrain, deter, and mute our reporting.
I have considered filing a wholesale list of State Bar Complaints against a number of troll lawyers through the U.S. that have attempted to stymie my abilities to speak out freely on the issue, censor ELI through their written complaints to third parties not involved in the ownership or operation of ELI. They have actively engaged in deceptive, backroom activities that have impeded my blogger rights as defined by the EFF.
https://www.eff.org/bloggers
Further, I would like to have a private discussion of a possible lawsuit against those lawyers who have repeatedly written complaints about me to another party in a coercive attempt to stop or slow our ability to write, report, and comment freely.
I am willing to be a party to a joint lawsuit or any other formal civil remedy and I am willing to travel to other jurisdictions if need be. I am also willing to engage in publicity to raise such funds if necessary. It is not a tact I would normally engage in or endorse because I distrust the legal system but it might be the only message they understand.
There are 2-3 parties in particular, that have annoyed and interfered with my and ELI Efforts for years in an ongoing, concerted, backroom manner, that I am quite fed up with.
There have been parties and forces that have encouraged me to exercise restraint over the years but I am seriously considering ignoring such advice. There has been too much secrecy and cloak and dagger techniques. I am a believer in getting all the information in the open (ugliness and all) and let the chips fall where they may.
I am willing to consider written apologies by those parties for those backroom efforts against me. but I expect none as I believe they are despicable, obnoxious human beings that simply "don't get it". And so, it is so IRONIC that you have landed directly in the ELI Forums with a huge public platform with so many built-in supporters .
Welcome to the ELI Forums! It unfortunately gets down and dirty here.
Hi everyone. Joel Rothman here. Partner in Schneider Rothman Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC. http://www.sriplaw.com (http://www.sriplaw.com)
We are the plaintiff in the case filed this past week against Getty Images, Inc. I have visited ELI previously, but did not realize there were forums here. I do now after speaking yesterday with Oscar Michelen. There seems to be a wealth of valuable information here and I commend everyone who is contributing productively to increase awareness and understanding about copyright and the law.
When we filed suit on Wednesday, 8/20/2014, I posted this on our website http://www.sriplaw.com/sued-getty-images/ (http://www.sriplaw.com/sued-getty-images/). Let me go into a bit more detail about our legal strategy (Getty's attorneys, please pay attention).
The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) broadly declares that “Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful. See s. 501.204, Unlawful acts and practices here:http://goo.gl/fi4PPa (http://goo.gl/fi4PPa)
We believe that Getty's past conduct demonstrates that the unfair or deceptive act it committed against our firm, has occurred, is occurring, and is likely to occur in the future and, therefore, Getty must be enjoined from further commission of said act in the future.
It is just that simple.
Comments? Questions?
-
Hello Steve,
Thank for sharing these articles. WE look forward to reading them.
Hi Everyone,
I am a colleague of Joel Rothman and recently posted an article on his case as well. http://artlawjournal.com/getty-images-sued-deceptive-practices/
I also have two other articles on tips for handling a Getty Extortion Letter.
http://artlawjournal.com/respond-getty-images-demand-letter/ http://artlawjournal.com/tips-responding-getty-images-demand-letter/
I hope you find them useful. Keep up the good work.
-
I am willing to be a party to a joint lawsuit or any other formal civil remedy and I am willing to travel to other jurisdictions if need be. I am also willing to engage in publicity to raise such funds if necessary. It is not a tact I would normally engage in or endorse because I distrust the legal system but it might be the only message they understand.
I too would be willing to join a suit against Getty. As I stated in an earlier post I also have documents that may be of use.