Used Swishzone.com movie and now Getty Images wants to get me too

[yuleane]

I just got a letter from gettyimages.com, requesting $2000 for 2 pictures I used, without a license.
However, I downloaded a flash movie from here (swishzone.com) http://www.swishzone.com/index.php?area=resources&tab=movies&do=page&action=detailed&link_id=2728
I had no idea that I can not use it since the SWISH Usage Policy says:

All SWiSH movies found in the SWiSHzone.com resources section are open source and can therefore be used or modified for use in any project whether commercial or not. However you are not permitted to resell or redistribute these movies. The authors have supplied these movies to SWiSHzone.com to assist SWiSHers worldwide, it is your responsibility to provide credit to the original authors where appropriate.

And I simply displayed it on my website.
I am an 18 year old college student with no money what so ever, there is no way I could ever pay that.
It is hard enough for me to pay my bills (I moved out, my parents are in Germany and I live in the US now)
I am just so desperate.
I can not believe they do that to me, I am not even a company or anything.

I already deleted everything and wrote to them out of my desperation.
I also contacted a photographer of one image and swish.

That is just all so horrible....

[Oscar Michelen]

I am unclear  about what it is Getty says you used - was it a still from the movie or something else? Please give me  a bit more explanation and I can perhaps better steer you in the right direction.

[yuleane]

Oh yes, I am sorry, in this movie are 2 images included from Getty Images.
(you can see it here: http://www.swishzone.com/index.php?area=resources&tab=movies&do=page&action=detailed&link_id=2728 )

So it was still from the movie, how I downloaded it.
Also where the movie is, there is the Usage Policy right below, and it says that these movies are open source and I can use and change them.
I mean I trusted Swish, since it is a reputable software and company.

[goober]

Hi Oscar,
I also received a letter today from Getty Images just today. I guess they are going after everyone and using Archive dot org to do it  Spoke to someone at Getty who told me ( implied this as they told me to go to archive dot org) they went to Archive dot org and found one single image I had used on my website and wanted $1300 dollars for it.
So they are not just using Pic scout software, they are using archive dot org to go after old archived images to press their claim. Some of those images might never have even been published online if the bots had to find them. They could be mockups that a web designer was using.

Sure wish they wouldn't use archive dot org since I think it might violate the archive dot org's TOS. They prohibit the use of their site for any commercial purpose. IMO asking for $1300 for an image or using the archive's website to imply that the image was used for a period of time seems way over the top.


I purchased my images online as most people do. Had no idea it was copyrighted and that the company I purchased it from had no right to resell it to me after they obviously did some editing to it. The company I purchased from is long gone I think, and it was such a small amount for the template at the time, that I probably don't have proof that I paid for the image, although I know I did.
Getty knows it's not always possible to produce proof of purchase and I think that's why they go after so many smaller businesses like myself. I am just one person in my business that I run from home and I am not a kid either. Their demand for payment letter was pretty much  as you have seen it posted on the internet.


Do you think Mr Michelen that any class action lawsuits will be filed against them for their settlement demands? I surely hope so. There are lots of small business people just getting by in this economy and most cannot come up with the money.

[Matthew Chan]

The purpose of Archive.org was to try to capture what the Internet was like at any given week since they started. It is really an impossible task since the Internet as a whole since it is very organic and ever-changing. However, they do take snapshots of websites.

If Getty decides to use archive.org to go after people regarding images, they will eventually cause a mass exodus which defeats the mission of archive.org.  

If you have documentation that they are quoting archive.org, please forward it directly to me at submitinfo@extortionletterinfo.com, I will bring it to archive.org's attention.  Also, please give me the name of the Getty employee who is saying this.

I believe that when the principals of archive.org know that Getty is using it for wide-scale extortion purposes, causing people to drop out of archive.org, they will have something to say.

MatthewC

[goober]

Hi Matthew,
Please give me the email address again, I think the one you gave me bounced.
Thank you

[Matthew Chan]

I made a mistake on the original post and have corrected it.  Nevertheless, I also accept emails to matt30060@gmail.com.

Matthew

[goober]

I don't know if this will help anyone, but there is an online tool you can use to search for images online. So if you are not sure that you really have the copyright for the image this tool scans the internet and finds the image, although if it's been extremely altered it might not find it at all. Read the TOS for the use of Tineye. I think they do keep the images you upload for 72 hours before deleting them.

Not bad to see if anyone else is using your images either. It's TinEye dot com. I didn't follow all the threads on this forum so if this information is a duplicate, I apologize.

[Oscar Michelen]

Good suggestion.  To get back to the question of a class action, Getty at this point does not appear to be doing anything illegal or contrary to copyright law.  At worse, they are asking for inflated damage amounts in letters sent to entities Getty believes infringed on their image licenses.  Is it good busniess policy? I don't think so?  Is it nice?  Definitely not. Could it be argued that they habe no good faith basis to make the demands? I am not sure we are there yet. We have been looking at all possibilities to institute a class action arising out of their behavior and believe me we will keep you posted if we feel we have evidence that makes it appropriate to file a class claim.

[goober]

I didn't see this on the forum, so again I have to apologize in advance if this information has been posted.
This concerns Masterfile not Getty.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/04/03/Double_Billing_Alleged_for_Internet_Images.htm
It appears that a lawfirm in Nevada has filed a lawsuit against Masterfile for one of their clients. Seems there are some civil conspiracy issue with Masterfile and a web design firm. Not sure of the veracity of this PDF file from the site link above but thought it was interesting.

Also, I did find my proof of purchase for the templates where Getty claimed I had infringed on their copyrighted image. I did my homework on the company that I purchased from and it seems they are spreading these images ie as templates everywhere in the world which probably are then being used by web designers for their customers. I cannot believe Getty has not gone after the company who is distributing them.

[Lettered]

goober:

That is awesome.  I would be better if it were Getty on the other end, but still good to hear.  Your post deserves a thread of its own IMO.  Thanks for the info!

[Oscar Michelen]

Will check it out and report back to the forum

[goober]

Another lawsuit seems to have been filed in June against Masterfile.
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=48167
Defendant is Masterfile , looks like a software company is the plaintiff.
Have no info on the details of this suit at all but I am quite sure this ELI forum is helping others.

[Lettered]

Nice!  Can't wait to see Getty on one of these, and I hope it happens eventually.  Thanks for the info.

[goober]

I am sure someone will eventually file a lawsuit against Getty unless the state AG's take action first. Even though it's Masterfile, I believe this does set a general legal precedent if the plaintiff's win their cases.