ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: yuleane on June 15, 2009, 05:57:11 PM
-
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 (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....
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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 [email protected], 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
-
Hi Matthew,
Please give me the email address again, I think the one you gave me bounced.
Thank you
-
I made a mistake on the original post and have corrected it. Nevertheless, I also accept emails to [email protected].
Matthew
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Will check it out and report back to the forum
-
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.
-
Nice! Can't wait to see Getty on one of these, and I hope it happens eventually. Thanks for the info.
-
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.
-
Thanks Goober for the excellent info. I will check into the new case and report back. Let me tell you what I have found out about the earlier case you told us about. It has just been filed by the plaintiff and they are awaiting Masterfile's response. That claim is about a very specific situation so I don't knwo how much applicability it will have to Masterfile's letter program. What the plaintiff in that lawsuit claims is that Masterfile licensd several dozen images to a company for use in website development. That company paid Masterfile for the right to use the images. Masterfile then bought the rights back from that company. Masterfile is now sending out letters to folks who purchased websites from the company during the limited time when it had the right to use the images. I think that a a very clear claim against Masterfile and am anxious to see how they deal with it. I have been in contact with the attorney's office who is handling that case and will keep the forum updated on any progress. We are also waiting to see what happens to the class action brought against Getty by top-notch photograhers. Both sides have made motions for summary judgment and we will let all of you knwo what happens when something occurs.
-
I just got my second letter from Getty....
They have told me this in June:
"I have set a hold on this case to allow time for SWiSH's response. Please be in touch with me by July 10, 2009. If you prefer that they settle this matter on your behalf, please have them contact me."
I did not get in touch with them, however I have send Swish an E-Mail and they pretty much said they can not help me.
Like I said, as a college student me and my husband are not much above the poverty level and just can not pay it... there is no way...
Do you think they would actually take legal action against me?
I mean the images in that flash movie only appeard for not even 1sec. on the site (maybe 1/2 sec and then disappeared) and I can prove that it was fully not intentional (bc I assumened that the liscense swish granted me was enough.)
Also, the website got nearly no traffic and I am not a company, only a private person.
As a reminder, the liscense stated:
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.
Please, I appreciate advice so much!
-
I would like to add something too my previous statement.
I think I (maybe) found another case why they may do not have much luck taking legal action against me.
The images were on an embed flash movie.
They have no prove that the images where stored on my computer, they were not full size and only visible for seconds.
This is what a court decided in a Perfect 10 v. Google Inc. case (Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/sam-bayard/embedded-video-and-copyright-infringement )
"The court wrote:
Google does not, however, display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user's computer screen. Because Google's computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed . . . and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated" and thus cannot communicate a copy.
The court went on to conclude that HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on a user's computer screen because the HTML instructions merely convey an address to the user's browser, which itself must then interact with the server that stores the infringing image. Accordingly, the mere provision of HTML instructions, in the view of the 9th Circuit, does not create a basis for direct copyright infringement liability."
I know, there is a difference between google and me, since I put it on there and google uses a robot.
However, I have all these points on my side.
I think that should make the actual damages (if it would have to be decided in court) way lower than what getty wants!?
Here are all my points:
-had a legal license from swish to use this flash movie by a reputable company (Swish)
-Swish had stored the video on their website since 2006, which led me to believe that after 3 years they would have taken it down if it was infringement
-Getty found the video on my no traffic website, but never send a complaint to the very high traffic website swish.com in (proven) 3 years!!
That would conclude that they may intentionally left it there, bc they knew that swish can
a) Fight back
b) Hundreds of people will use the movie and Getty can make more money this way by leaving it there and to sue private persons/ small companies
-did only added HTML line, not actual images
-because they where in a flash movie and not stored on my computer, the picture could not have been copied, reproduced etc.
-I had at no time access to the images, nor did I ever actually copied them
-I did not infringed their copyright intentionally (and can prove it- swish license)
-the images where only visible like 0.5sec
-the website did not receive traffic/ visitors
-i am an individual, not a company
-I never made any profit using this images or sold them etc.
Is that enough that I can stop Getty from threatening me!?!?
-
I think you have a good legal position I also do not think that Getty will take this on over one image. I would stop engaging them at this point as they are next likely to send this to NCS recovery - their "collection agent" If you want to perhaps send a letter offering a token settlement amount (like $100) as a good faith effort to resolve it, that would be one thing. But thats about it. I think it is highly unlikely that they will sue you. Good luck and keep us posted