Verification that I am understanding what I can do

[Ellie919]

Hello all, I have spent quite a bit of time on this website, thank you by the way for creating and maintaining it! I got the 1st letter from Getty back in June of this year. I only used one image that I got from the internet and really couldn't tell that it was copyrighted. Upon getting the letter, which asked for over $800.00, I removed the image and wrote them a letter letting them know I took the image down, and letting them know that I did not agree to their settlement demand.

An attorney wrote a letter for me after I got the second demand letter. Since then there has been a 3rd letter letting me know that they plan to pursue this issue. If I understand all of the postings and advice on this site, it sounds as though it is VERY unlikely that Getty would sue over one image. Is this a correct understanding? If I begin ignoring the letters will they call and harass me?

If for some reason they sue, don't they have to somehow prove that I knowingly infringed on copyright? Wouldn't that be difficult for them? What sort of fees would I have to pay if the case was decided against me?

Sorry if I am in any way not following proper protocol on this site, and I know my question might be already answered elsewhere, but I couldn't find the answer, so I'm asking. Just trying to go about this in the most sensible and sane manner.

Thank you!

[lucia]

I assume that they corresponded with your attorney and not you? 

Anyway: if we go based on past history, it is unlikely they will sue for 1 image. That said, the fact that their past pattern has been to rarely sue especially for 1 image doesn't guarantee that they will not. So it helps to know as much about your own situation as possible. You should do some of the leg work:

1) Have you looked at the image in question, found it at Getty Images, identified the photographer and checked whether it is individually registered? (They generally aren't which will be in your favor in the sense that statutory damages are only available if the image was registered before you copied or within some small window of time after it was created.)

2) Have you looked to see if the image is copied all over the place? Is it for sale anyplace other than getty images. If it is and the copyright holder (usually the photographer) has authorized this, this would mean Getty would be blocked from suing on the photographers behalf. (The photographer could sue on  his own behalf, but he also might not do so.)

3) FWIW: Is your attorney a copyright attorney?  The specific experience in copyright can be useful

4) Oh... did you actually host this image on a server you control? Or might you have hotlinked (i.e. inserted a link to an image hosted on some other server.)  If you hotlinked, things are vastly in your favor. 

Obviously, the greater things you have in your favor, the less likely Getty is to sue. The reason for this is they are less likely to win and even if they win they are unlikely to cover the costs of suing. But only you can know all these things.   But yes: generally, they do not sue over 1 image. But that practice could change.

[Ellie919]

The collection people actually sent me and letter, as well as my attorney. My understanding is that once I have representation no one is allowed to contact me except through my attorney. My attorney responded, I didn't.

I found one answer on this site that I hadn't seen before, I specifically typed in NCS... and found out that I can write a letter to get them off my back. So, I am wondering if it's preferable that it comes from my lawyer and not me. I don't want to open the door to the collectors being able to be in contact with me directly.

I could no longer find the image online through a simple search, instead I had to go to Getty images and use their catalog number, which they supplied in the original letter. The only other thing I saw the image on through my search was a book cover. It was SUPER easy to find the image the first time around when I used it. Seriously, it should be harder to accidentally use a copyrighted image!

I'll have to ask if my attorney is a copyright attorney. I know he used to work on IP cases, but don't know now. A hosting company hosted my site, so I am not sure if I had control of a server or not, I suppose I had dedicated servers for my site, but all of that is foreign to me.

Thank you again!

[Ellie919]

Actually, I just did another search and a lot of sites are using the image I used. From personal blogs to informational sites. BTW, the page Getty has a screenshot of, which was a blog, is no longer up at all. I closed it down.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

IF you're attorney is an IP attorney, I would recommend he draft a letter to NCS, demanding they back off or get reported, I would also request your attorney draft a nasty gram to Getty images, as they know better than to contact you or have NCS contact you if you are represented.

[lucia]

I could no longer find the image online through a simple search, instead I had to go to Getty images and use their catalog number, which they supplied in the original letter. The only other thing I saw the image on through my search was a book cover. It was SUPER easy to find the image the first time around when I used it. Seriously, it should be harder to accidentally use a copyrighted image!

Book cover? I don't know if that makes things better or worse.  Possibly worse because it might be individually registered. (Possibly not though. This is Getty.)  See if you can find the photographer's name, and then use the US copyright office search tool to see if that image is registered. (The search tool is a big confusing, but it does let search for registrations.)

A hosting company hosted my site, so I am not sure if I had control of a server or not, I suppose I had dedicated servers for my site, but all of that is foreign to me.

I consider this having control of the server. It sort of like an apartment. You get to decide what furniture is in your apartment, have some control over who can sit in your living room and so on.  Some people hotlink from another site-- you don't have control over that sites server.

[Ellie919]

Thanks again for the answers. I used the copyright office search tool and didn't come upon the photogs name in the database. So I'm hoping that means it is not registered. When I looked through the Getty images page for the photog I saw that some of his (or her) images did indeed have a copyright number associated with them. The one I used does not have a copyright number, just a creative image #.

I can't seem to find out if the image is for sale anywhere else, but it was really tough to even find it on the Getty site, at least it was until I entered the image #. Any clues on how else to find out if it is for sale on other image bank sites? Other than searching through Google images?

Even though I have already had a lawyer write a letter for me, can I still have Oscar write a letter and switch to his representation? Or is that not done? If I do, does his fee cover just that one letter, or will his assistant help me find out if I am in a situation that is better to settle? And if a letter needs to be sent to NCS, will he write that letter as well? And if so, how much is that fee?

I'm a college student taking on quite a bit of school debt, so I am not trying to be a cheap-o, just trying to make sure I can afford whatever I need to do.

Peace all!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

quick short answers..

yes you can still use Oscar, no he won't draft a letter to NCS, but will instruct Getty to not contact you, as well as NCS, Getty would then have to contact NCS and instruct them to back off. You can simply contact NCS, and tell them this is a claim not a debt and that you have representation, if they continue to contact you will file a complaint.. they will stop at that point. In regards to the image in question, simply copy the URL of the image from Getty, go to google and click on image search, then in the search box click on the camera icon, in the right hand side of the box, paste the image URL, and google will search for image matches, you can do the same with tineye.com.. We know that roughly 80% of Getty's images are not registered, so odds are in your favor that it is not registered.

[lucia]

If you tell NCS it's a claim not a debt, they may come back and claim they are not acting as a debt collector but negotiating. (Some people posting here report they've done that in their case.)

If you get a response like that, you may have cause for complaint against Getty because I doubt Getty can sneak around the legal requirement of communicating with your attorney by hiring NCS to pester you.  NCS should not be contacting you.

[Oscar Michelen]

Frankly, your lawyer should be steamed that anyone contacted you after he wrote them of his representation. I would be glad to send a letter on your behalf - does not matter that you already have counsel you would just have to sign a  form changing attorneys which we can provide for you. Whether he/she has IP experience no one is more well-versed in this issue. 

[HavingNoneOfIt]

Hi All,

Got my letter 10/21/13, took over a week from the letter of the date to be received. Took down the image the next day, I was unaware of the so called copyrighted image. Just trying to research on things to do, and I came across the same issues as the OP. They have said I am using 1 of their copy righted images(with the image being screenshot in the doc.), so I "image google searched" the so called "copyrighted image" and found a bunch of other sites(how to, advertisement, blogs) using the same image. But once i went on the Getty's site I noticed that this images also had a creative image # instead of the copyright #. Also, the license type is Rights-managed.  So i'm not to sure if it makes a big difference between, rights-managed & royalty-free images? 

I also tried using site's such as PublicDomainPictures.net, freedigitalphotos.net but am getting no results of the image i'm searching for. I also "Copy Right office searched" the photographer name but am getting no results. 

BTW the image was used as a "category image", to link into products you would be using it for. I do want to write them a letter, before the 14 days of the dated Settlement demand. Any info will help, as I will be search this GREAT forum!

Thanks,

[Oscar Michelen]

There are lots of comments and posts about how to address it. The main thing if you are going to communicate with them is to let them know you have taken the image down without any admission of liability.   

[HavingNoneOfIt]

thanks, for the fast response. I am currently watching the youtube videos, and jotting down notes, on how to say things, and to ask for certain proofs. Thanks for making this easier for the rest of us.

[HavingNoneOfIt]

Hello again,

I was taking a look at Greg Troy's thread, and read the letter GI sent him. Under the details where they have the picture that was copyrighted and next to picture is the Collection agency, Photographer, Usage, Placement, Territory, and Release Information.

I noticed in particular that in Greg Troy's letter it states  "Release Information - No release, but release may not be required". On my GI letter under "Release Information it states - This Image has a sign model release. This image is available for commercial use."

I'm assuming this may actually be licensed? The way things are going, seems that this one image might fall under the 1% GI has licensed/right/contracted/registered?

Shout out to Greg Troy and this awesome thread:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

Thanks,

[stinger]

I am not a lawyer, but I am not sure that I would give Getty too much credit here.  Perhaps those who better understand all the different types of digital image licensing can comment.

My thought is that a signed model release means that whoever is pictured in the image has signed a release to allow their image to be used.  It does not necessarily mean that the copyright is registered or that Getty even has the right to negotiate on the behalf of the photographer.

So my thinking is that even though the person(s) depicted may have granted the photographer the right to use their image, that does not mean that Getty has the right to pursue their claim.  That is something I would make them prove to me - were I in your shoes.