ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: jot on November 29, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
-
Sorry for not posting sooner, but I have been doing some extensive research since we first got our letter on November 19th claiming an image that is on 229,000+ websites (as of a few days ago) was a copyrighted work and that we pony up $875 (By the way, if they were collecting $875 from every website that was supposedly infringing on this copyright image, they would collect over $200 billion dollars)
I will have to admit, I first went into panic mode when I first received the 14 page letter from Getty Images, but after calming down and finding info about this “scam” and finding the extortionletterinfo.com site, my panic quickly turned into anger on how companies like Getty Images prey upon small business owners, people with blogs, and even nonprofit organizations that have mistaken used an image that supposedly may be copyrighted for a website.
Not only am I angry about companies like Getty Images and their unethical business practices, but I am upset on how the copyright laws are so antiquated and ambiguous that the common person who posts to a forum or blog, or has a webpage can be targeted by companies “trolling” the Internet for profit.
I am on a quest to stop companies like this from preying upon innocent people. I am currently collecting information on how PicScout, a company acquired by Getty Images in 2009, accesses files on our personally hosted web server. I have security settings in place to stop spiders and robots from accessing certain files, and from what info I have found, PicScout has a special algorithm to bypass these settings, go to all image folders, and then download these files for comparison in there database.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030) states (a) Whoever-- (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—(C) information from a protected computer. Further definitions of “protected computer” surmise that any computer connected to the Internet is protected. So by this definition, PicScout has violated the CFAA.
Currently I am reviewing 4 years of firewall logs as every bit of traffic to and from our webserver was logged. I have the domain names that are used by PicScout and the other “trollers” along with their IP addresses. Once I review all of the logs and can identify when they accessed the server and caused excessive bandwidth to be used, I will be presenting this information to the state and federal authorities. I have already filed a claim to our state fraud division and one of our employees is also a state legislator who is putting me in touch with the right people to have this thoroughly looked into.
I will have more to post in a few days once I have done a little more research and compiled some more info. These trollers messed with the wrong person!
-
welcome Jot!! your mission is a noble one for sure, but you're thinking "may be" flawed in several areas..
a. Picscout operates out of Israel, and does not follow the laws of the US. Getty may own it, but it's a separate entity...
b. in order to access a computer without authorization, the machine in question would need to be password protected.. I don't buy into or surmise that "any computer connected to the internet is protected"
It's also worth noting that Getty Images spends a big chunk of change lobbying the asshats in DC..please do keep us posted in any event..
-
Jot,
Keep the passion and don't let anyone dissuade you from fighting for what is right in this world. I too am appalled by the fact that companies like Getty can use copyright laws as they were never intended to be used.
What's more, they often claim to be on the side of right, when any Google search of the term "copyright troll" makes it clear how wrong what they do is.
My philosophy is that each and every complaint, letter to a lawmaker, article exposing the wrong in what trolls do, survey, piece of copy printed or interview is just one piece of straw in a sack that will eventually break the troll's back.
Although the contributing members of this forum don't always agree on how to wage the fight, we are all passionate that it be waged and hopeful that even some attack that we do not expect to work will turn out to be wildly successful.
Keep us apprised of your efforts. Their are people here who feel strongly enough about this to want you to succeed beyond our wildest imaginations. By staying connected to this group, you will have their support when you need it.
-
I certainly wasn't trying to dissuade anyone, i was just stating my opinion. No matter how one looks at it, or how we fight it, it will be an uphill battle for the long term..the more idea the better.. Again I apologize if i came off in a a negative way..
-
Robert, I didn't mean anything by that.
I wasn't sure how jot would take what you said. My belief is that even trying things that didn't work before or that you or I don't expect will work, might work now for some unforeseen reason.
And I also believe that your willingness to share your experience is helpful. It might help Jot tweak the plan so to speak.
So, it's all good!
-
Welcome Jot, it sounds like you are off and running and have a plan. If you are looking to send your research information beyond the state level may I recommend sending it to be Congressional Research Service. This is a group within Congress that examines issues like this and this year they have already taken a look at patent trolls. Perhaps your information could get them interested in the copyright troll side as well.
I like to see when someone stands up for what they believe in and is not afraid to fight the trolls. Definitely please keep us posted as to your progress.
-
b. in order to access a computer without authorization, the machine in question would need to be password protected.. I don't buy into or surmise that "any computer connected to the internet is protected"
I not so sure I agree with this statement. I think joee may be on to something because if you jump on your neighbors wireless internet access you can be prosecuted. The wireless is wide open with no encryption but you are in violation of using their internet. You may also see any files and folders on their computer because they have no passwords on shared folders.
These bots are essentially working in the same manner by going beyond the folders used in the actual use of the web page and blog and are in fact scanning folders that are used for basic storage. The file may not be put out for public viewing and there are no laws (as far as I am aware) that state you can not have a file on your computer (or cloud storage) for your own personal viewing. Lets put into perspective that we could use the same argument that if they did not password protect their pictures in the first place then we have not committed any copyright infringement. And back to the issue of cloud computing. What is to say that these companies do not create a bot that can overide securities in place for cloud storage to scan files? Since these files are on the "open Internet" per se then where do we draw the line?
-
welcome Jot!! your mission is a noble one for sure, but you're thinking "may be" flawed in several areas..
a. Picscout operates out of Israel, and does not follow the laws of the US. Getty may own it, but it's a separate entity...
b. in order to access a computer without authorization, the machine in question would need to be password protected.. I don't buy into or surmise that "any computer connected to the internet is protected"
It's also worth noting that Getty Images spends a big chunk of change lobbying the asshats in DC..please do keep us posted in any event..
They may be based out of Israel, but the Patriot Act expanded the definition of protected computers....
“When Congress passed what is known as the USA Patriot Act after September 11, it dramatically expanded the legal definition of a "protected computer." Previously, the law considered a computer within the United States that was used by the federal government or a financial institution, or for interstate or foreign commerce, to be protected under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But the definition now extends to computers outside of the United States where communications pass through a U.S.-based network.” article from… http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Patriot's+international+implications%3a+The+USA+Patriot+Act+expanded...-a084879167 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Patriot's+international+implications%3a+The+USA+Patriot+Act+expanded...-a084879167)
And USLegal.com’s definition for a protected computer…
Under 18 USCS § 1030 a protected computer is defined as including any computer "used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States."
Because a web server is used for communication (it communicates information through the displaying of web pages} then it would be considered a protected computer. Also, the fact that PicScout uses a Microsoft Exchange e-mail service at 66.147.242.156 (all publically available information) and that server is located here in the United States (Utah to be exact), they are using US based communications and can they fall under the Patriot Act. Their scanning servers may be based in Israel, but they still have to go over a US based network to get to our sites here in the US.
And even if criminal charges can not be brought against them, civil suits can be brought against them for violating the CFAA
The CFAA is primarily a criminal statute. However, in 1994 a civil suit provision was added that provides a private cause of action if a violation causes loss or damage, as those terms are defined in the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). To state a civil claim for violation of the CFAA, a plaintiff must allege
1. damage or loss;
2. caused by;
3.a violation of one of the substantive provisions set forth in § 1030(a); and
4. conduct involving one of the factors in § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I)-(V).
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).
Persons found to be civilly liable for a CFAA violation can be responsible for compensatory damages and injunctive or other equitable relief.
Because of the security breach from PicScout, our IT department spent two days beefing up the security settings on our web server and on our firewall. Theoretically, we can charge them for the time spent to resolve the security breach. Sure, it would not be much, but if they want to play we will sue you for infringement, then we can play, okay, we counter sue for violating the CFAA.
-
"if you jump on your neighbors wireless internet access you can be prosecuted. The wireless is wide open with no encryption but you are in violation of using their internet. You may also see any files and folders on their computer because they have no passwords on shared folders."
This is exactly what the P2P trolls attempt to do on a daily basis...without much success. Lets say for example I jump on my neighbors open wifi connection ( shame on him for leaving it open) and Iproceed to download 1000 songs and 2 dozen movies...who is going to get nabbed me or my neighbor??
Not me, the neighbor will be holding the bag.
Maybe i'm looking at it this way....it's a "web" server, whether it's cloud or not is irrelevant.."web" server = web accessible unless password protected. these bots do not adhere to robots.txt nor are they required to by any laws as of now..
I do agree that just because you have files / images stored in a folder for "personal use" would not be an infringement, it would be on the troll to "prove" this, if the files are just there & "orphaned" without any way to get to them thru the normal use of a browser, the troll would be in a bad situation. I have yet to see a letter with an image that was not "on a page" and accessible thru normal channels..
I don't know where to draw the line, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and maybe someday the laws will be changed to be accurate and fair..
-
JOT!!! now you've got me thinking!! and I'm starting to think you may well be onto something...2 things catch my eye...the fact you were able to track down a US based IP from picscout, could have some serious effects on the whole operation.. And the fact you mention the counter suit, we've seen this before and it certainly a good option IF they file suit, which they probably won't.. I'm curious as to what your contacts may come up with here.. I confess I know very little about the patriot act, and I don' think it's been mentioned here in the forums before...
-
Just found their other MX server (mail server)...it is a hosted Microsoft Exchange server located in Redmond, Washington....216.32.180.22
-
This is one of the reasons I keep coming to this site. New people get stung by Getty or Masterfile and they come up with new and innovative ways to fight back.
Welcome Jot. I have to say when I first heard your plan I didn't hold out much hope. But as you lay it out, it begins to make some amount of sense.
Now they may argue that the image was placed on a public-facing web page and its use was confirmed by a human being. But that doesn't negate the fact that they (may have) broke into your "house," snooped around a bit, and then decided to send a person to look for the image.
The uphill battle is the "access a computer without authorization" part. I think it will be tough to claim that tracking down the text and images presented on a public-facing web page somehow constitute "access a computer without authorization." I think the intent of this law was to prevent people from hacking into a database or protected directories, not scanning images.
But I seriously do not want to take the wind out of your sails. I encourage you to keep pushing.
-
This is one of the reasons I keep coming to this site. New people get stung by Getty or Masterfile and they come up with new and innovative ways to fight back.
Welcome Jot. I have to say when I first heard your plan I didn't hold out much hope. But as you lay it out, it begins to make some amount of sense.
Now they may argue that the image was placed on a public-facing web page and its use was confirmed by a human being. But that doesn't negate the fact that they (may have) broke into your "house," snooped around a bit, and then decided to send a person to look for the image.
The uphill battle is the "access a computer without authorization" part. I think it will be tough to claim that tracking down the text and images presented on a public-facing web page somehow constitute "access a computer without authorization." I think the intent of this law was to prevent people from hacking into a database or protected directories, not scanning images.
But I seriously do not want to take the wind out of your sails. I encourage you to keep pushing.
I was thinking of that, but the fact the bypassed settings that were meant to stop particular bandwidth hogging spiders and bots and that they access folders that were hidden from those bots and spiders view to access those files, then download copies of them to analyze them for possible copyright infringement, then they violated the CFAA.
About 4 years ago, our web server was hacked by a Turkish hacker and our website was defaced and replaced with his own message. Once that happened, we added all kinds of extra security settings and even third party software to stop intrusions and theft. Even the FBI got involved with that investigation. We are an insurance agency, so by most definitions, we are considered a financial intuition. We have 40 to 60 attacks on our network daily, so I am constantly monitoring for an intrusion. Even though the web server is public facing, it still has measures of protection enabled on it to protect it from unauthorized access. PicScout.com bypassed those settings plain and simple to get to folders that were not available to them otherwise. The only way to access the supposedly copyrighted image was to view it on the web page.
As I stated earlier, I have four years of logs to go through before I can present my case to the proper agencies. I am still in the investigation mode at this time and I appreciate all comments as it helps me look in the right places.
Because of this mess with Getty Images, I have now started learning Copy Right Laws, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and all other related laws. I did not realize having a website on the Internet would require me to get a law degree…LOL :)
-
I did not realize having a website on the Internet would require me to get a law degree…LOL :)
Again welcome to our world!
-
"Even though the web server is public facing, it still has measures of protection enabled on it to protect it from unauthorized access. PicScout.com bypassed those settings plain and simple to get to folders that were not available to them otherwise. The only way to access the supposedly copyrighted image was to view it on the web page. "
In laymans words: Since picscout is a crawler and not a human beeing it can not see the pictures so they have to "intrude" to see the pictures by going into your files and taking a copy of your files.
Is my understanding correct ?
Khan
-
"Even though the web server is public facing, it still has measures of protection enabled on it to protect it from unauthorized access. PicScout.com bypassed those settings plain and simple to get to folders that were not available to them otherwise. The only way to access the supposedly copyrighted image was to view it on the web page. "
In laymans words: Since picscout is a crawler and not a human beeing it can not see the pictures so they have to "intrude" to see the pictures by going into your files and taking a copy of your files.
Is my understanding correct ?
Khan
Correct....if they were only looking at the code of the page like most bots do, then all they would see would be a file name with a path to a folder. If the bot tried to access the folder, then would be blocked, so the bot or spider cannot access the files directly. They use software that "tricks" the security measures that I had in place to think it is actually a user using a web browser, then they further trick the server to giving access to those hidden folders for access, then they download the image so they can compare the meta information. This is the only way they can match up images as people usually rename files so matching the filename would do no good. The problem with this is this bypassing bots and spiders cause excessive bandwidth usage on a server and can affect network performance.
About a year and half ago, I starting noticing our bandwidth usage for our server going up, It nearly doubled to almost 2 GB downloaded every month (it used to be around 600 MB). The number of visitors also jumped up by 20,000 to 30,000 more hits and I thought it was because of our social media tie ins, but I now know it was and still are trollers scanning my server and bypassing security settings to download files they have no business looking at. If they want to actually use a human to view every page on my site looking for copyrighted images and then get screenshot captures of supposedly violations, then that would be completely ok.
I have already tracked down more IP addresses PicScout uses that are in the US including ones set aside to roll over to when their primary one gets found out. It is truly amazing what searches on the Internet will uncover.
I am hoping to have a spreadsheet compiled of all of the more devious bots and spider domain info and IP addressing. I need to have this so I can run my filters on our firewall logs so I can see when and how they were coming into my network and into my web server.
-
Jot,
Welcome to the forum.
I expect that Getty is going to drop their alleged case against you and "run and hide" when they find what you discovered. If they do so, I hope you will make your research completely available to everyone here. And I hope you will stick around in this battle of right v. wrong.
Everything I have read indicates that Getty shies away from confrontation with firms large enough to employ a real law firm or their own internal lawyers. Given the potential legal exposure in your case, I am certain they would rather cease and desist than stir up these waters.
But if we can develop your theory into a defense that works for most, we can put a large hurt on their troll business model.
-
Correct....if they were only looking at the code of the page like most bots do, then all they would see would be a file name with a path to a folder. If the bot tried to access the folder, then would be blocked, so the bot or spider cannot access the files directly. They use software that "tricks" the security measures that I had in place to think it is actually a user using a web browser, then they further trick the server to giving access to those hidden folders for access, then they download the image so they can compare the meta information.
I'm trying to guess the specifics. Do you mean:
1) You limit viewing of the images to certain referrers and user agents and
2) You believe picscout spoofed the referrer and user agent?
I already know their browser add on presents a blank referrer and user agent. Of course this can blocked by ordinary hot-link blocks in .htaccess.
I also know I've seen *tons* of scraping (and attempted scraping) by agents that present the top of the domain as referrer-- so they are spoofing: that is lying. I've also see tons of scraping and attempted scraping by agents that try to present "http://the_top_of_the_domain.com/feed". Presumably both are used to get around the hotlink block in .htaccess. (One can write a rule to deal with this too-- provided they either have no images in the feed and none at the top of the domain. Failing that, provided they know the names of the few images that can have referrers matching "http://the_top_of_the_domain.com/feed" or "http://the_top_of_the_domain.com/".
But... what I want to know-- is referrer and user agent spoofing what you are talking about? Or something else?
-
My technical knowledge is severely limited so please excuse me if the answer to this question is obvious: Jot, you state that it would be OK if they wanted to us a human to look at every page on your site to view images but it is different if they use a bot to look at the files on the servers. Why is that different? What is the different "damage" caused to you if they use the PicScout method as opposed to the "human" method? is it the use of bandwidth?
-
As I understand Jot, the breach of security is that you are not allowed to look at the files (like you are not allowed to hack the FBI and look at their files and download them) you are only allowed to look at the product of the file which would be the website. But not all files are “active”. Pic. Scout only chance to view a picture is to download your files and compare the data, because Pic Scout can not see the product (website) Since Jot had a security installed they had to go through it to get the files like somebody who has to hack the FBI server to get some files.
Like: You watch a movie on a public server but you are not allowed to download it to your computer. Therefore they blocked it for downloading. But Pic Scout has to download it to watch it and they "hack" it to get it.
(I am not an expert too) :(
-
Khan--
Whether or not someone has to "hack" to look at something on the web depends on the details of *how* the web admin limited viewing. I understand it was jots *intention* to "forbid" someone from viewing, but he has not said *how* or *what* he did. If all he did was put a 'suggestion' in robots.txt, and picscout didn't follow that suggestion, then picscout did not "hack". If he used .htaccess to use hotlink protection, he might be able to characterize very simple referrer spoofing as hacking-- but honestly, I doubt anyone technically competent would consider referrer spoofing a "hack". I do rather complicated things involving using .htaccess to redirect certain requests for images through a file called 'imageDiversion.php". I'm not sure someone would consider circumvention by *referrer spoofing* a hack. However, they would likely consider it a hack if someone broke into my server and altered my "imageDiversion.php" file.
So I am interested in learning some of the nuts and bolts details of *how* jot is "forbidding" access. Because unless he is doing something unusual, I doubt that the method of access would be considered "a hack".
-
Cool!!! Wow.
-
That is awesome, I am looking forward to hearing what happens.
-
Sorry guys, under advisement, I had to remove an earlier post. Lets just say this is going to be getting good soon. I will post more when I can. :)
-
I missed the key post that jot had to take down, but it sounds like he may have caught PicScout crossing the fine line between data harvesting and illegal hacking. Can't wait to see what unfolds from this, and best of luck to jot.
Jot, tt really sounds like you've done a lot of homework on the legal and technical aspects of your case. Kudos!
-
Thanks. I haven't recieved any more letters from Getty since the first one and the response our CEO mailed to them. Once I have more info I can post I will. :)
-
Good discussion.
We've discussed the Picscout at length issue many, many times in the past.
Search for "trespass to chattels" on the forum to find out more.
This concept may have some merit in a big contentious fight.
But, it's rather moot... Getty's not going to sue you for infringing on one image that they probably don't even own.
I just don't want people to waste their time worrying about Getty/McCormack. lol
S.G.
-
Hi Jot,
Even though I'm willing to bet that your company is in the clear, I do hope you'll continue to participate on these boards. Perhaps at some point you can share more specifics about what they actually did to access your site.
-
For starters, let me inform everyone that you can not access your neighbor's files through an unsecured wireless router. People in Cyber Cafes cannot access either. You have to give permission to do so.
------------------------------
I received a letter from Getty Images saying I was in breach of their copyright for 2 small photos I used on my website and they demanded $2,000 to settle the matter.
The images were not watermarked nor were they tagged with any Getty information so I was shocked to receive the demand and took the images off anyway.
When I looked into this it seems they send out thousands of the letters demanding money on the basis that some poor fools will pay them. Getty has NOT taken anyone to court for breach of copyright in these circumstances which leads me to believe it is a SCAM.
When you google ‘Getty Images Scam’, a lot of other information appears to suggest it is a scam.
What is wrong with people today? How do these parasites sleep at night?
-
Hi Jot,
Even though I'm willing to bet that your company is in the clear, I do hope you'll continue to participate on these boards. Perhaps at some point you can share more specifics about what they actually did to access your site.
Oh, I intend to, I just can't say much at this time on the forum. Mathew and Robert have a bit more info I have passed onto them, but I have asked them from not posting anything until I'm told I can do so.
On an interesting note though, as I was looking over my server logs for the new year, it seems Getty has decided to review our website again (new IP address from the list I have on them - looks to be a human this time and not a bot) I suppose before the next letter goes out to us. I was hoping from the letter the CEO sent over a month and half ago that they would have decided to drop this and move on, but maybe not. I guess I will see in a few weeks if they do send us another letter. They really picked on the wrong person for their extortion scam.
-
I don't seem to find the place to start a new post so I am joining onto this one since I am the latest victim of Getty Image insanity.
In November I got my first letter for one image. They want $1225. I panicked. It was Thanksgiving and here is this thing in my mailbox that I have to figure out. I couldn't deal with it during the holidays. Last week naively thought it might have gone away. Wrong. Today, I got my second letter. Time for action. It was a screen capture, never was a watermark or other foreboding indication of ownership on the photo or screen area. I used it in a blog post, really for educational & awareness purposes, to illustrate theories behind a therapy used in a small health facility. I can write business letters and have worked with attorneys and federal and multi-state consumer credit laws/regulations for many years before getting into the health industry. The legal aspect doesn't scare me, I just don't know where to start with the letter. And now I'm loosing sleep over it.
-
First: it's best to know your position before you communicate with Getty. We are all under the impression that in the past-- and likely the present-- Getty relies on letter recipients volunteering information that could be used in a case against them. So, it's good you haven't written them yet. :)
Once you write the letter, everything in it should be the truth. But just as their letter their position, yours can give yours. And just as they don't tell you everything they do or don't know, and they volunteer no information that might favor your case, you also don't have to tell them everything you do or don't know and you don't have to volunteer stuff that might be in their favor.
For the next few days, you are on "datagathering" mode-- done without communicating with getty. The first things you need to do:
Is your blog hosted in the US. The relevant law matters for some questions.
Have you looked the image up number in the Getty catalog? If we know what the image is, we can help you figure out if it's registered at the copyright office either individually or as a collection. Getty Images are often not registered at all, and when they are registered, they are sometimes only registered as a collection. This makes their legal position weaker, limits how much they could possibly collect and so on. So you want to know details about the registration.
We can also look into similar images-- which we will want to do.
Do you know if you hotlinked the image or hosted it on your server? ( If you hosted on your server, do not post that information publicly and do not ever volunteer it to Getty. But you need to know for your own sake. If you are in the US and-- hotlinking-- that is displaying an image on another sever-- means you have no worries. We can tell you what to write back.)
Have you removed the image from displaying in the post? (And if from your server from your server?) You should remove the image from displaying. Later when you communicate with Getty, say you have removed the image from the blog post as a courtesy to them or something similar. (If you hosted it on your server, do not volunteer that information. If you did not host, do say that explicitly. :) )
Most of the following are unlikely to matter, but it's worth your knowing for your own sake: In your blog post, were you discussing the image itself? (This could matter for "fair use". ) Does your blog run ads? (This could matter for fair use.) Is it affiliated with a business? (Also could matter for fair use.)
There are other things you will want to do, but which things will depend on some of the answers above.
-
Thanks Lucia !! Wow, I actually feel mobilized versus frozen. OK I'll sift through your questions and gather info and report back early next week. OMG, Thank you SO much!!
-
Great post by Lucia!, thanx for chipping in!, I'll also add to look thru the forums, you will find many examples of what to do, versus what not to do, as well as how others have approached this. Ultimately you'd like to shut them down in one shot, but this may not happen and you may get more letters and you might even be "special" enough to get one from Timothy McCormack, Getty's outside "counsel" ( I use this term very loosely)....again don't panic, and be prepared to possibly deal with this for the next 3 years ( statute of limitations).. If you feel you don't have it in you to last 3 years, the letter program is a good option as well.
Thanks Lucia !! Wow, I actually feel mobilized versus frozen. OK I'll sift through your questions and gather info and report back early next week. OMG, Thank you SO much!!
-
Ultimately you'd like to shut them down in one shot, but this may not happen
May not? Even if they are totally wrong, their first response will likely to be to explain why you are wrong and demand money. I explained I hotlinked and cited Amazon v. Perfect 10 twice before they went away. They did not respond to the 2nd letter admitting that to the extent there are any precedents, the US precedent is that hotlinking is not a copyright violation. (And never mind that I have a number of other points in my favor which would likely make their case bogus even if my case wasn't just hotlinking. )
So, at this point, in principle, they may be sitting in their offices contemplating suiing and may suddenly decide to sue. (Which would be nus on their part.) In two years the statute of limitations to runs out and they will be precluded from suing for that claim.
So... everyone -- no matter how sound their first letter to Getty is-- should count on getting at least one response that tells them they do own Getty money. Because that's what happens.
That said: Each case is different. Some people did copy. Potentially, some day, we'll see the person who copied the entire Getty Catalog and was selling bogus licenses in parallel..... But so far, we mostly seeing letters to hobby bloggers, very small businesses (who are often bankrupt) who posted a fairly run of the mill non-descript pictures. Depending on the case-- and the personality of the letter recipient, they can either communicate with Getty or hire Oscar.
-
Please don't lose sleep over the letters. Read through the forums, you will see that single image letters have never been put into suit and they cannot hurt your credit rating.
-
Here are the answers to the data gathering questions...Thanks so much again:
Is your blog hosted in the US. yes
Have you looked the image number up in the Getty catalog?
Yes, Here is the link to the image in their catalog
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/man-standing-on-ladder-cutting-rose-bushes-high-res-stock-photography/sb10068280c-001
It says License Type: Rights - Managed
Can someone on the forum look up the registration?
We can also look into similar images-- which we will want to do.
Not sure why we'd do this?
Do you know if you hotlinked the image or hosted it on your server?
I was unfamiliar with the term hot linking. After finding out, no I didn't hot link to the picture. I used Google Images to find a picture of a ladder (there are bazillion). As mentioned, there was no water mark or catalog numbers or anything foreboding like prices and license info. I use "Snag It" to copy my client's posture photos, before and after the therapy to add to my site. Unfortunately when I got the first letter I immediately deleted the image AND deleted the paragraph(s) that referred to it. I remember the essence of what I was talking about but the language got deleted too! I can see Getty has a screen capture of the image and language but the text is so tiny, no way I can read it from what they sent.
I am a therapist providing a niche therapy - essentially it is a method of Posture Alignment that is a customized exercise based, highly specialized therapy not covered by insurance. There is a specific profile of client, the kind who does not want surgery or drugs and has tried all that there is to try out there with no success. Mostly they are pretty motivated to do what it takes and it is hard work. By that I mean, the exercises are easy but the motivation to do them can be a problem for many. It is 100% the client's responsibility to do their exercises each day and to do them precisely and to return in 2 weeks for reassessment of progress and a new or modified set of exercises. They mostly do 8 sessions or 16 or just keep going, depending. So compliance is key, it is a make or break proposition. Follow the program and succeed or don't and nothing will change. SO.....that said.... I do zero advertising, I am NOT in the phone book. I am not looking to SELL or promote my services because it is a big waste of time, the wrong kind of person shows up.
99.99% of my clients come from referrals. Anyone who comes in off the street (I have a small store front) never comes back and signs up-they are kicking the tires and aren't desperate like most of my clients. My front door is locked 65% of the time. My clients are astounded by the results and they tell others. Some of those people check out my website to get more information.
The website blog is there to help people understand how the therapy works. The ladder comes into play because it is an image I use to draw analogies between the human body and the shape of a ladder. The therapy is based on the fact that all humans (except 5%) were born with an original blueprint design. All load bearing joints are lined up vertically and level horizontally. Because muscles move bones, over time injury and many other phenomena, muscle tension becomes imbalanced and pulls bones and joints out of their original proper position. The therapist knows where the causes are and the posture therapy stimulates targeted muscles and areas to work properly again and the muscles will return joints and structure to the correct position.
The ladder image was used to help the reader understand that the ankle, knee, hip and shoulder joint must be aligned horizontally and vertically just like the side supports and rungs of a ladder. Ladders are unstable, weak and faulty if they loose that design position, very strong and functional if they maintain it. If the body looses it's design position, there will be wear and tear over time and then function degrades, pain and problems will cascade through the structure. That is why I used that image. Why I liked the image with the man standing on the base with only his legs showing, don't know.
So i don't sell ladders or rose bushes or men's boots -shown in the image! I use the imagery when I explain how the body should be positioned and how it is possible to return it to that original position.
( If you hosted on your server, do not post that information publicly and do not ever volunteer it to Getty. But you need to know for your own sake. If you are in the US and-- hotlinking-- that is displaying an image on another sever-- means you have no worries. We can tell you what to write back.)
I don't use physical Ladder images anywhere else.
Have you removed the image from displaying in the post? Yes.
In your blog post, were you discussing the image itself? Yes, explained above.
Does your blog run ads? No
Is it affiliated with a business? No
-
Ok..
I searched for both Peter Cade (photographer) and Iconinca (collection) here: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First I didn't find anything promising. That doesn't mean it's not registered-- it could be registered under "getty" or something. But it suggests it might not be individual registered.
The photographer himself seems to have been in business for 15 years. ( http://www.petercadephotography.co.uk/pcphnewabout.html ) Many of the photographs on display at his site are considerably more attractive than that one.
Others can see if they can find the registration. (Not being registered would be in your favor. :) )
Photographer: Peter Cade
Collection: Iconica
Credit: Peter Cade
-
You're saying the Copyright office doesn't have it registered under his name or the collection name but it could be registered to some other label/wording? But wouldn't it have to include his name? If my name were Sandy Smith, I could register a photo under some other name? Sandy Jean Smith?
-
Sandy--
First: I think if the photographer registered individually, it would be registered under his name. I found no such record-- but that could be my lack of competence. (Still... it's just a name and keyword search. So.. looks like zip.)
I'd like to elaborate: The point of looking things up is to figure out what "the worst that could happen" is if Getty sued (which they probably won't for 1 image and so on.) It's also figuring out what you will want to put in a letter when you write Getty (which need not be extremely soon. But it would likely be good to write them within a few weeks.)
FWIW: I got a letter Thanksgiving weekend 2011. For me, knowing the worst that could happen is helpful for deciding how to go forward.
On this front, it's worth knowing whether something about your case has a feature that could drastically limit what Getty could possible gain by suing you (and likewise, what you could lose.) Obviously, if they can't gain anything, and you can barely lose anything, that gives you a lot of breathing room when negotiating for any sort of settlement. (You did copy-- so I think generally Oscar advises offering a reasonable settlement. But your idea of reasonable and Getty's are likely not to align too well. And obviously, you wouldn't want to know what the image is actually worth before offering anything. Some images are worth a lot. Others... on... $5 for a lifetime license is probably generous!)
There are generally multiple issues that would limit how much Getty could *possibly* win-- and that limits how much you could possibly be held liable for. How much Getty could win (if they sued-- which they almost never do) is affected by whether the copyright was formally registered and also whether the registration is done properly. In the past (and possibly even now) Getty and other stock companies have tried to use "mass registration" where they will registered hundreds or thousands of images as a "collection". This makes the registration -- such as it is-- hard to locate.
But beyond being hard to locate, registering as a "collection" those registrations often have flaws (like being organized in ways that make it difficult to tell which images were intended to be contained in the collection, figuring out who the photographer is for each image and so on.)
There has been a lot of discussion at this site about the manner in which things are registered. It's not clear registration as a collection will be interpreted as being a valid registration for an individual image if Getty were to sue you for using an individual image (which they probably won't. Part of the reason the probably won't is precisely that they know that courts might deem their registration flawed because its registered as "a collection" and not an image). Tentatively-- it looks like that image might either not be registered at all or registered as "a collection" and not individually. We need to firm this up a bit-- it really does help to find the 'registration' so we know. But I haven't found the registration for the collection. It does help to find that when we can!
Note that the photographer works in the UK. I have no idea what might happen if it's registered in the UK. Oscar quite likely will know though. If registration in the UK "counts" we'll have to figure out how to look into that.
For now: Some further hunting is required. But one thing you are going to want to do is make a list of things that you will eventually put in your letter to getty. One of those things will be requesting they supply you the copyright registration information so you can verify the image is copyrighted. (They will almost certainly refuse to give this to you. You still ask for it. )
As for tidbits of information: I'm partly posting because other readers might know how to find things better. The collections... can be difficult!
-
I could register a photo under some other name? Sandy Jean Smith?
If it was registered as Sandy Jean Smith, it should still show up on a search for Sandy Smith. There can be issues if photos were taken as "works for hire". But I think if the photographer is Sandy Jean Smith, that name should still show as the creator/photographer/author etc. The owner might be someone else.
-
don't get to worked up, Getty is not going to sue over 1 lousy image...another thing to keep in mind, is that the contract this artist has with Getty, if any at all, would need to include a clause giving Getty the power and permission to sue, if not only the photog could sue and chances are good he's not going to fly his ass over here from the UK in the hopes of being awarded 200.00 if he's lucky..and just because someone sue and wins doesn't mean money is ever exchanged.. I promise you if anyone sued my business and won, they would collect exactly ZERO doallrs..
-
Here is the draft 1st response to Getty--
I received the Unauthorized Use Demand Letters dated November 27 and December 29, 2012 (the “Demand”) concerning Catalog Image xxxxxx.
I have never received such an fraudulent masquerading request. Pardon me if I took some time to understand exactly what you are demanding. Please note I have removed the image I acquired from Google Images and will replace it with an image I produce.
I acquired my image from Google Images not from Getty Images. Please provide proof the actual image I used from Google Images, having no watermark, no price or disclaimers or warnings or notices of ownership, belongs to Getty Images. There was nothing to indicate the image from Google Images was NOT public domain therefore I did not take anything from Getty Images.
I do not advertise my business at all. Not on the web nor in any manner. My business is not in the phone book. My business is 99.99% based on referrals. I don’t have to promote or market my services. I have physicians who refer their patients to me. Rarely someone walks in from the street and becomes a client. The referrals come due to the tangible visible changes to a client’s body and elimination of client pain not because of a Ladder image from Google Images in one blog post. The image was used for education purposes on my website in a article. The Google Image of the Ladder was used to make an analogy about human body biomechanics demonstrating the position of human load bearing joints should be optimally positioned, like that of a ladder.
Based on my use of an unmarked Google Image, I did not use unauthorized property of Getty Images nor have I harmed them or their associates. I am sorry Google Images posted unmarked images for the public domain that you have paid photographers for and are now attempting to license. This matter and Getty Images case is now closed.
-
don't send that letter...Lucia first repose to you stated , not to admit anything, and in your first sentence you admit grabbing the image from google..Google DOES indeed state that iamges may be copyrighted, you're shooting yourself in the foot here!
you also admit that you used the site on your "business" site, regardless if you advertise or not, it's a business....strike 2!
it's not on you to "prove" that you used their property or not, that falls on THEM...strike 3!!! delete this letter, it will only make your situation worse, they will know and understand they are dealing with someone who has no clue..sorry to be blunt, but Getty love people like your self, as they are much easier targets...
keep reading until you fully understand what you are dealing with, if you can't deal with this for 3 years, you might consider hiring Oscar or at the very least speaking with Matthew..
"Based on my use of an unmarked Google Image, I did not use unauthorized property of Getty Images nor have I harmed them or their associates. I am sorry Google Images posted unmarked images for the public domain that you have paid photographers for and are now attempting to license. This matter and Getty Images case is now closed. "
Google is NOT required to mark imeages, and google does not serve image, they only link to them, Google does not state anywhere that any images are "public doamin"....Rest assured Getty Image will NOT close this case based on your arguments, as they are weak, and you are making it easier for them to back you into a corner...
-
Can I say in general terms the image was unmarked from the third party source it came from and I had no idea it was copyrighted. (Lame)
Then put the burden on them to prove to me, how they calculated demand amount, to produce the proof of registration?
If I used the image on a business website regardless even though it was not for promotional purposes or advertising....it's still a business and there is no way to separate any image's purpose inside the business website?
So are you saying there are no defenses that will result in paying nothing. I'll have to pay something but it may be very little if the copyright is not registered?
-
Sandy443,
I would approach it more like this, this is one of the letters I sent to Getty.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914489/1-3-Letter-to-Getty-04-25-12-Redacted?in_collection=3777294
Can I say in general terms the image was unmarked from the third party source it came from and I had no idea it was copyrighted. (Lame)
Then put the burden on them to prove to me, how they calculated demand amount, to produce the proof of registration?
If I used the image on a business website regardless even though it was not for promotional purposes or advertising....it's still a business and there is no way to separate any image's purpose inside the business website?
So are you saying there are no defenses that will result in paying nothing. I'll have to pay something but it may be very little if the copyright is not registered?
-
Sandy443,
I would approach it more like this, this is one of the letters I sent to Getty.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914489/1-3-Letter-to-Getty-04-25-12-Redacted?in_collection=3777294
Can I say in general terms the image was unmarked from the third party source it came from and I had no idea it was copyrighted. (Lame)
Then put the burden on them to prove to me, how they calculated demand amount, to produce the proof of registration?
If I used the image on a business website regardless even though it was not for promotional purposes or advertising....it's still a business and there is no way to separate any image's purpose inside the business website?
So are you saying there are no defenses that will result in paying nothing. I'll have to pay something but it may be very little if the copyright is not registered?
Thankx Greg, I had a feeling you'd jump in..Sandy has to know also that if she copies your letter, Getty will know this, each case is a bit different, I think it's important to see how others have dealt with this, and take bits and pieces to meet the recipients needs...Getty probably has your letter tacked to a board in the lunch room, for all to see!
-
OK got it. The picture is getting clearer.
-
Thanks Robert, Iwas in a rush trying to pull some stuff together and did not make the disclaimer. I would not reccomend coping it, I listed it as an approach so Sandy can see the tone and how to put them on the defensive.
Thanks again! :D
Sandy443,
I would approach it more like this, this is one of the letters I sent to Getty.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914489/1-3-Letter-to-Getty-04-25-12-Redacted?in_collection=3777294
Can I say in general terms the image was unmarked from the third party source it came from and I had no idea it was copyrighted. (Lame)
Then put the burden on them to prove to me, how they calculated demand amount, to produce the proof of registration?
If I used the image on a business website regardless even though it was not for promotional purposes or advertising....it's still a business and there is no way to separate any image's purpose inside the business website?
So are you saying there are no defenses that will result in paying nothing. I'll have to pay something but it may be very little if the copyright is not registered?
Thankx Greg, I had a feeling you'd jump in..Sandy has to know also that if she copies your letter, Getty will know this, each case is a bit different, I think it's important to see how others have dealt with this, and take bits and pieces to meet the recipients needs...Getty probably has your letter tacked to a board in the lunch room, for all to see!
-
Sandy,
Troy's 2nd letter is a good one in your circumstances. (Had you hotlinked, I'd show you my letter. :) )
Now, let me explain my questions to you in context of what he requested from Getty. First: It is my view that before writing the letter it's worth having an *idea* what the answers are likely to be. Nevertheless, you still ask them. Now look at what Troy asked for:
I need
1)to see verification that the image was filed with the U.S. Copyright Office
2) Verification that the copyright is either for the individual image or a group of images.
3) I need a copy of the signed contract, assignment or other documentation between Getty Imagesand the artist transferring copyright and giving you exclusive rights to the image as you havestated in your letter.
4) Sales history and records of this image and prices received for the image
Let's look at each thing:
1)to see verification that the image was filed with the U.S. Copyright Office
Notice that *I* looked at the US copyright office for you. I had difficulty finding anything with this photographer's name. At. All. Of course, my ability might be imperfect, but this already suggests that there is a pretty good chance the image has not been properly registered. I can't guarantee it. You might want to get another friend to search the copyright office. But... I didn't find it.
2) Verification that the copyright is either for the individual image or a group of images.
Notice I speculated on this the "group" issue. I didn't find individual or group images. Even group images need to list the photographers name. So I *think* that should have come up if it was registered in a group. But-- I could be wrong.
3) I need a copy of the signed contract, assignment or other documentation between Getty Images and the artist transferring copyright and giving you exclusive rights to the image as you have stated in your letter.
I didn't discuss this yet. But it's worth requesting. Getty will likely refuse. But the fact is, it's a valid to request they prove they have standing to represent the photographer. They have, in the past operated with some "online" contracts that did not have proper signatures. So they may not have standing to sue. If so... while the copyright holder could sue you, Getty has no standing. (That doesn't mean they can't be stoooopid enough to sue. But they would lose. And in copyright, if they lose, you can make them pay your legal fees. So, this discourages then from the stupidest of suits-- especially when the issue involves only 1 image.)
4) Sales history and records of this image and prices received for the image
If the image is not properly registered, the copyright holder or the appropriate designated party can still sue-- and win. But they have to prove the value of that image based on actual sales. Notice I commented that that picture is hardly that photographers best work? Looking at it, do you think anyone would pay much for that picture? I bet there have been no sales -- zero. This isn't exactly one of the "getty images" of a celebrity star (e.g. Angelina Jolie) or a particularly dramatic shot of something that happened at the Super Bowl etc. If you'd used one of those, Getty could probably show plenty of actual sales (and it would likely be individually registered.) But... that's not what we have here. Right?
So: based on looking at the sales record, this looks (to me) like one of the getty letters where
a) The image *likely* has no copyright registration or a flawed one.
b) The image *likely* has little commercial value.
In this context, it's worth finding the price of "similar" images of ladders and seeing what other places charge. Write a letter similar to Troys (but not identical) and send that off. Tell them the image is removed *as a courtesy*. Do not say anything about your business. You can mention that your site has very little traffic. (This matters if later some fair use issue comes up.) Avoid explaining you found the thing on Google.
The point is not to beg for their mercy. They are not a jury. They are not a judge. You are negotiating. And reality, it appears your position appears relatively strong in the sense that if they did sue they quite likely wouldn't recover. But if you copied it can be useful to *offer something*--- as Troy did. But make any offer contingent on them providing you proof the image is registered individually and they have a contract with the copyright holder. After all: Why should you pay someone who does not have a right to collect any fee?
-
very well put Lucia, and very good advice as well... we know that "Getty" doesn't register most of "their" images, we also know that Getty does not require nor ask it's contributors to register images, and further more I believe we know that Getty does not even ask their contributors if their images are registered..most photographers don't register all of their images, because they are to cheap and lazy..however there are some that register every image, whether it's garbage or not..This photog does not seem to be one of those, or Lucia would have found something with his name. Also a quick PACER search for "Peter Cade" yields no results, so he has not filed any lawsuits himself..
-
It might be helpful in many cases if we had a "guide" or "faq" that explained the process of dealing with trolls.
The issues are largely the same in most cases, especially when dealing with Getty.
It seems a bit time-consuming to explain Getty's non-registrations, bulk registrations and court failures over and over.
My concern is that the regulars here are going to get burned out explaining the same concepts again and again.
Perhaps, we could make a faq or guide to help the victim, then any further issues or unusual tidbits could be dealt with on a more personal nature.
There's no intent on my part to put down the current process in any way. It's great.
But, I'm worried that fatigue will set in soon.
In any case, I'm quite impressed by the incredible tenacity of the regulars.
S.G.
-
I burnt out about 2 years ago...if folks would just take some time to read thru the forums, they would have all of the answers they need to make an educated decision, unfortunately if they can't do that, I doubt they would read the faqs anyway.. spending some time getting educated is a small price to pay considering the alternative..but yeah we're a bit tenacious to say the least..
-
If anything I think that the regulars have actually gained momentum... I'm glad that they're on the side of ELI.
I'm going to write something up. I would strongly suggest that the regulars keep the document on-hand.
When the usual query about Getty comes up, I'd strongly suggest pasting it in for the victim to read.
If the victim still has questions that have been answered in the document, kindly cut and paste that section.
Again, any unusual or special situations can be handled more personally.
I saw how much Lucia wrote up. It's quite a generous effort!!
But, I really think that we need to spare people from writing up the same info repeatedly.
This is not intended to take away from a welcoming atmosphere, or the helpful nature of the Forum that we've enjoyed.
I'll work on this... but I do have this tongue-in-cheek version for the Forum:
This virus warning is genuine.
There is a new virus going around, called "Getty Images Demand Letter".
If you receive any sort of "Demand Letter" at all, whether via email, fax or simply handed to you by your mailman...DO NOT OPEN IT.
This has been circulating around the world for years and those who have been tempted to open a "Demand Letter" or even look at a "Demand Letter" have found that their brain ceases to function properly and their wallet is emptied.
If you do encounter a "Getty Images Demand Letter" via email or are faced with any "Demand Letter / Voluntary Invoice" at all, then to purge the virus, send an email to Getty Images with the words "I've had enough of your crap... I'm off to the pub." The "Getty Images Demand Letter" should automatically be forgotten by your brain.
If you receive a "Getty Images Demand Letter" in paper-document form, simply lift the document and drag the "Demand Letter" to your garbage can.
Put on your hat and coat and skip to the nearest bar with two friends and order three pints of beer (or a snort of good scotch). After repeating this action 14 times, you will find that "Getty Images" will no longer be of any relevance to you and that "Scooby Doo" was the greatest cartoon ever.
S.G.
-
It might be helpful in many cases if we had a "guide" or "faq" that explained the process of dealing with trolls.
One difficulty is that it would end up long. For example: First step should always be: figure out if you hotlinked. If your site is in the US and you hotlinked, use lucia's letter. If you didn't hotlink, move on to Greg's. But you still need to learn other stuff-- because -- at least hypothetically-- someone might have copied an image that is actually valuable and was individually registered and isn't plastered all over every free wall paper site from here to Timbucktu. And notice we have one case that's a photograph of a book cover? And another was a claim because a portion of the image supposedly matched clouds in another image?
How do you make a faq? Plus-- also hypothetically-- things could change. Getty might start getting their photographers to register and so on.
-
Let's also not forget that Getty also admits in their PDF brochure called "Be Sure of It" they make the following statement:
Image GuaranteeTM
Not every image comes with amodel or property release.
Sometimes, with certain non-released imagery or
footage, it’s simply not possible to find or identify a rights
holder, if one even exists. So clearance just isn’t an option.
Normally, that would leave you legally unprotected – and
put your ideal image out of reach. But it doesn’t have to
be that way. Based on our research,we’re often able
to give you an image guarantee. Getty Images Image
Guarantee services provides you with an extra layer of
protection by indemnifying you against any model or
property claims. For a fee based on your expected usage,
Getty Images covers you completely in the event a third party
comes forward to make a claim.
Our Image Guarantee service not only protects you from
liability, it dramatically expands your creative palette by
broadening the range of imagery you can put to use for a
whole host of commercial and promotional campaigns.
I have talked about this brochure in my experiment against Getty thread but the way I read this section is they are saying that they don't know anything at all about some of the images they have so there trying to sell you an insurance policy on the image in case the actual artists comes after you.
This whole page of the brochure strikes me odd, as it appears to me not only is Getty infringing by displaying thumbnails of these images on their website but offering to sell these images in my opinion seems an awful lot like willful infringement.
very well put Lucia, and very good advice as well... we know that "Getty" doesn't register most of "their" images, we also know that Getty does not require nor ask it's contributors to register images, and further more I believe we know that Getty does not even ask their contributors if their images are registered..most photographers don't register all of their images, because they are to cheap and lazy..however there are some that register every image, whether it's garbage or not..This photog does not seem to be one of those, or Lucia would have found something with his name. Also a quick PACER search for "Peter Cade" yields no results, so he has not filed any lawsuits himself..
Since Getty made this brochure a downloadable PDF I have it saved in my files should this issue ever come up and mysteriously the wording get changed or the brochure just disappear.
-
I personally think a very general FAQ would be helpful, if nothing else to help relieve the recipients of that initial paralyzing fear...couple that FAQ with a list of "must read threads", and I think we would have a semi -good solution to the issue of constantly repeating ourselves...admittedly there are some days I feel like a Minah bird. It's the questions like " i Got a letter what should I do?" that send me over the edge..there is 5 years of information here and ALL of it is free.. In Lucia initial post she made some good recommendations as far as what to include in the letter, yet Sandy generated a letter completely the opposite of these.. I'm not throwing Sandy under the bus here, as I think she is/was suffering with the fear that getty instills...
-
At least she didn't send the letter!
The sad fact is that most letter recipients inclination is to do what you would do in "normal" life when you might have accidentally done something that might be wrong /obnoxious / etc. but has caused no real tangible damage to anyone. That is: Admit and apologize. In real life, this is often what "works" for many reasons among them that the other person says: Ok. That's fine it's over now.
The problem is that Getty is generating these letters to make money.
Anyway, many of us would have rewritten our first letter which quite often we wrote too soon and admitted too much. I -- for example-- regret telling them the site I was hotlinking from. I wish I had merely said I hotlinked and kept the proof of hotlinking in my own files. I knew I had that proof. Having that would have been sufficient to show I did not violate copyright had they sued me. I didn't really need to prove my case to them to the extent that I did and I wish I had not volunteered that URL. (If they already knew it-- fine. But I suspect they did not. )
Many of us are pleased with our second letter.
-
I don't feel that a "FAQ" or general "Guide" would stop anyone from discussing, and adding to a conversation.
In fact, I'm sure that most victims want a more personal approach.
That's fine, as long as people don't get burned out writing up 5000 word essays explaining the situation.
Dealing with Getty is very straight-forward.
1) Don't admit anything, and don't talk to Getty or its reps on the telephone.
2) Remove the image immediately.
3) Make a reasonable offer of 50 -200 dollars.
4) If they accept it, you're done. If not, ask for proof that they own the sole copyrights to the image, and demand proof.
5) They won't send you that, so you're done. If they forward a "bulk registration", that's no good either. You're done.
6) Expect them to bug you every so often, but they can't do much if they don't own the copyrights.
Of course, it would be fleshed out a bit more than this... but you get the idea.
It really doesn't matter where the image actually came from.
It doesn't really matter if it's hotlinked, they'll bug you regardless, but still can't do anything without the copyrights.
If Getty starts to get registrations for its catalog of images, we can report on that, and adjust as required.
Again, a guide isn't intended to stop discussion, it just keeps us consistent, and saves time for other things.
We should also keep in mind that many points are of little concern unless a victim is actually heading to court... BUT...
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/284/529/e65.gif)
S.G.
-
I don't feel a FAQ or guide would harm discussions at all, and anything we can do to not have to make the same post over and over again is a good thing...I see it on other forums all of the time, same questions , different topics, people are just plain old lazy for the most part and it's easier to just type..."got a letter now what" and let someone else type the 5000 word reply...or do any meaningful research first...and even if if it did curb the discussion I'll always be here to stir the pot as it were!!
-
3) Make a reasonable offer of 50 -200 dollars.
[...]
It doesn't really matter if it's hotlinked, they'll bug you regardless, but still can't do anything without the copyrights.
Sure it does. Because if it's hotlinked you don't offer zero ($) and you are done. They may write back-- but you reitterate that it was hotlinked and will send zero. In contrast, if it was not hotlinked, you offer something-- making your offer contingent on them proving they have a contract from the copyright holder and that a copyright registration of some sort has been filed.
-
Getty won't take 50 or 200 dollars... so it may as well be zero.
But, I'll put all that in...
S.G.
-
Getty won't take 50 or 200 dollars... so it may as well be zero.
But, I'll put all that in...
S.G.
Yup...it may as well be ZERO without any proof to back up the demand! If one has done his/her homework they will know ahead of time whether or not there is proof in Getty's claim. If you are "hotlinking" then yes you should already KNOW not to make an offer!
-
EVERYONE, thank you for your input and time and bluntness-which I appreciate. I am clearly new on the block and getting my feet wet, doesn't truly describe it but what the heck.
So I am totally in agreement, it's my responsibility to do my own leg work and get the information especially since it is all here. The problem I had right off the bat, wanting to read the entire Forum and get the info, after reading 90% of posts all the way through starting a few years back and working my way forward in time.....I gotta go to work and sleep, oh yah and eat and other things. I started in the older posts and there was a bunch of UK stuff there which I read and didn't realize they did not pertain to the U.S. until later. My eyes bugging outta my head I took a stab at the letter. I didn't read far enough forward I guess.
So my two cents worth concerning the website and forum, yeah totally do some sort of FAQ or Capsulized info page. Cuz, damn, there is a LOAD... tons of info and for a new person who really wants to take a stab at their first letter, it's a lot to have to pour through 36 pages of posts. Huge. That said, it's totally a wonderful asset, it's just really really big. Thank you to all who made it possible and yes I'm going to put my money where my mouth or mouse is.
OK, now, I've rewritten a new draft letter. You'll be proud, I HOPE! I don't really want to post it here yet, mainly cuz I don't want Getty to read it ahead of time. Any volunteers, I can email it to for a review? It's just one page.
Thanks
-
Feel free to send it to me. [email protected]
-
While I think an FAQ page is a good concept we would have to make sure it is accurate and thorough and yet still let people know that these issues are not really prone to one or two sentence responses. Perhaps better would be some kind of site map that let's people know where to go for basic information or highlight those many posts that explain the Getty issue. I'm all for whatever makes the volumes of info on our site more manageable.
-
BTW - I just remembered - the front page of this site has a locked forum on The Getty Images Issue which summarizes pretty much everything. Do we need to augment that somehow?
-
Many good points have been made about the FAQ issue.
I just saw that the forum regulars are typing in much the same information in answer to general queries about Getty letters.
About 90 percent of what's typed is essentially the same information each time.
There's a lot of fatigue associated with this sort of thing. The end result will be that there may be little or no response to such queries on the forum in the future.
But, when the victim does a search for the topic, 1000 results come up, with a baffling range of discussion regarding same issues each time.
But, Oscar makes a good point that there are already resources on here that address many of the issues.
Maybe they need to be better utilized?
I any case, I do realize that it's pretty cathartic to explain to new visitors how Getty is such a sham.
Again, there's nothing to stop with the friendly, personal approach.
Maybe we need something (only a couple of pages) that gets the "boilerplate" stuff out of the way?
However, if people aren't interested in using it, it might be a waste of time.
S.G.
-
How about using the sticky function to put key threads at the top of the various forums?
Also, I bet Matthew still has plans to finish the ebook he was working on. Having that available would give new comers a time-saving option if they don't have the time or energy to read the entire forum, which took me almost three days over a year and a half ago. And there's a lot more information (valuable information, I might add) that's been compiled here since then.
-
I know on another forum I am on (a car site), we have sticky's for certain threads and that seems to work well. Global mods and topic mods have the ability to create a sticky and lock it. One note though, even with stickys or a FAQ thread, you will still get posts from newbies asking questions they can find if they just did a search. Many times we won't answer the question, but just provide the link to the correct topic for them to read themselves in the reply. That does help on the typing a bit, unless we get one like what Matt had to deal with when he had the flu...LOL :)
-
Jot, you're right about the sticky threads and how some people still won't read them anyway. Matt's put up several sticky posts on top of the forum's home page. It seems a lot of people go right past those looking for the way to post a question that's answered clearly in the FAQ sticky posts.
Some of the older members are becoming quite sensitive about duplication fatigue, which is valid. I suggest replying to those questions by simply pointing people to the FAQ URL and tell them it's required reading before posting.
Maybe there's a way to create a filter so that a new user can't post until they've at least visited the FAQ post pages? That way we help people cool down off the initial rush of feeling threatened by an extortion letter before they actually post a question or comment, and hopefully that would reduce endless duplication of topic discussions.
-
HEY!! WE AREN'T "SENSITIVE ABOUT THIS"!!! lol.
However, I don't see much support for a FAQ or Guide at this time.
So, we'll just see how it goes. Like I said, if the forum prefers a more hands-on approach, I'm ok with that...
S.G.
-
@S.G. I fully support some sort of FAQ, but I don't support wasting ones time creating it, knowing that most newbies are just going to post the infamous question "got letter, now what?"... I think maybe a better approach would be a sticky post containing the "must read" threads, which would cover anything that would be in the FAQ, plus other general stuff, then when we get the newbie question we can simply reply with a link to the must read stuff..
-
It's a good way to crowdsource the SEO too...
Me? I'm gonna make some more memes..!
S.G.
-
I am currently working on this as time permits but there is a lot of information to go through. I am working on the links pertaining to Getty issues currently. Perhaps someone would like to volunteer to go through the threads and find relevant links pertaining to masterfile issues, Canadian letter recipients, issues related to hotlinking, public domain images and so forth.
These are all on my to do list but will be done in my spare time which isn't a lot.
@S.G. I fully support some sort of FAQ, but I don't support wasting ones time creating it, knowing that most newbies are just going to post the infamous question "got letter, now what?"... I think maybe a better approach would be a sticky post containing the "must read" threads, which would cover anything that would be in the FAQ, plus other general stuff, then when we get the newbie question we can simply reply with a link to the must read stuff..