Will soon receive letter from Getty

[TedWagner]

I may be in a unique situation in that I have not yet received a letter, but probably will soon. I believe Getty, based on the domain name of my site, sent a letter to the wrong person. The person who received this letter informed me of this. I'm fairly certain that they will figure out this mistake and send soon be sending me a letter. Anything I should do (other than the obvious which is to remove any images) in advance of receiving the letter?  Thanks,

[Matthew Chan]

Start reading the various threads here and watch the free ELI videos. There is a learning curve that everyone goes through to defend yourself before anything else can happen.

[SoylentGreen]

When your Getty letter arrives, write "moved: return to sender" all over it.
Then, shove it back in the mail.  Do that for every letter.
Also, do that for any letter that comes from "McCormack".

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I like the way you think SG MOST of the times, but doing this could also cause the OP to loose his domain, if it is reported for invalid whois, which just creates another problem, unless of the OP is behind a private registration.

[lucia]

I'd suggests a few steps based on this: You don't know how much information Getty has for any case. There is some reason to believe they don't collect information they ought to collect should they ever go to court. Also, it seems that some of their "research" is done by getting people to admit fault when responding to letters. 

Given this, I think you should focus on:
1) Minimizing volunteering any adverse information in communications with Getty.
2) Minimize Getty's crawlers and staff's access to crawling your site.
3) Try to see how good or bad the case might even be. (Many people will give you advice on this.)

Things to do:

• Look at your page to see if you might have only hotlinked from a site hosted elsewhere. That is: if the images is not on your server, you want to know that because in that case, you didn't display a copy as defined by US copyright office. (Or at least, that's what the 9th circuit ruled.)  If you only hotlikned and they have a screenshot, you can go ahead and tell them you only hotlinked and cite the Perfect 10 case.  If you did host the image, don't volunteer that information-- Getty may not know.
• Check to see if the page is archived on the wayback machine.  If it is, change your robots.txt file to block viewing. (Or just block viewing period. You don't need your site on the way back machine.)
• if you have control of your site and there is any possibility that you have any other images whose provenance you aren't sure of, (a) start blocking image crawling spiders from swarming all over and (b) start finding any doubtful images and get them down too.  If you need help with this, ask.
• When answering Getty, do not volunteer any adverse information they did not already provide in their letter. For example: if they have a screen shot of the image, but none showing the html code, and the image was on your server, do not volunteer that you ever hosted the image.  To gracefully avoid admitting the images was on your server while taking the image down, you could word as follows: "The html has been modified so the image no longer appears".  Do not volunteer any information about how or why the image might have gotten on your site. Did you put it there? A site visitor? A blog designer?  Getty may not know the proper party to sue in the event there is an issue. Why help the figure out all the parameters of the case? 
• If you did host on your server, start trying to learn as much as you can about the image.  To the extent possible, as GETTY to provide proof of copyright registration. But even before they do, try to search for any registrations by the photographer at the US copyright office. Also, search for any sites hosting this photographers images.  They might be selling at photoshelter-- a Getty competitor. If they are, this would be worth knowing.

Although everyone is sympathetic here, even be judicious in what you post publicly. Think a few moments -- and maybe send information privately to people who might be able to tease stuff out for you! While you want us to help you, you don't want Getty to get key information about your case here-- especially not if it's adverse to your position. So.... think about that.  Stay relatively anonymous for the time being.

That's all I can think of right now!

[SoylentGreen]

Good point made here by Buddhapi.
Now's a good time for OP to get domain privacy.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

If he were looking to buy time, SG's suggestion is fine for a couple rounds but ultimately I think it would still end up in his hands.  I have been served before and sent Certified Letters before. I know other people try to dodge them but I see that as a delaying tactic than a resolution.  It is sort of like trying to ignore the letters.  It might work but it might now.  And people aren't too sympathetic to those who simply ignore problems vs. trying to get help and deal with it.  It tends to make you stick out even more through the aggravation factor and making people extra motivated to come after you.

I like the way you think SG MOST of the times, but doing this could also cause the OP to lose his domain, if it is reported for invalid whois, which just creates another problem, unless of the OP is behind a private registration.

[Matthew Chan]

For the record, I have not thought this entirely through but unless a website is totally devoid of personal or corporate identifying information, I don't see domain privacy protecting much except from the spammers.

With any of my many websites, I could have domain privacy but then what?  I have phone numbers, email addresses, and some entity named in the website.

I think this might work only with people who go to great lengths to sanitize identifying information.  For me, I made a decision years to turn my "persona" into an asset.  For example, I may be engaged in totally different businesses and interests but you can be sure my core personality and the way I do business is largely the same.

I have seen other web entrepreneurs carry out a similar style.  They are in different businesses but there is a theme or mantra they follow in how they project and carry out business.

In the end, I think there are a lot of factors to consider on using some the edgier suggestions in this thread. Nevertheless, ELI is all about "out of the box" thinking and creativity.  So keep the "crazy" suggestions coming!   

Good point made here by Buddhapi.
Now's a good time for OP to get domain privacy.

S.G.

[SoylentGreen]

Good discussion here, and all points well taken.

Something else to consider is how many alleged infringements have been made.
If it's Getty and one image for example, one could question how far they'd be willing to go in their pursuit.

I guess that I assumed that OP's posting was having to do with a blog with not too many personal identifiers.
I figured that's why somebody else got his/her letter.

But, I've been wrong before.

Guess that I'm just not the type to do some copyright troll's work for them.  Make it hard for them every step of the way.
An analogy... if there's a big football sized bee's nest, I usually don't throw rocks at it.

S.G.

[havenotreceivedaletter]

I've actually been reading a lot about this because a friend told me about it.  It's actually pretty scary how much money these people want.  I'm guessing that since GI is being sued quite a bit, they apparently need money for the lawsuits.  If someone does screw up and just use their photos, I would think kindly asking that person to take them off would suffice.  How huge is the market for stock photos and do photographers really make such a huge living off of this that you are indeed ruining them for the rest of their lives?  I notice they mainly go after websites that are businesses.  Do they go after websites that are not business oriented?  Having read about this for a few days it's rather hard to cough up thousands of dollars you don't have.  Especially in such a short time frame.  I suppose all the requests for $500 or $600 adds up if enough people pay that.  That family seems to have a very interesting history and being rather not nice people I guess that can extend a long ways.

[lucia]

Yes, Getty sends letters to not-business oriented entities. I was sent a letter for a hotlinked image in comments on my hobby blog.

[SoylentGreen]

They ALL send letters to ANYONE regardless of what alleged infringer's online purpose is.
My site was a blog/resume thing.  I was quite sick at the time, and I was offering free work to charities on my site.
I wasn't completely unemployable, and I thought that it would be a good way to stay productive.
That didn't stop anyone.  But... yeah... I'll keep my money, thanks.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

They ALL send letters to ANYONE regardless of what alleged infringer's online purpose is.
My site was a blog/resume thing.  I was quite sick at the time, and I was offering free work to charities on my site.
I wasn't completely unemployable, and I thought that it would be a good way to stay productive.
That didn't stop anyone.  But... yeah... I'll keep my money, thanks.

S.G.

ah  a small piece of your puzzle revealed! 

I hope your health is better and the sickness well behind you..

[Peeved]

They ALL send letters to ANYONE regardless of what alleged infringer's online purpose is.
My site was a blog/resume thing.  I was quite sick at the time, and I was offering free work to charities on my site.
I wasn't completely unemployable, and I thought that it would be a good way to stay productive.
That didn't stop anyone.  But... yeah... I'll keep my money, thanks.

S.G.

ah  a small piece of your puzzle revealed! 

I hope your health is better and the sickness well behind you..

Reading my mind again.   

Feeling the same, hope you are on top of your game!

[Oscar Michelen]

We have gotten Getty letters from all kinds of organizations. Just last week, one was received by an elderly couple in Kentucky that run a not for profit that has one very small purpose: they arrange for US veterans in nursing homes and homeless shelters to get together for a meal out at a local restaurant.  Its a great simple program that gives dignity to these veterans and allows them to socialize and give them something to look forward to. Every dollar received by them goes to provide transportation (most of the restaurants donate the meals) the couple makes not a dollar off of the site or the program. When they contacted me they were desperately afraid that this claim over a few images was going to force them to shut down. Of course I did not charge them for their letter but I could not convince them to go public with the story.  They want their privacy and as they said " Don't want any trouble from some big company." So if Getty is seeking damages form these folks,  its clear that they are indiscriminate in their approach.