Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 11, 2012, 06:13:04 PM »

It's not guaranteed that he will close down, it's just not in the best shape right now. If it was going out for sure, I wouldn't worry about it.  This is why I am having trouble with how to approach the issue.

Can the LLC be legally "connected" to the site since it benefits from its existence? If it is, my best option seems to be to send them a response letter from the company stating the creative commons license, then waiting for them to respond, then asking for proof of copyright.....And so on...

If they cannot be legally connected, I may write the letter from the LLC stating it is not associated with the site. This could have the possibility of leading them to begin harassing me personally.

I am still a little unclear on what defines "ownership" of a site?

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 11, 2012, 05:19:44 PM »

The letter is addressed to the LLC. The name it is addressed to is close to, but not the correct name of the company. Just as well, the domain name is only a portion of the LLC's registered name.

The website is registered in my name.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 11, 2012, 04:56:49 PM »

This seems to have gotten a little off topic..... Since there is no real way to prove the origin of the image, I am looking for a little advice on how to proceed. I have been reading as much as I can so that I do not ask the same questions twice.

After doing more research I have found the template I used on a page that states the images may be used under the Creative Commons license. It still seems as if the GI image is actually using a portion of the image from the free template site. Does this have any effect on anything, or will they just continue to hound us about it? If I respond from the company, then they are officially linked to the site.

Option 2 is to respond to them stating the web page is not owned, operated, or endorsed by the company. This is a true statement as I do not work for the company, did not get paid in any way, and I personally paid for the hosting/registration.

Option 3 is to ignore the letter until forced to address it. (the LLC may not exist much longer due to financial issues, so this is not totally out of the question.

I know the easy way to handle this is to just join the program, but at this point it is really not an option for me.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 08, 2012, 01:53:44 PM »

I guess in this instance the issue of "fair use" is moot as I cannot provide the original artist's information, and GI probably will not provide any ownership info. If the GI picture is infringing on someone elses copyright, im sure they will not provide anything. I understand I can ask for ownership information as a delay tactic, But this may not be the best strategy.
What opinions are there about writing a letter stating the website listed on the demand letter is not owned or operated by my brother's company and leave it at that?

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 02, 2012, 09:50:06 PM »

For number 1 I guess people would have to see the two images to determine if it was really as heavily reworked so that only 20% remained. There _might_ be a reasonable "fair use" of the original if it was more for reference than actual content. I don't know what you are asking in #2. If it is mailing to the wrong address and he is still somehow getting it, I guess you could ignore it. But they will eventually send a Fed Ex to that same address and I presume someone will sign for it.

And for #3 if you could get your brother to play along he could simply reply that an outside marketing individual (you) took it upon themselves to create the site. He could point out that the site is not registered by the LLC and suggest they contact you.

I don't know where you'd want to take it from there. I can visualize a scenario where you refer the copyright troll back and forth for a while until they buzz off.

In response:

2) I actually meant the letter is technically addressed to a company that does not exist.

Is this not true extortion if they are addressing these to a company that the website is not registered to, or is a phone number an email address enough to link the company to the site?

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 02, 2012, 05:49:04 PM »

This afternoon I have been able to do a little more research, specifically into the artist.
The image is listed by GI as a "High-Res Photograph". The majority of the GI image actually is a photo while the rest is an illustration. The portion of the image that is the similar to the template I used and the GI image is the illustration.
Now the interesting part... the artist listed on GI only takes photographs. His portfolio only shows photographs and his bio only mentions film and video. There is not a single illustration on his page.
From the way it looks, the image from the template is actually the original.
Could GI actually be infringing on copyright of someone else?...

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 02, 2012, 01:09:12 AM »

Here is my story...
I am not at all a web page designer, I just have very basic skills.
I set up a 4 page static site for my brothers LLC a while back. He has a one-man LLC and needed something on the net. The site was based on the usual "Free Template". Earlier this year he received a letter from GI, but ignored it thinking it was a scam. Then this week he received the "Notification of Case Escalation" and I started researching GI. They are asking for $1225 for an image used in the background.
Now here is the questionable part:
1) The image is "Highly" modified. Only about 20% looks similar.
2) The address is only similar to the registered name of the LLC
3) The site is actually registered in my name.
Does any of this have an affect?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.