Show Posts
1
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Jupiter Images
« on: May 07, 2013, 10:58:01 AM »
The problems with the McCormack letter:
1) It does not specifically tell what image the complaint is about. It just gave me a case number and states that "Screenshots showing the imagery on your website were provided in Getty Images prior correspondence."
The only correspondence I received from Getty was two years ago, in which they showed a screenshot of an image I got from ClipArt.com in 1996. That's going back quite some time and several defunct computers. I don't use ClipArt.com that often (and not at all anymore), and it took me a while to remember I had gotten the image from their site (I could not remember their name!). Part of that reason was they used to be called: ArtToday.com.
If Getty has sent me other correspondence, I have not received it, so I can only assume it is from this earlier claim.
At that time, I called Getty and said I did not remember where I got the image (because I didn't at the time) but that I had removed the image in question as a sign of good faith and was told I would have to pay their demand of $875.00. I said my lawyer would contact them.
In the letter they did show my image and theirs. They did not provide a link to where their image is housed, just a catalog number. I looked in ClipArt.com and there was no longer such an image there, although there was one very similar to it. They move images around all the time on that site and it is a Getty owned site.
It probably doesn't matter, but the image in question at the time was a night scene of New York City. I had used it in my cat website as part of a parody series that I called "Catzilla" (inspired by the 1990's movie) and I had used Photoshop to add my "giant" cat into the picture. The image was (remember this is 1996) about 200 pixels wide.
I completely removed "Catzilla" and all the ClipArt.com images I had licensed from my website, computer and WayBack, and I searched for any references to it in Google later on to make sure it was gone. That was two years ago.
2) I had used the ClipArt.com website a long time ago to gather many images (about 20) for various projects on my website. They say in their license that it is permitted to use images and even alter them for commercial, private or educational use. They are very friendly about this, obviously.
I paid the subscription price each time. But, many of those images are no longer in their catalog. So this letter could be referring to any one of them. How am I to know? Shouldn't the attorney include a copy of the actual complaint before demanding payment?
3) McCormack is demanding $1,400.00 now, which is not what Getty demanded a few years ago. So, I have no clue what he is talking about, and I am afraid (yes, this is a terrifying situation -- they seem to design it to be) to call his office and ask for more information. I want the protection of a lawyer, preferably my own, who knows how to deal with people in this situation.
3) When I got the original Getty letter, I sent them an e-mail saying I had complied with their cease and desist and had removed their image from my site and the WayBack Machine archive. I got no response to that. In fact I took all the images I ever got from ClipArt.com (that I remembered getting) from my site and WayBack Machine.
At the time I kept records in e-mail of my dealings with ClipArt.com. But since the computer hard drive crashed, it took those e-mail records with it. I had backups of documents, but not e-mails.
I always figured that ClipArt.com would have records of my downloads. But when I finally got back to them, only some of the records were there. I can see how to Getty this would look like infringement except for one thing. In ClipArt.com, you can download an image in one of two ways. Once you have paid your subscription, all images are watermark free (otherwise, they are very clearly marked). I could either pick an image and download it to a cart, then download the cart (this was often slow because their site was slow) or I could view the image online on their site in my paid area and use the "right click" copy function. If I recall correctly, ClipArt.com allowed for both. Regardless, only after paying a subscription was the image displayed at various resolutions and without the watermark.
The image they found on my site obviously had no watermark on it.
I realize this is confusing, it is confusing to me. Sorry.
Obviously my lesson is simple:
No matter what, NEVER license an image for any reason. It's too risky.
I may ask Oscar for help and pay him to deal with this. I want to talk to my own lawyer first (nothing personal, Oscar).
Thanks to everyone for their advice and support.
1) It does not specifically tell what image the complaint is about. It just gave me a case number and states that "Screenshots showing the imagery on your website were provided in Getty Images prior correspondence."
The only correspondence I received from Getty was two years ago, in which they showed a screenshot of an image I got from ClipArt.com in 1996. That's going back quite some time and several defunct computers. I don't use ClipArt.com that often (and not at all anymore), and it took me a while to remember I had gotten the image from their site (I could not remember their name!). Part of that reason was they used to be called: ArtToday.com.
If Getty has sent me other correspondence, I have not received it, so I can only assume it is from this earlier claim.
At that time, I called Getty and said I did not remember where I got the image (because I didn't at the time) but that I had removed the image in question as a sign of good faith and was told I would have to pay their demand of $875.00. I said my lawyer would contact them.
In the letter they did show my image and theirs. They did not provide a link to where their image is housed, just a catalog number. I looked in ClipArt.com and there was no longer such an image there, although there was one very similar to it. They move images around all the time on that site and it is a Getty owned site.
It probably doesn't matter, but the image in question at the time was a night scene of New York City. I had used it in my cat website as part of a parody series that I called "Catzilla" (inspired by the 1990's movie) and I had used Photoshop to add my "giant" cat into the picture. The image was (remember this is 1996) about 200 pixels wide.
I completely removed "Catzilla" and all the ClipArt.com images I had licensed from my website, computer and WayBack, and I searched for any references to it in Google later on to make sure it was gone. That was two years ago.
2) I had used the ClipArt.com website a long time ago to gather many images (about 20) for various projects on my website. They say in their license that it is permitted to use images and even alter them for commercial, private or educational use. They are very friendly about this, obviously.
I paid the subscription price each time. But, many of those images are no longer in their catalog. So this letter could be referring to any one of them. How am I to know? Shouldn't the attorney include a copy of the actual complaint before demanding payment?
3) McCormack is demanding $1,400.00 now, which is not what Getty demanded a few years ago. So, I have no clue what he is talking about, and I am afraid (yes, this is a terrifying situation -- they seem to design it to be) to call his office and ask for more information. I want the protection of a lawyer, preferably my own, who knows how to deal with people in this situation.
3) When I got the original Getty letter, I sent them an e-mail saying I had complied with their cease and desist and had removed their image from my site and the WayBack Machine archive. I got no response to that. In fact I took all the images I ever got from ClipArt.com (that I remembered getting) from my site and WayBack Machine.
At the time I kept records in e-mail of my dealings with ClipArt.com. But since the computer hard drive crashed, it took those e-mail records with it. I had backups of documents, but not e-mails.
I always figured that ClipArt.com would have records of my downloads. But when I finally got back to them, only some of the records were there. I can see how to Getty this would look like infringement except for one thing. In ClipArt.com, you can download an image in one of two ways. Once you have paid your subscription, all images are watermark free (otherwise, they are very clearly marked). I could either pick an image and download it to a cart, then download the cart (this was often slow because their site was slow) or I could view the image online on their site in my paid area and use the "right click" copy function. If I recall correctly, ClipArt.com allowed for both. Regardless, only after paying a subscription was the image displayed at various resolutions and without the watermark.
The image they found on my site obviously had no watermark on it.
I realize this is confusing, it is confusing to me. Sorry.
Obviously my lesson is simple:
No matter what, NEVER license an image for any reason. It's too risky.
I may ask Oscar for help and pay him to deal with this. I want to talk to my own lawyer first (nothing personal, Oscar).
Thanks to everyone for their advice and support.