Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Stockfood America- phone calls and letters from law firm (not McCormick- advice?

« on: July 08, 2015, 12:33:28 PM »

Robert,

That is how I interpreted copyright law. Thank you for that summary of the situation.

Can the copyright owner appoint one of its agents to represent them in a suit or do they have to file the suit personally? Could the artist be named as ONE of the claimants and Science Photo Library be included as well?

In this case, it appears that there are at least three agents licensing that image and NONE of them (including the artist) have filed a copyright on it with the US office of copyrights.

One of my colleagues is a (non-PI) lawyer in New York and he has said that it makes no sense for Science Photo Library to take this to court because the potential recovery amount is so small and they would have to front the much larger costs for litigating it that it would not be worth it. He has concluded that the only reason this is being pursued is the hope that I will be intimidated into settling out of court. Is he naive or is his thinking correct on this?

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Stockfood America- phone calls and letters from law firm (not McCormick- advice?

« on: July 01, 2015, 07:04:15 PM »

Robert, I just figured out how to do a search on the US copyright online database. I did searches on "Harris Roger" (that's the artist's name, not Richard as I stated earlier) and "Science Photo Library." No images came up whatsoever (except photos included in books), either as collections or individual images, so as far as I know neither the company nor the artist has registered a US copyright for that image. They CAN do so for up to five years after the image was created and still have it considered prima facie evidence of copyright, so from the correspondence I have received so far, my guess is that whoever owns the (unregistered) copyright COULD still register it if this case goes to court. I don't know when the image was created; I first used it on October 3, 2011, almost 4 years ago, so if it was created much earlier than that, it could not be registered (even retroactively) if the creation date was more than 5 years before now.

Given that I have identified at least 3 different companies offering this image, each licensing it and using their own watermark on it, it looks like only the artist holds the original copyright and has licensed its use through at least those 3 different companies, only one of which is trying to collect damages from me. THAT company (Science Photo Library) does not appear to have exclusive rights to that image and does not appear to have registered it with the US copyright office. Do they even have jurisdiction to make a demand in US courts (they are based in England), or does hiring a US attorney give them the right to proceed in US District Court?

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Stockfood America- phone calls and letters from law firm (not McCormick- advice?

« on: July 01, 2015, 06:29:45 PM »

Robert,

THANK YOU for ALL of that information! I have read it, absorbed it, and will make use of it, so please know your time was well spent in typing all of that.

I have one question: How can I find out if this particular image is registered with the US copyright office? I went to that site right off the bat and could not figure out how to find an image in their copyright database. It wasn't very user-friendly. I don't know the name or ID# of the original. I just know the name of the artist.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: July 01, 2015, 02:20:49 PM »

Greg, thank you for that confirmation.

Stinger, one never knows what will happen, but I appreciate the reassurance.

Thanks for that clarification, Robert.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Stockfood America- phone calls and letters from law firm (not McCormick- advice?

« on: July 01, 2015, 02:17:55 PM »

Robert,

Thank you very much for your "nuggets"!
 
1. I was wondering if they would have to file against me in my state, and now I know that they would have to do that. I have read that a copyright suit is tried in a federal court. What court would that be?
 
2. My registrar is not Go-Daddy. My registrar says the following regarding their privacy add-on: "We display a generic email and physical postal address in your domain's public WHOIS record … any email and flat mail received will be forwarded to the email address of your choice." They do not say they will tell the sender who I am or where I am located.

3. Here is a link to the page on which I had used the image. It was the third one down and has been replaced by the one from nasa.gov. The page is something I wrote on October 3, 2011 to tie together other material on the site and put forth a possible explanation for how 12 different futures will split off from this one shared reality through linking 12 pairs of stargates via wormholes. A wormhole has never been seen or discovered, so one has to rely on conceptual illustrations.

The image I used was not a photo. It was a computer conceptual drawing of a wormhole, just as is the NASA image that is shown there now. This image is one of four on that page and one of 555 images that were on the site at the time I got the demand letter. The entire site is educational.

4. Science Photo Library IS part of Getty Images, sheltered by that corporate compartmentalization I have observed and spoken about elsewhere. I have a pdf file showing that image as it was on GettyImages.com when I was first contacted. It is watermarked gettyimages, Science Photo Library. I just tried to find that page again and it has been taken down. On that page (I have a pdf of it), Getty states that it can't license that image. Seems like I caught them in an "oops" position, which they have since covered over. I don't know how to attach the pdf to this post.

5. So the onus is on THEM to prove that I didn't purchase it elsewhere? I would think that I would have to prove that I had licensed the image from somewhere if this went to court. I didn't license it from anywhere. I do have pdf's of the pages from the other sites that are licensing it. I thought the strength of my argument is that they (Science Photo Library/Getty) don't have exclusive rights to that image and therefore can't seek damages for its unlicensed use. The image is credited to a Richard Harris.

7. I thought there might be trolls here, which is why I didn't list my actual physical location.

Under Oscar's letter program (if I have to make use of it), would this be considered a Getty or Picscout letter or something else? The email I got this morning said it could be several weeks before I heard from the attorney. I don't intend to reply to the email telling me that. I'm now waiting to see what the attorney does and if I get anything in postal mail or not.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Stockfood America- phone calls and letters from law firm (not McCormick- advice?

« on: July 01, 2015, 08:06:44 AM »

I just got an email today telling me that my case (see thread "The best defense..." in Getty Letters forum) has been escalated to the same law firm (Stern & Schurin). They are in New York; I am in another state. I used my full name in replying to them and the email says that I will be receiving a letter by postal mail.

I also get very shaken up when I am contacted, even by email. I have not phoned them or given them my phone number or street address and my web site domain registration is by proxy, so I don't know if they will find me easily, but it still feels like an assault each and every time.

I still have NOT been given proof that they (Getty or Science Library) own an exclusive right to the image or have standing to proceed against me. In fact, there are at least 3 different sites offering this image for licensing and Getty specifically says that it can't license it.

I wonder if they have a troll here on these forums to single out those people who are most defiant and punish them. I used ONE image (that is still being used worldwide) and took it down immediately. I claimed fair use and they have not shown how it's NOT fair use, either, but once the attorney contacts me, I think he are required to answer my questions on those points (or at least that's how I interpreted the Washington State Bar Association's ethics requirements -- now I have to bone up on the New York Bar Association's ethics requirements, which I just downloaded).

If anyone has any insight on this particular attorney (Steven Stern) and law firm. I would appreciate hearing it.

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: July 01, 2015, 07:36:34 AM »

I had hoped that, since it has been over a month since I last heard from Getty, my last letter discouraged them from pursuing my case. However, this morning, I received the following email from them (all emphasis in the original):

"Science Photo Library Ltd., License Compliance Services
605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104, United States
Email: [email protected], Telephone: +1 855 387 8725

July 01, 2015

This letter is a follow up to the letters that were previously mailed to your company.

Unauthorized use of our imagery without a valid license constitutes copyright infringement.

According to our records, this matter has not been resolved to date, and we have decided to escalate this matter to our legal representatives for further pursuit. Please expect their letter in the coming weeks.

Please note that as a consequence of this escalation, the settlement amount has now been increased to reflect the addition of legal fees to the initial amount requested.

The complete information regarding our claim is available at the following link: https://LCS.sciencephoto.com/4S0T4P3W

For any question, please contact Steven Stern of Stern & Schurin LLP at [email protected] or
(212) 338-0300.

Sincerely,
License Compliance Services, Science Photo Library Ltd.

Note: Please also be advised that you will receive a copy of this note in the mail."

Is anyone here familiar with this particular lawyer or law firm? A reverse lookup on the phone number given shows an address of 605 3rd Ave New York, NY 10158-0180.

I don't feel I need to do anything just yet until the attorney contacts me, other than to bone up on the New York Bar Association's ethics regulations. Needless to say, this brings up nearly all the emotions (fear, helplessness, etc.) that I felt from the original assault. (That's how it FEELS to me -- like an assault.) Any help and/or advice on this will be appreciated.

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: June 06, 2015, 10:53:55 AM »

Robert, I can appreciate your not having interest in pursuing a class action suit. I personally don't want to get THAT involved, either, but until and unless everyone who has an interest in seeing this pattern of behavior stopped bands together to accomplish that, it will remain a one-on-one battle, with each person experiencing their own pain and loss at Getty's hands.

I have other reasons for remaining on the sidelines, primarily because of my other obligations to my own path, but as long as people do not combine forces, similar to the Lilliputians bringing down Gulliver, Getty will continue to bring misery to the planet through their actions. They are also lobbying Congress to change the copyright laws so that it will be even easier for them to collect damages and what protections there are will be diminished. If a solid case was made against the abuses Getty is making under present law, their influence in Congress could be weakened to some degree. I recognize that this has been and would become an ongoing campaign and Getty has deep pockets to fight it at every step, so it might not be doable in a practical way. Nonetheless, I can't help but feel that some sort of collective opposition need to organize and act to level the playing field. Perhaps there are other ways to do that than a class action suit. A class action suit is just the form I am most familiar with.

GregTroy,

I don't know who S.G. is, but your site was one of the ones I found and read, and if every site that was like yours rallied around a single point of focus for proactive action, that could make a lot of difference in the way this proceeds. ELI seems to be the most logical place for that to happen because it has the largest member base, but others also have reach to a larger pool of people who would like to see Getty prevented from continuing this pattern of behavior. This site is an example of that. Other sites have links to ELI as the place to go for help. It seems logical that ELI could be the place that organizes something that unites people and creates a larger force for good.

9

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: June 05, 2015, 02:47:10 PM »

Jerry,

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep it in mind IF it's needed. If I am contacted again, I intend to state that, according to Title 17 § 501(b), since they have not demonstrated that they have an exclusive right to that image, they do not have legal standing to demand compensation for its use. I also will make use of your suggestions at that time, as needed. I like the sound of, "I consider this case closed."

I long ago decided that hating anyone or anything was a poor use of my time and energy, and kept me locked into non-productive patterns that went nowhere but down. Getty paid $20 million for PicScout. They were being opportunists and now they are trying to recover their investment. Their behaviors are unacceptable to me and many others, but so are the behaviors of our government and many other large organizations, such as Adobe, Microsoft, Google, and Wal-Mart.

At the root is our economic system — built on debt creation and fiat currencies that have nothing behind them but people's perceptions of their worth — that ties everything together, and our legacy of laws, which are primarily designed to protect property. Behind all of that is an invisible pyramid of power, seeking only to serve and perpetuate itself. Not the world of MY dreams, but there it is.

I am standing up to Getty because, in my opinion, they are not entitled to what they are demanding of me and have no legal standing to make the demand. I don't take it personally because they don't mean it personally. To them I am just an invisible number or cypher — someone to be bilked, along with the other fish the sharks feed on. There is something even more "evil" behind them and their behaviors, but that is totally beyond the scope of this discussion, so I'll just leave it at that. I do not hate them, but I will not cave in to their demands.

Robert,

I was suggesting that business lunch because you are physically near them and because of your forums title as being part of the ELI team. I thought that you could find out more about the feasibility of a class action suit and see if they had either the interest or ability to handle something like that. I wasn't thinking of your own case as being the subject of discussion. I don't know enough about that, anyway.

10

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: June 04, 2015, 05:56:30 PM »

Robert,

You are correct (again). THEY said on THEIR site that they considered it a "win," even though it was as you said. They got what they wanted -- a retraction of the demand. Since you are just down the road from that firm, maybe you could take one or more of their senior counsel to lunch, pick their brains, and feel them out as to how they would feel about taking on a project like this. I found in business that for the price of a lunch, one often got priceless information and possibly gained an ally or resource for future interactions. Just a thought.

11

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: June 04, 2015, 03:26:29 PM »

I just want to clarify something. I am not a "Getty Hater." I don't take this personally. A piece of software found the image on my site and another piece of software used by someone who is just doing their job sent me a form letter. However, the amount being demanded was egregious and the tactics employed were excessive, in my opinion. I despise bullies and tyrants and felt that there was a burden of proof called for before I would cave in to the demand.

I want to make it clear that if at any time I feel I have erred, I always admit it promptly and if there were damages (I can't think of any time there were), I would make restitution to the best of my ability. However, this image is being offered by one of the sites licensing it for $25 for five years of personal use at the low-resolution size I used. I know because I got that result off its pricing tool on the site. If LCS had asked for say, $25 for the image and another $20 for the few minutes it took to send that form letter, I would probably have paid it, even though that amount is still a hardship for me. But asking $510 for a single use of a low-res image was so over-the-top, it led me to look further and finally decide to not comply with the demand until they could satisfy my request to prove that 1) they had a legal, exclusive right to compensation; and 2) that my use did not qualify under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law.

Given the feedback I have gotten today on this site, I am aware that this may drag on for awhile longer and am resigned to ride it out,  however it goes. My father raised me to follow his own example, which was to do what it right, not what is expedient. I will go on with my life and deal with LCS when and if I need to, and while I will be much more careful in the future than I was in the past, I still do not feel I did anything wrong in using this image the way I did. I took it down as soon as I realized there was a problem.

LCS is paid to exact settlements. They are bounty hunters, tracking down people to send demand letters to. While I agree that a demand letter per se is not illegal, I do feel the amount they are asking for in my case (and in so many others I have read about) is not appropriate to the situation. It may not come to anything or they might decide to take me to court. I accept that and will not make myself miserable about it.

One more thing, if someone can find a law firm that is right to handle a class action suit and they require a retainer to take the case, there is something called crowdfunding as a way of raising funds through the Internet. One site that ranks funding sites is here; Forbes has a list here; and there are others. Just do a search on "crowdfunding" to see more. This would also create more awareness of the problem, just through the process alone.

12

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: June 04, 2015, 12:17:41 PM »

This is a great example as to why one should not engage them. People tend to make statements that could come back and bite them. This statement is not entirely true ( even though you state you know copyright law ):

"However, in order to be enforceable, it has to be registered with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress."

Images, works, ect do NOT have to be registered in order to enforce them, BUT it does make the amount collectable much lower.

Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
Chapter 5
§ 410. Registration of claim and issuance of certificate
(c) In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the court.

(d) The effective date of a copyright registration is the day on which an application, deposit, and fee, which are later determined by the Register of Copyrights or by a court of competent jurisdiction to be acceptable for registration, have all been received in the Copyright Office.

I used the image in question on October 4, 2011. It is quite possible that the period for registering it has passed, but there is also the curious disclaimer made by Getty on its USA (gettyimages.com) and German (gettyimages.de) sites that they can't license this particular image. One possible explanation is found in Chapter 6 of Title 17:

Chapter 6
Importation and Exportation
§ 602 . Infringing importation or exportation of copies or phonorecords5

(a) Infringing Importation or Exportation.—

(1) Importation.—Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.

(2) Importation or exportation of infringing items.—Importation into the United States or exportation from the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords, the making of which either constituted an infringement of copyright, or which would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sections 501 and 506.

I am operating in the dark as to the actual facts of the case because Getty has not cooperated in giving them to me. I really don't know the strength of my arguments without knowing the facts, but have relied on challenging their right to compensation based on the lack of proof that they are entitled to it.



This statement could also backfire:

"My entire site is educational, providing spiritual teachings that many people have found of value to them in living their lives. Until you can provide me with specific and concrete reasons as to why my prior use of this image was NOT "fair use," there is nothing more to discuss and I will not pay you anything."

in Terms of fair use, you would need to use the image as the educational part, you're site being educational would not be enough. To me it sounds as if the image was just that an image, which was not used for criticism, education, research nor was the image commented on.. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see you winning a fair use argument here. Where you might win is in the fact that the image is available for sale on multiple sites, but then again maybe not as you have freely admitted to them that you grabbed it elsewhere downstream. It is the end-users responsibility to use due diligence in sourcing the image, not having a watermark is not sufficient, as that is not required by law, add to the fact that had you researched the image before hand, you would have known it was available at multiple sources...you just gave them this little tidbit which does not help you case in any way...

I didn't supply a link to the actual page here on this site because I didn't think it was germane to get into a discussion of the content of that page and I agree that I did not go into detail about how this image was used in an educational way. However, now that you have raised this point, here is the link to the page in question. The image that Getty was pursuing me for has been replaced by the image of a wormhole from nasa.gov. It is illustrating the concept of a wormhole connecting two stargates, which is what the text is about. I did provide Matthew with the link to that page and he could see it for himself.

Not that any of this matters, I highly doubt they wll file suit over a single image, but you never know..in the meantime I would expect to hear from them again.

Well, since they don't have an exclusive right to that image and state that they can't license it, I don't think they have legal standing to proceed. I would be surprised it they let it go (it doesn't seem to be their pattern). If they come back to me, I will post the correspondence here and also send it to my lawyer friends in New York and London. Until and unless they can prove to me that they have a right to compensation under law, I won't pay them anything. I have other cards I can play if it comes to actually crunching the numbers, but don't want to give away my hand until necessary. If it drags out long enough, given what I think is coming this fall, it will all fall away and become moot. Time will tell the truth of all things.

13

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: June 04, 2015, 11:39:16 AM »

Robert,

You do make some valid points. However, there is ONE IP law firm (Schneider, Rothman IP Law Group) who was sent a Getty Demand Letter and sued Getty successfully that might have a personal stake sufficient to take Getty on again. Your point about the sufficiency of the class is the sticky part because any firm would have to assemble a sufficient list of members of the class to pass that test and Getty certainly wouldn't be helpful for that. However, there are other sites besides ELI that could be solicited to join the effort and the action. For example, there is this site and this one. The latter has members who have joined in the fight against extortion, and there are other sites that could be found that might also join in. I haven't done an extensive search, but I'm sure there are resources that could be mined.

If there was a law firm that could provide guidance in terms of what to look for, I am sure we could act as our own "troll corps" to give them what they need without them having to expend the energy to find it themselves. Just a thought. I would love to take the bully down, but it may not be possible, given the timing and the world's economic fragility.

14

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: June 04, 2015, 10:25:05 AM »

At this point I raised the intensity of my refusal to the point where they will either have come back with an actual threat (which I can use against them) or go away. Everything I said in this reply was intended to convince him that they would do better to use their energy on more gullible victims. I have not heard anything back since then, but if they do, I am ready with the observation that they don't own an exclusive license and therefore have no legal standing to proceed against me.

If they actually threaten me, I am prepared to file a complaint against them with whatever authorities (state and federal) would have jurisdiction, but would expect nothing to come of that except an expenditure of time and energy from my end. That's why I would really like all of those thousands of people to join together against Getty. In a class action suit proceeding, Getty could be required to provide a detailed list (names, addresses, amount paid) of everyone who "settled" with them, and each person would be contacted informing them of their ability to participate in the action. My reply is time-stamped May 28, 2015 17:46 (5:46 pm)

Matthew,

I did not claim that I was a registered non-profit organization. I told you that in my response to your prior offer to reduce the fee. I just offered that as an example of the kind of proof you had demanded from me before, because I am requesting that you provide me with proof that you are entitled to some compensation now. The documents you sent do not satisfy my request. Since you are acting privately, outside of the court system, I am asking for the same documentation that you would have to provide IN court, through discovery.

You are mistaken about the burden of proof. If this was taken to court, you would be the plaintiff and it would be your burden to prove that it was NOT fair use and that you were entitled to compensation for the use of the image.You want me to "settle" with you out of court, but you have not given me any specific reasons why I should give you anything at all. You say that this was not "fair use," but have not given me any reasons why it wasn't.

You assert injury, but do not prove that, either. Since Getty Images can't license this image, and there is no other source for it that offers it for exclusive use, there is no injury. It is freely available for use and my prior use has not infringed on that. As I have already informed you, the image is being marketed by at least three other sites and each one asserts that it has the rights to license the image. However, they are not making claims of injury. You are, and you are Getty Images, who cannot license this image. Photo Science Library is a division of Getty Images, as I have already demonstrated.

I would not have ever used the image if I had had to pay for it, so the "loss" you claim for the license I did not and would not buy is a fabrication, an imaginary concept, not based in fact. I did not cause any actual loss to the person who created the image.

I am attaching Getty Images' own publication, "Copyright 101." On page 4, it says, "“Fair Use” or “Fair Dealing” doctrine allows limited copying of copyrighted works for education and research purposes. These very limited uses do not require permission from the copyright owner."

On page 9, it says (in response to the question, "Are there any exceptions?"), "Yes. U. S. Copyright law allows certain “fair use” of an image in limited circumstances,
such as criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship and research."

I contend that my prior use of this image meets both of those criteria. My entire site is educational, providing spiritual teachings that many people have found of value to them in living their lives. Until you can provide me with specific and concrete reasons as to why my prior use of this image was NOT "fair use," there is nothing more to discuss and I will not pay you anything.

I was employed as a publishing professional for over 20 years. I am perfectly aware of copyright laws. I know that a copyright is created when the image or text or music or photo or movie, etc. is created. However, in order to be enforceable, it has to be registered with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. I also did paralegal work and have extensive background in the legal system, so please -- until and unless you can show me exactly how and why my prior use of this image is NOT fair use, please do not bother me with this matter again.

I am sending copies of this correspondence to attorneys in New York and London, FYI. They have both advised me that this demand is excessive and I should not pay you anything until and unless you can prove that this was NOT "fair use.".

(name)

Well, that's it so far. I wish I had closure on this at this point in time, because it's always there in the background, nagging at me, but being the cowards that bullies usually are, they will probably slink away and not admit that they can't take me to court on this. If they DO try again, I will post the correspondence here. If I don't, it's because I haven't gotten a reply. BTW, I don't see any way of using attachments, so I can't provide you with the documents he sent or the one I sent to him.

15

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: June 04, 2015, 10:23:56 AM »

It was 12 days before I got the next response. Note the brevity and lack of support for the assertions. It is time-stamped May 28, 2015 11:23 am. By this time, I had sent copies of all correspondence to my lawyer friend in New York and another lawyer friend in London, plus links to some of the articles I had found on the web that identified this as extortion. They both agreed that it was distortion and advised me to not pay anything until and unless LCS could provide proof of ownership of the copyright and proof that it wasn't fair use.

Sara,

I just got a response from our research and legal departments and they have confirmed that his does not fall under "fair use".
This means the case is still valid and the fee needs to be paid for the past usage of the copyrighted image.

Please review and advise.

Regards,
Matthew J. Adams
License Compliance Services, Science Photo Library Ltd
http://www.sciencephoto.com/Licence-Compliance-Services
P: 1.855.387.8725 E: [email protected]
605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104

NOTE: At no time did I ever use the phone numbers provided to discuss any part of this issue. Nothing that is not in writing is enforceable, and if it does go to court and it's only "I said" or "he said" assertions or relies on a recording that does not contain having informed the other party that you are recording the conversation and includes the beep tones, you cannot prevail on that evidence alone.  My reply is time-stamped May 28, 2015 14:17 (2:17 pm). 

Matthew,

You still have not given me any reason that this does not fall under "fair use." The burden is on you to prove this and just because you say that someone else has said that it doesn't fall under fair use is not sufficient for me and it would not be sufficient in a court proceeding. You are the complainant here and it is incumbent on you to prove that this was not "fair use." I maintain that it was. If you are relying on your research and legal departments, then they are the ones to supply those reasons, but they have not done so, either.

The image was only used for educational purposes, was only used once, and was removed as soon as you notified me that there was a problem with it. It was only one image out of 555 images on the site, and it was only one of four images used to illustrate points being made in the text on the specific page where it was used (one of 125 pages on the site, and a minor one at that).

As far as I am concerned, this IS "fair use" because of how it was used, plus the fact that there is no demonstrated market impact, and until you can show me how this is NOT fair use, I do not intend to give you any money whatsoever. Getty Images even states that it can't license that image, so how can it claim compensation for its unlicensed use?

You have also not complied with my request for proof that you/your company holds the copyright to this image or that it is even registered with the Copyright Department of the Library of Congress. Just as you asked me for documentation to prove that I was a 401(c)(3) non-profit organization (to receive a reduced "fee"), I feel it is incumbent on you to provide the documentation that shows you are entitled to seek compensation for the use of this image. You have not done so and that is also a requirement for you to fulfill.

You still have not convinced me that you or your company is entitled to anything from me, and until you do, you will not receive anything at all.

(name)

This time, Matthew was very quick to respond. His email is time-stamped May 28, 2015 16:57 (4:57 pm)It is in THIS letter that he makes material misrepresentations that could rise to provable fraud. The documents he attached did not address the issues I had raised and did not satisfy the question of copyright ownership. They did demonstrate how compartmentalized they have structured things so that they are assigning various "powers" to their individual incorporated divisions, which limits the liability of any action to that corporation and protects all of the other parts that are not directly involved. It's a giant octopus with all of these corporate "arms" and the "head" is therefore protected.

Sara,

1.      The burden is on you to prove it is fair use, not us.
2.      Provide the IRS determination letter stating your 501(c)3 status and we will reduce the fee from $510.00 to $102.00.
3.      Copyright registrations are required prior to filing suit but are not required for the work to be protected under the copyright act. We would submit any registrations to the courts at that time and the requested copyright registration(s) would be made apparent through discovery. We have chosen to try to quickly close unauthorized use cases such as this by avoiding the burden and cost of litigation. Registration(s) are not required with respect to settlement, especially when the damages we seek are based on what Science Photo Library and its represented photographers have been injured as a result of the unauthorized use and now seeks to be made whole. These damages are calculated by the lost licensing fees, including our costs of enforcement. Had there been no infringement on our represented photographers' copyrights, we would not be attempting to recover these fees and the added efforts to pursue this unauthorized use matter.

4.      Attached is the rights holder form for the image in question, along with the power of attorney.

Review and advise when you will remit payment.

Regards,
Matthew J. Adams
License Compliance Services, Science Photo Library Ltd
http://www.sciencephoto.com/Licence-Compliance-Services
P: 1.855.387.8725 E: [email protected]
605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104