Show Posts
1156
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Extortionist
« on: August 25, 2012, 01:13:35 AM »
Well Mr. Gibbs, I find it interesting that you can come to Eli and read a few articles and determine everyone is a thief. With that astounding sense of observation and keen intellect I see how you can just take a glance at something and just like Sherlock Holmes know exactly what is going on. So there is not much more point in proclaiming my innocence and I may as well confess here and now.
I admit I went to a website owned by an individual, this individual had many picture galleries including one labeled public. When this public gallery folder was opened every image in it had the owner of the website's name along with a title for the picture. I admit I downloaded this picture labeled as belonging to the owner of the website and offered in a free public directory and used it. I then receive anextortion settlement demand letter from Getty saying I have stolen and used their image and am guilty of copyright infringement. Thinking that this great benevolent company spreading sunshine lollipops and kittens throughout the world you interned for know it is Getty has read and understands copyright law and what a de minimis infringement is I sent them a letter along with screen captures of where the image was obtained thinking that would be the end of it. Getty says that it does not matter where or how the image was obtained I am guilty and must pay $875. I do not agree with this but state I am willing to negotiate and ask for simple proof of claim since I'm being presented with an invoice and of course Getty refuses and states that they will only provide proof when they sue me. Great customer relations by the way. I then have my lawyer sent a letter stating we require proof and if a confidentiality agreement is needed to obtain the proof we would both be willing to sign one to which we receive a reply stating it takes too much time and cost too much money to send you the proof will only give it to you when we sue you.
Seeing Getty has such a wonderful track record like the Getty v Advernet case where they won by default for 35 images of allegedly infringed yet the judge ruled they would receive absolutely nothing because of issues with every single image they did not have the right to any monetary damages. How about Gettys $12 million class-action lawsuit in Israel for collecting on images they don't have rights to collect on?
Every time it is brought to Getty's attention along with proof that any infringement that occurred was innocent and nonwillful Getty states it does not matter how the image was obtained you must pay. Interestingly enough in the current case of Rock Photo v Getty where Rock Photo is suing Getty for copyright infringement of its images Getty is telling the court that if any infringement occurred it was innocent and nonwillful and as such should not have to pay. A little hypocritical? Maybe just a touch.
How about the fact that the company known as Getty which is so pure and wholesome that it makes the 99.9% pure ivory soap bar look like dirty snow alongside the road flat out bald-faced lies to the Atty. Gen., Better Business Bureau and other agencies. When I have filed complaints against Getty with these agencies including copies of all correspondence, screen captures are in evidence Getty replies that I have admitted gleaning the image a Google type Internet search which is line number one since they have proof that I provided of where the image was obtained. Next they state that they could not provide me with the proof I requested due to confidentiality agreements between themselves and their artists. Line number two as they have a copy of a letter from my lawyer stating we would sign a confidentiality agreement of our own to obtain the proof requested to continue negotiation to which I get the lame assed excuse that it takes too much time to click the print button and too much money to stick a stamp on an envelope and send it to me.
Also remember me mentioning the screen captures of where I got the image? Those were sent to Getty in in the screen captures was the web address going right to the pictures. So Getty immediately put a stop to the spread of this image being claimed to be owned by someone else and offer for free in a public art gallery right? You would think so but you would be wrong. The image was still there the last time I checked so I can only conclude Getty likes this since it helps their new business model and generates lots of revenue from those gullible enough to pay. I believe in copyright law as well as protecting the rights of artists but this is not what Getty is doing and if you are too blind to see that then you drank deeply from the corporate Kool-Aid during your time there and there is no hope of reasoning with you.
I admit I went to a website owned by an individual, this individual had many picture galleries including one labeled public. When this public gallery folder was opened every image in it had the owner of the website's name along with a title for the picture. I admit I downloaded this picture labeled as belonging to the owner of the website and offered in a free public directory and used it. I then receive an
Seeing Getty has such a wonderful track record like the Getty v Advernet case where they won by default for 35 images of allegedly infringed yet the judge ruled they would receive absolutely nothing because of issues with every single image they did not have the right to any monetary damages. How about Gettys $12 million class-action lawsuit in Israel for collecting on images they don't have rights to collect on?
Every time it is brought to Getty's attention along with proof that any infringement that occurred was innocent and nonwillful Getty states it does not matter how the image was obtained you must pay. Interestingly enough in the current case of Rock Photo v Getty where Rock Photo is suing Getty for copyright infringement of its images Getty is telling the court that if any infringement occurred it was innocent and nonwillful and as such should not have to pay. A little hypocritical? Maybe just a touch.
How about the fact that the company known as Getty which is so pure and wholesome that it makes the 99.9% pure ivory soap bar look like dirty snow alongside the road flat out bald-faced lies to the Atty. Gen., Better Business Bureau and other agencies. When I have filed complaints against Getty with these agencies including copies of all correspondence, screen captures are in evidence Getty replies that I have admitted gleaning the image a Google type Internet search which is line number one since they have proof that I provided of where the image was obtained. Next they state that they could not provide me with the proof I requested due to confidentiality agreements between themselves and their artists. Line number two as they have a copy of a letter from my lawyer stating we would sign a confidentiality agreement of our own to obtain the proof requested to continue negotiation to which I get the lame assed excuse that it takes too much time to click the print button and too much money to stick a stamp on an envelope and send it to me.
Also remember me mentioning the screen captures of where I got the image? Those were sent to Getty in in the screen captures was the web address going right to the pictures. So Getty immediately put a stop to the spread of this image being claimed to be owned by someone else and offer for free in a public art gallery right? You would think so but you would be wrong. The image was still there the last time I checked so I can only conclude Getty likes this since it helps their new business model and generates lots of revenue from those gullible enough to pay. I believe in copyright law as well as protecting the rights of artists but this is not what Getty is doing and if you are too blind to see that then you drank deeply from the corporate Kool-Aid during your time there and there is no hope of reasoning with you.
