Messages

16

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

« on: June 04, 2015, 10:22:47 AM »

It was the speed at which he was willing to reduce the fee that set off warning bells in my head, which is what prompted me to look further because it felt like it might be a scam, "playing" me. Note that he simply stated that it did not fall under "fair use," without offering any support for that statement. I was still under the impression at this point that I could use the low-res image without charge. My reply is time-stamped May 13, 2015 18:39 (6:39 pm).

Matthew,

No, I am not a registered non-profit organization. I am just one person, doing a public service at no charge to anyone. I make no money doing this and consider this usage to be "fair use," as I understand that term. I thought that instead of being so aggressively punitive, your company would like to have a link back to its site so that my readers could see your products and possibly purchase them. However, if that isn't enough, I can't pay you anything at all. I just don't have the money to do that.

If you don't feel that you can grant me retroactive permission to use the low-res file at no cost (but with attribution and a link to the sciencephoto.com site), then I will remove the image and replace it with something else. I don't understand why you are asking me to pay you a fee when I did not obtain the image from you and there was no way that I could know that your company wanted a fee for its use. It was an innocent error, which I am asking you to forgive. Can you find it in your heart to do that?
(name)

At this point, I began to dig deeper. By doing a search under "copyright violation scam," I found several helpful articles. I was still very distressed and panicking, but managed to keep my emotions under control enough to write logically and reasonably. Having seen the tip of this iceberg, I began to reverse course and turn the tables on my accuser. The first step I took after seeing that they wanted a licensing fee for the low-res image was to take it down and replace it with another. Then I wrote Matthew as soon as I had done that, providing a link to prove that the image was no longer on the page. The email is time-stamped May 13, 2015 21:18 (11:18 pm).

Matthew,

I looked at the page for this image at sciencephoto.com again and saw that it says "A license fee will be charged for any media (low or high resolution) used in your project." I had not realized that your company charged for the low resolution image, also, so I have gone ahead and removed that image from my web site page and replaced it with one from NASA. They allow it for public use without paying for a license.

You can verify that I have done this by going to the page at (link).

For what it's worth, when I did a Google image search on the word "wormhole" just now, the image your company claims to own did not come up as a result. If they would have allowed me to create a backlink to that image on their site, that would improve their SEO results and lead more people to them, but now that is moot. I hope this action on my part is enough to satisfy your company. I can do no more.

(name)

This was the next reply, time-stamped May 14, 2015 12:37 pm.

Sara,

I understand your situation, but we will not be able to waive the fee on this case. To help you I have applied placed an additional 20% (40% total) discount on your case. This means you need to pay $306.00 to close and settle.

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

It was at this point that I decided to use reverse intimidation as a tactic. In each subsequent exchange, I upped the intensity of my refusal slightly. I never made any representations that I could not defend in court. I also spent an hour on the phone with an attorney in New York (not knowledgeable in IP matters) who is a colleague in my spiritual work and who has supported me financially at times. He encouraged me, "You can do this!" and convinced me that I was on the right track to handle this myself. Remember that this entire exchange is a substitute for trying the case in court, relying on most people being afraid of the cost and complexity of actually being taken to court and therefore "settling" out of court in order to avoid that. My reply is time-stamped May 16, 2015 7:42 am

Matthew,

As I advised you in my email on Wednesday, May 13, 2015, as soon as I realized that the sciencephoto.com page for this image stated that a license fee would be charged for even a low-resolution copy, I immediately removed it from the page on my site and from the server and sent you a link so that you could verify that I had done that. I have complied with the "cease and desist" portion of the original letter I received from your company, so all that remains to be dealt with is your demand for a monetary settlement for the alleged copyright violation.

In my Tuesday, May 12, 2015 response to the original letter (dated the same day), I explained that I thought my usage of that image came under the "fair use" doctrine and quoted the relevant portion of the "Fair Use" notice as it appears on the home page of my site.

Your reply to that assertion was, "This case does not fall under "fair use". This means the case still stands and needs to be resolved."

You gave no support for that statement, and since there is no Matthew J. Adams listed in the membership roster of the Washington State Bar Association, I have to assume that you are NOT an attorney licensed to practice law in Washington State. Therefore, I have to question both the authority and the validity of your statement and request you to substantiate it further.

To evaluate fair use of copyrighted material, the courts consider four factors:

1. the purpose and character of the use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of copying, and
4. the market effect.

(17 U.S.C. 107)

To assist you in replying to those individual points in order to justify your statement that my usage did NOT qualify under "fair use," let me state that my site has a total of 125 pages, contains a total of 555 images, and the page in question contains a total of four images, only one of which was the one you allege did not qualify under the "fair use" doctrine. I had made use of a single instance of that image and that image has now been removed.

If you cannot satisfactorily demonstrate that this was NOT "fair use," then there is nothing further to discuss. I will consider the entire matter closed, and I will need you to acknowledge that in writing.

Regarding your demand for a monetary settlement, based on some research I did on this matter, I want to call your attention to the following facts:

When I did a reverse image search on tineye.com, I discovered that this image (#123737816) is the property of Getty Images. The image is watermarked GettyImages, Science Photo Library. That page also contains the following disclaimer: "Sorry, we are not able to license media #123737816 due to country, company and/or publication restrictions," so it appears that the alleged "owner" of the image (Getty Images) is NOT able to license it.

The company you appear to be working for is Getty Images (your email address is @lcservices-inc.com, which is registered to Getty Images at the same street address you list for yourself, below), so I have to question how you can demand a monetary settlement for an image that your employer says it cannot license. Your department is called "license compliance services," so if Getty cannot provide a license for the image, how can it demand a settlement for its unlicensed use?

The sciencephoto.com domain is registered at the same street address as sciencephoto.co.uk: 327-329 Harrow Road, London, W9 3RB, GB. The registrant is listed as Science Photo Library, the same organization mentioned in the GettyImages watermark I mentioned above. Putting that together (equating sciencephoto.com with Getty Images as the "parent" company), I have to conclude that sciencephoto.com cannot license this image for use in the US, either.

Further, when I did a reverse image search through Google images, I found that visualphotos.com claims ownership of this image and offers it for licensing under a number of usage categories, none of which include exclusive licensing, so no loss of market can be claimed for the kind of usage I was making of the image before I removed it from my site and server. The image shown on that page is watermarked VisualPhotos and has a stock number that is very similar to the one used on the sciencephoto.com site.

In attempting to obtain a quote for a license for that image from visualphotos.com, I discovered that yet a THIRD site is offering this same image for licensing. The image shown on that page is watermarked ScienceSource. It has a stock number that is substantially different than the numbers used at sciencephoto.com and visualphotos.com.

In view of the above (including your unsupported rejection of my "fair use" assertion and the absence of any proof from you that you or your company actually own a registered copyright for this image that is valid under US copyright laws), I am not convinced that you or your company are entitled to any monetary settlement whatsoever.

Therefore, please supply me with 1) a detailed explanation as to why and how my prior usage of this image did not qualify as "fair use" and 2) documented proof that you or your company holds the copyright on this image and is therefore entitled to seek settlement for its use. A scanned copy (pdf) of the actual copyright registration for this particular image, issued by the Copyright Office department of the Library of Congress, will suffice. If you cannot supply both of these items, please acknowledge in writing that you do not have a valid claim for a monetary settlement and that you are closing this case without seeking further action or compensation from me.

Yours truly,
(name)

17

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

« on: June 04, 2015, 10:21:01 AM »

The first letter I got was dated Tuesday, May 12, 8:01 am (server time stamp). It's the usual, unsigned form letter, emphasis in 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

May 12, 2015

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION - Case Number: 374455489
_________________________________________________

1. Our represented imagery is/was used on your website.

2. Our records do not show a valid license for this use of our imagery.

Your action is needed within 10 business days to resolve this matter:

    Send us your valid license / authorization ([email protected])
    Or settle online: https://LCS.sciencephoto.com/4S0T4P3W

For inquiries: +1 855 387 8725
More details can be found below.


Attn: Operation Terra

Science Photo Library Ltd., a global provider of digital imagery, has noticed its represented imagery being used on your company's website. According to our records there is no valid license issued to your company for the use of the image(s).

Using imagery of Science Photo Library Ltd. without a valid license is considered copyright infringement and entitles Science Photo Library Ltd. to seek compensation for infringing uses. (Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code)

To view the image(s) in question together with proof evidencing your use of these images on your website, go to: https://LCS.sciencephoto.com/4S0T4P3W

As an example, see below Science Photo Library Ltd.'s image "r9800128" as used on your website:
Original image  |  Proof of use


TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER - (Case Number: 374455489)

You are requested to take action within 10 business days of the date of this email, as follows:

    If your company has a valid license / authorization for the use of the imagery, please email the license purchase / authorization information to [email protected]

    If your company does not have a valid license / authorization for the use of the imagery:

        A $510.00 settlement payment should be remitted (see payment options below).
        We are willing to offer you, ex gratia, a 20% discount off the abovementioned settlement payment amount, provided that you submit payment within 10 business days of the date of this email. Failure to do so will result in the settlement amount being returned to its original amount upon the expiration of the aforesaid time period

        Cease using the imagery immediately

REMITTANCE PAYMENT OPTIONS

    Online payment: You can remit your payment online at:
    https://LCS.sciencephoto.com/4S0T4P3W

    Check payment: You can remit payment by check to:
    License Compliance Services, Picscout Inc.
    605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98104, United States

    Please include Reference: 4S0T-4P3W with check payment.

Alternatively, you may contact us at +1 855 387 8725
IMPORTANT NOTES

    Ceasing use of the imagery does not release your company of its responsibility to pay for the imagery already used. As the unauthorized use has already occurred, payment for that benefit is necessary

    You may have been unaware that this imagery was subject to license. However, copyright infringement can occur regardless of knowledge or intent. While being unaware of license requirements is unfortunate, it does not change liability

    Find further information in the FAQ section at https://LCS.sciencephoto.com/


Science Photo Library Ltd. is committed to protect the interests, intellectual property and livelihoods of its contributors.
We believe that prompt cooperation will benefit all concerned parties. If you would like to continue to use the imagery in question, or if you believe you have mistakenly received this letter, please contact us by email at [email protected], or call +1 855 387 8725 and we will assist you.

This letter is without prejudice to Science Photo Library Ltd.’s rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.

Sincerely,

Science Photo Library Ltd., License Compliance Services.
[email protected]
http://www.sciencephoto.com/Licence-Compliance-Services

At first, I was under the impression that they offered a low-res version of this image at no charge. That explains part of my reply to them (see below), but when I later discovered that they wanted a licensing fee for even the low-res version, I took the image down immediately and informed them of having done so. In this first reply, I asserted fair use and inability to pay. My reply is time stamped May 12, 2015 9:10 am. I attached a copy of the original image I had used.

I was not aware that this image was one that you owned the rights to. I am attaching the original image I found on a web search using the word "wormhole." It is not the image as it exists in your image library #R980/0128. It was not watermarked and no source was given for the image on the search. Apparently someone else had already made use of your image and I was down the line from them in making use of it. I did not obtain it directly from you.

I have generally only used images for which I had purchased a license, but occasionally have made use of some images that I can't determine the ownership of under "fair use" laws. There is a "fair use" notice to that effect at the bottom of the home page of my site. It says, in part, "They [the images] are being used for nonprofit educational purposes and constitute an extremely minor portion of the content of this site. Therefore, I feel they constitute "fair use," as defined under Title 17, U.S. Code, sections 107-118." I always give attribution whenever possible.

The original image I found was 440 x 337 pixels. I altered it to 525 x 450 pixels, the size as it appears on my site. This is smaller than your definition of a low-res file on the page for #R980/0128. I chose this image because it visually illustrates a point being made in the article, and would be happy to attribute it to you as the source (with a link to your site) if that would satisfy your needs for recognition as the license-holder. If you insist on my taking it off the site, I will do that and use something else instead. Alternatively, I note that a low-res file can be requested and would like you to consider this my (retroactive) request for permission to use this as a low-res file (at no charge).

In any event, I am not able to pay you any fees in connection with this. I have no income to speak of, no savings, no assets of any kind, and am currently on welfare for my medical costs (Medicaid). I am 73 years of age and depend on donations from my readers for my ongoing livelihood. The annual hosting fee for the website was donated by a group of my readers in Turkey. I am asking you to waive any and all fees for the use of this image, and spare us both unnecessary trouble and distress. I totally respect your copyright and apologize for inadvertently infringing on it.

Please let me know if I can continue using the image as is, with the addition of an attribution and link to your site, or whether you require that I take it off my site and replace it with something else. A prompt reply will be appreciated.

Yours truly,
(name, phone number)

I got a reply the next day, time-stamped May 13, 2015 17:26 (5:26 pm). It was written in much smaller type and this time was signed by a Matthew J. Adams. Mr. Adams always uses very small type, which is a subtle way of conveying the "official" nature of his remarks. He is also very short on details at all times, withholding any information that is not absolutely essential to state his position.

Sara,

This case does not fall under "fair use". This means the case still stands and needs to be resolved. Are you a NPO? If so, please send me your IRS determination letter stating your 501(c)3 status and I will reduce the fee from $510.00 to $102.00 to close and settle.

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

18

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

« on: June 04, 2015, 10:19:52 AM »

Stinger,

Given what I have read on the web, I am not so sure that it would be difficult to find a lawfirm willing to take on Getty. The number of people who have been coerced into settling is probably in the many thousands by this time, and the damages (if awarded) would be quite large, making it attractive to handle the case on a contingency basis. I agree that class action suits are time-consuming, energy-sucking, and lengthy to put together and delays occur during the processing through the courts through counteractions and appeals. It can be easily two years or more, and given that there are signs of economic collapse looming this fall, it might not be feasible at all. If times were more normal, I think it would be worth pursuing, but times most certainly NOT normal, despite what the MSM would have you believe.

Jerry Witt, the image in question was not used in the book, only on that single web page.

Since you both have indicated interest in seeing the correspondence, I will post it, but because of the length and character limitations, I will have to post it in consecutive parts.

19

Getty Images Letter Forum / The best defense ...

« on: June 02, 2015, 07:58:57 AM »

... is a good offense. I am new here and have joined because I feel there is strength in numbers and I wanted to suggest a way to turn the tables on Getty Images so that they are eventually prevented from continuing their present practices regarding these Demand Letters and the exorbitant amounts of damages they seek to extract from frightened recipients.

To begin with, I want to share my own experience at their hands, in case any of the things I have done will be helpful to anyone else. I have benefited from the many sites that offer help on this issue and would like to "pay it forward" if I can.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
MY EXPERIENCE

By way of background, I created the first version of my web site in June 1999. At the time, I was supporting myself through doing book production services for publishers and authors and had even been a managing editor for a small New Age publisher, so I was keenly aware of copyright law and issues at the time I created my site. The site has always provided its content at no charge to anyone, and downloadable copies have always been provided in printer-friendly format. My entire life has been about service and this web site is totally about service, as well.

When people wrote to me and asked for the material in book form because their printouts were unwieldy and falling apart, I obtained donations for printing the books, using my own skills to produce them. When my site provided support for people following 9/11, people asked if they could talk to others of like mind, so I created a private online forum to meet that need. I have not asked for donations for the forums service since November 2014, and scrape by each month through the generosity of others who give me donations because they wish to support my work in the world.

There have never been any ads or links to other sites at any time, and at present, there is only one book (a "Combined Works" edition) described on the site. There are no order forms, shopping carts, or other commercial trappings whatsoever. The description of the book links to the Amazon.com page about the book so that people can "Look Inside the Book" to see the annotated table of contents and read sample material. I carry no inventory and do not sell the book myself and I do not have an affiliate relationship with Amazon.com. The book is produced on demand from booksellers through LSI, and I have priced the book such that it barely covers printing costs in order to keep the price as low as possible.  This is a totally educational site, offered as a public service and there is no income that accrues from the site.

I have always tried to make use of either licensed RF images or ones that were offered at no charge. In recent times, the subject matter has sometimes required the use of images I obtained through a web search to illustrate a given point being discussed. There are very few of these, perhaps 20 out of a total of 555 images on the site, and I both give attribution when I can and have a "Fair Use" notice at the bottom of my home page. I was therefore understandably blindsided (and terrified) when I received that first letter from LCS. The amount of money they were asking for was impossible for me to pay, but it wasn't until I got back a reply to my response that I suspected something more was going on than what it seemed to be on the surface. I dug deeper and did a search on "copyright infringement scam" and realized the magnitude of what was going on and just how many people were being attacked.

The first sites I found were very helpful in both defining the problem and offering tactics for dealing with it. The most important suggestion was to request proof that there was a registered copyright behind the demand. I have since learned that it also has to be an EXCLUSIVE right, pursuant to Title 17 Chapter 5 USC:

"§ 501. Infringement of copyright
(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it."

In my particular case, neither Getty Images or its subsidiary Science Photo Library, has an exclusive right to the image they are trying to collect compensation for. In addition, I have copies of gettyimages.com and gettyimages.de pages for this image that clearly state (in English and German, respectively), ""Sorry, we are not able to license media #123737816 due to country, company and/or publication restrictions." (Here's the link to the page in English.) Getty Images can't license the image, and I found three other companies offering it for licensing, each with their own watermark that shows them as the "owner" of the image. The bottom line of this is that Getty Images (or their wholly owned LCS division) CAN'T proceed against me in court for the unlicensed use of this particular image.

That's a great relief to discover, but I am still very disturbed about the entire experience and it's not over yet, by a long shot. I am still relying on an assertion of fair use protection, which they continue to deny without providing support for their denial. The burden is on them to prove that they are entitled to compensation, and so far, I have gotten the same boilerplate replies that so many others have been given and they are not sufficient, so I am now waiting for their response to my most recent reply to them.

I will be very surprised if they simply drop the issue, but enough has gone back and forth that I am convinced that there are grounds for both criminal action against them (for extortion, fraud, and unfair business practices) and a class-action suit (civil litigation) asking for 1) injunctive relief (preventing them from making these demands if they don't already possess an exclusive right to the image itself); 2) restitution (paying back all of the sums they extracted illegally whenever they did not possess that exclusive right), and 3) punitive damages for causing emotional distress.

There are enough people who have been affected by this to make for a very solid base for a class action suit. I also have done some research into the various authorities that COULD prosecute the criminal charges, but I do not have confidence that they would on an individual basis, so there, too, a case would have to be made for the large number of victims being harmed through these illegal practices. They ARE illegal because they rely on fraudulent assertions of right, denials of the victim's assertions that are not based in law, and fabrication of grounds not based in fact, such as alleging injury that is not proven. They know that this can only be determined in a court setting and they are using fear to intimidate people into "settling" outside of court, using tactics that are illegal and meet the definitions for extortion and fraud.

That being said, it is much more difficult to PROVE criminality "beyond a reasonable doubt" than it is to prove liability through a "preponderance of evidence," the standard for civil litigation.

We live in times when the large corporations may be fined, but are "too big to jail," and Getty Images has created firewalls for itself that limit liability through its many corporations that it then "assigns" to handle its business. I don't have any objection to any company conducting its business fairly and I do feel that copyrights should carry some enforceable protection for the creator of the work. Under US copyright law, the copyright has to be registered with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress to be enforceable, and in my case, I got the usual boilerplate response to my request for proof of copyright:

"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."

They don't have a registered copyright and they don't have exclusive rights to this image, so they have no legal standing to claim compensation from me for use of this image. As soon as I realized that there was a problem with the image, I removed it from the site and the server and replaced it with another that is public domain. I also sent LCS proof of my having done so. I would NOT have purchased a license for this image even if I had been aware of it as being a licensable property. It just wasn't that good or important to me. It was a minor image to illustrate ONE point being made on a minor page, one of 125 pages in the site, and one of four images on that page.

If it would be helpful to anyone here for me to post the entire correspondence I have had with LCS to illustrate the tactics I used at each step, I will be happy to do so. However, my purpose in coming here is to "rally the troops" to take this bully down and prevent them from being able to continue their illegitimate attacks and from profiting from them. I am quite sure there are enough injured parties to collectively prove harm, but someone (not me) will have to take the responsibility to organize the effort and engage a lawfirm willing and able to proceed on a contingency basis. I will be 74 years old on Saturday, and do not not have either the energy or the inclination to make this a long-running focus for my life, so I am not the one to do this, but as long as I am here, I can offer comments and support.