Messages

166

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Does Getty Actually Sue Anyone?

« on: November 24, 2014, 09:15:23 AM »

I am not sure they are worth writing back to.  As you said, they don't acknowledge your correspondence anyway.  Why should you acknowledge theirs?

167

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.

« on: November 23, 2014, 09:43:03 AM »

Jlorimer, if it's Getty you are speaking about, they may still take another run at you.

Sometimes they do that, hoping to catch you in a "pang of conscience" moment, or hope that you think this means they have escalated.  My advice if they do, is to show them you are willing to hit back with the fury of a Greg Troy.

Bullies tend to run and hide when you hit them right between the eyes.

168

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Gallery Stock settlement letter

« on: November 20, 2014, 03:09:12 PM »

That's interesting.

I assume Melissa Kelly works for gallery stock.  They might let photographers submit their photos with a click thru agreement.  If so, the question becomes, will that hold up in court.

To be sure it would hold up in court, I would like to see the transfer document signed by the photographer and by gallery stock.  That doesn't mean it won't hold up in court, but it might not.  There have been cases in the past where the courts didn't like the click thru rights transfer.

169

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Gallery Stock settlement letter

« on: November 20, 2014, 02:15:36 PM »

1.  Yes, they can throw out any amount they wish.  The problem is, if it got to a court of law, the judge might want to get around to license value of the image in adjudicating the case.  So your question was a good one.  Their answer BS.
2.  As to whether or not you should hire Oscar, that depends on whether you would rather deal with this yourself for the next three years, or spend $195 to have someone else do that for you.  Chances are that no one is going to take you to court over $500 either way.

By the way, they are correct that images do not require copyright registration, but I think they dodged the question you asked.  Whose photo is it?  Did they take it?  If not, did the photographer confer all copyright rights to them?  Can they prove this to you?

170

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: McCormack Threats Continue

« on: November 18, 2014, 08:52:02 AM »

Thanks for that clarification Oscar!

171

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: McCormack Threats Continue

« on: November 17, 2014, 12:32:44 PM »

• Take down the offending images.
• The Statute of Limitations is 3 years from the time Getty discovers the mis-use.  If their first letter was 2.5 years ago, you only have 6 months left.  If you have server logs, you may be able to find when picscout crawled your page which would be proof that Getty may have known of the issue more than 2.5 years ago.

It is my belief that over the years Getty has changed their policy with respect to images.  There are lots of years here between the time you got the image and the time they accused you of misuse.  In that time, Getty has gone public, then, private, at least once, and possibly more.  How they distributed images in 2004 is different than how they do so today.  They have removed access to copies of certain web pages prior to 2009 on the wayback machine.  My thought is, if I were in your shoes, I would wait out the SOL.  If Getty should file anything, I would give them hell, but I don't expect they will as, they must know the images that are frequent offenders and must suspect that they were complicit in seeding the market with those images.

Good luck.  Their is lots of good info on this site to educate yourself about Getty.  Take advantage of it and don't worry to much unless they actually do something.

172

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hacker blog discussing picscout.

« on: November 10, 2014, 02:40:15 PM »

Lucia, I am not saying that he provides a blanket way for everyone to handle a Getty violation.  I agree that some people are guilty, some are not, some who are guilty will get away with it because it is not worth pursuing, and some who are not guilty will pay Getty out of fear.

What I like is that he exposes how Getty's program works.  Knowing that is the first step to plotting a strategy for how to deal with your particular situation.  Heck, their are many attorneys, who are not in the digital image field but get asked for their opinion of what someone should do with their Getty letter.  This roadmap of how Getty works would be very helpful to these attorneys in discussing potential strategies and options for their clients.

He also exposes the fact that Getty's program is automated and accuses people before humans even look at the case.  Seeing how their program works would make it a lot easier for a judge or bar association to consider that Getty's operation may be tantamount to extortion.  The defense of "I am strongly advocating on behalf of my client (Getty) doesn't really fly when this guy proves that no humans looked at the offense until after they received a response to their troll letter.

173

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hacker blog discussing picscout.

« on: November 10, 2014, 11:08:58 AM »

Great find Lucia.  This guy's approach is the ideal resource for a "How to deal with Getty's Trolling Activities" post or even the basis for a book or white paper on the subject.

174

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Price of Photo and Demand Amount $186 different. Just pay or fight?

« on: November 05, 2014, 06:36:30 PM »

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck . . .

175

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August

« on: November 05, 2014, 09:27:49 AM »

So it looks like Getty is trying to disassociate its name from trolling while continuing their trolling activities in the names of their client/photogs - albeit at a slightly lower rate than they used to.

It looks like changes are coming to this industry.  What won't change is that those who have been burned in the past will not trust Getty in the future.

Gregg's advice is good.  Get educated.  Admit nothing.  Don't let their artificial deadlines intimidate you into acting before you are ready.  Once you have figured out how you want to deal with this, do so.  Make sure you haven't misappropriated any other images.  You don't want to find that this is only the beginning.  Take down anything you don't have a license to or that you did not take personally.

176

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anyone else had letter from Science photo library?

« on: October 30, 2014, 05:17:55 PM »

Kudos to you letsbefair, for having the permission letter and being able to reproduce it to make your claim go away.

177

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Garden World Images letter

« on: October 26, 2014, 08:44:35 PM »

I agree with everything Robert says about alleged attorney Timothy B. McCormack.  My advice to you is to do nothing more that may further incriminate you.

Oftentimes these troll letters are pfishing expeditions.  Admit nothing.  Make sure you are not using any other images that you don't hold a license or copyright to.

Avoid email or phone communication.  If you choose to engage them, do so only through registered mail.  Keep reading.  Get as educated as you can before making your decision.  Good luck in your fight.  Keep us apprised of how you make out.

178

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Schneider Rothman IP Law v. Getty Images & Zemanta Lawsuit

« on: October 23, 2014, 05:21:13 PM »

Bummer, does that mean the mistake didn't cost Getty a dime?  Or does the covenant not to sue come with a stipend?

179

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: My experience with VT and Steven Street thus far

« on: October 23, 2014, 12:05:45 PM »

It means that you cannot assume that just because an image is labeled as "free" that you can use it without a problem.

I see this as the problem.  This is where many people get trapped.  It's one thing to be in the business of digital image photography and use.  But today, software is everywhere that allows anyone to build their own web site or blog.  The neophyte user is not trained in the law.  And they don't really learn about it until they get caught.

Companies that overcharge are basically using the law to build a profit center that may be more profitable than being in the digital image licensing business.  There must be some middle ground.  We need to get our lawmakers to help find that middle ground.

Ideas:  Feel Free to contribute to this list

• Meta-data, watermarks, copyright labels of some type should be required to warn people that someone owns the rights to this image.  If they get removed, the poster who removed them could be help to higher penalties than the innocent infringer.  If someone misuses and image that never contained identifying information, and can prove where they got it from, their penalties should be much lower than the penalty for the infringer who removes identifying information.
• Require warnings about copyright law in software that is designed for neophytes that allows them to use digital images.  The warnings need to be loud and obnoxious, not hidden in the fine print of a license agreement no one reads.
• An easy resolution standard for innocent infringers = say something like the image license fee plus a $10 penalty.  Maybe the image owner can choose from immediate take down, or retro license.
• Perhaps a much harsher set of penalties for those who make it easy to take images and strip out identifying information from the images.
• Maybe browser standards that make it difficult to copy digital images from web sites without a warning about potential legal ramifications.
• Lots of photographers build web sites to let people see their work that do not allow browser copy/paste functions.  Maybe this standard should be required for those in the image business.

180

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Gigaom writes about Getty Images

« on: October 22, 2014, 09:10:44 AM »

Greg, my thoughts exactly.  I have never met a REAL lawyer who advises his client to admit guilt.