Messages

166

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Thoughts on my Response to Getty Images. Next step.

« on: June 08, 2013, 09:44:58 PM »

As I was reading DvG's post, I was getting ready to write a lengthy point by point response, but Jerry, SG and lucia nailed it perfectly.  Getty would not be able to claim a penny above actual damages in a US lawsuit as the image was not registered in the US copyright office at the time of the alleged infringement. Therefore, if you believe the license fee is $350, then you should say they can only get $350. But contrary to DvG's assertions, the license fee is not the "be all and end all" of  the damages issue. Many infringement cases involving licensing fees, say that is a factor for assessing damages but that courts should also look at the availability of other similar works and their costs, the use made by the alleged infringer and even whether the infringer would have paid the licensing fee demanded. While Getty does not have to provide the items demanded  by the alleged infringer, I don't think a Federal court would be very open to this type of pre-suit negotiation. They would likely fault Getty for expecting people to hand over money to settle a claim without seeing the basic elements of their claim. It's like having someone who rear-ended your car pay what ever you say your estimate says without showing him the estimate or telling him who did the body work.     

167

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 09, 2013, 10:06:27 PM »

Good result - just a time suck and brain drain

168

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Jupiter Images

« on: May 09, 2013, 10:05:23 PM »

Edward - talk to your own lawyer of course, but be aware that few people have the specific knowledge of these types of claims and most lawyers will charge you more that $195 just to look into the matter and give you guidance. I can't tell you how many people have come to the forum or contacted me or Matt Chan after their lawyer told them to pay up whatever Getty wanted. I agree with Greg and Jerry - a simple letter to Tim making out your claim of a license in perpetuity. While it would be better to have it tied directly to an image, at least its proof you  had a license from clip art. Getty can check whether that image was ever available on clip art. Either way, don;t fret, I see no reason why you will be sued over this use

169

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved Letter from getty

« on: May 09, 2013, 10:00:14 PM »

Yes , next you will hear from NCS recovery or Tim MCCormack

170

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter Received But No Such Image

« on: May 09, 2013, 09:58:56 PM »

Ditto

171

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image

« on: May 09, 2013, 09:57:51 PM »

I reached out to this firm when they first got the lawsuit filed and offered my assistance at a low rate and directed them to this site. They did not contact me back. The way that it settled it appears that they made what's called an offer of judgment. In federal practice if you offer in writing that you are willing to let the other side enter a judgment against you for a certain amount, you will get all your legal fees back from that point forward if the other side loses or wins less than you offered. I used that tactic to quickly get rid of Federal lawsuit in Florida brought by George Riddick of Imageline (long story, with its own, now dead forum). The reason I think the Herzog firm used this tactic is that if it was a pure settlement, normally the terms and the amount are confidential and a "consent judgment" is not entered. This is what it looks like when the other side receives the offer of judgment and accepts it; you simply enter a consent judgment for the amount offered and the case ends.  If I may toot my own horn a bit, in the Florida Imageline case, even though Riddick's lawyers accepted our nuisance value offer of judgment, I still negotiated a confidentiality agreement and treated it like a settlement so there would not be a judgment against my client.  This firm (for its credit line or any other similar need) will have to report that in 2013 a judgment for $5,000 was entered against it in Federal court. 

172

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: CLOSE business down and move on?

« on: May 09, 2013, 09:46:48 PM »

Don't close your business down for this claim. Also closing a business down with an active lawsuit or claim against it can expose the owners of the business to personal liability.  Its one thing to let a business run down to zero  but be kept active on the state records, its another to dissolve or close out a corporation with an active claim. Read through the forums get educated and you will see that there are a variety of less drastic ways to deal with this.

173

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images in Canada

« on: May 03, 2013, 02:07:18 PM »

We're on it!

174

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: May 03, 2013, 02:06:06 PM »

Getty usually sends it to an attorney (Tim McCormack) as part of round three in communication.  They send their form letter by Fedex because they think it will make you believe they must be serious about his.

175

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter Received But No Such Image

« on: May 03, 2013, 01:59:00 PM »

That nasty little PicScout bot can find even part of a Getty image. So if someone altered the image with the copyright holder's permission and then you used that altered version of the image, that still could count as infringement.  But the value of the infringement is what we disagree with on this site 99% of the time. They will likely not sue over a single image but you can also check out all the videos and forum posts about the issue to get better educated on the topic now that you have resolved the image issue.

176

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 03, 2013, 01:54:01 PM »

Why hadn't I thought of that before?

177

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new image bot/spider/scraper

« on: April 27, 2013, 03:42:25 PM »

To my knowledge, Getty does not download every picture it finds onto their servers.  PicScout does the search without having to do that. Looking at images to determine if they are owned or licensed by Getty would not constitute infringement as it is not really a "use" never mind whether its a fair use.   

178

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Getty letter without any reference to the image(s) in question

« on: April 27, 2013, 03:40:12 PM »

That's glitch I have not heard of before  so we should label it #gettyflubs. They can hardly ask you to pay for infringing an image when they wont tell you which image it is. 

179

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Complaint with BBB

« on: April 27, 2013, 03:32:48 PM »

It's also good to have another avenue to express dissatisfaction at Getty's business methods.  I am not surprised they came back with the "I hear no defense to infringement" argument. They have hummed that same song since we started ELI and they claim that we "support infringement." Its a nice way to distract from the extortionate methods they employ to enforce their rights ( if they have the rights).

180

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: April 27, 2013, 03:30:19 PM »

Getty continues to stretch the envelope of what constitutes "use" of an image. Having an image displayed through an RSS feed is not having an image on your server nor is it you "using " the image at all. Don't engage them too much, the letter seems fine. Also you should register a DMCA agent for future issues