Messages

271

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Seattle Times full page statement

« on: July 20, 2012, 05:20:43 PM »

Driving around Seatle in one of these might be a good way to play the "shame game."



http://bookabillboard.com/media/1394/3228/bb-us-wa-sea

272

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Yet another recent blog post

« on: July 19, 2012, 11:36:08 AM »

Well you may have missed these classics from the CEO:

“If you use a photo that wasn’t taken by you, and you don’t bother with licensing it”, clarifies Aviva – “you are performing copyright infringement”. And that is all there is to it.

WRONG! There are many instances an image doesn't require negotiating a license. Examples include: fair use, public domain images, images released under Creative Commons or Share A Like.

“But we try to settle as much as possible with smaller business owners/bloggers. Many times we end up with a simple act of cease and decease and an apology. Other times we settled for the blogger buying the license at market price. Hundreds of them become longtime returning customers afterwards.”

LOL! Seriously. LAUGH OUT frickin' LOUD. They NEVER accept a simple apology. I have NEVER EVER heard them do this. And I am fairly certain that once people are coerced into paying an extravagant fee for a license to an image they thought was free, they are not likely to return for "seconds."

By the time I got to the part where the blogger tried to scare the reader away from using public domain images, I realized he must be a shill for Getty Images.

273

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: July 18, 2012, 08:45:32 PM »

Nice. I love it when troll letter recipients bite back.

'Course GI is in a no-win situation. If they comply and send you an official notice releasing you of any liability, they risk you sharing that success story with the rest of the community. If they stay the course, it is clear that you will make it your personal mission to "out" their practices. But meanwhile I'm sure you will encourage many others to follow this path. So this could spawn dozens or hundreds of other complaint.

Poor, poor GI.

274

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Parody of the Dallas TV Intro

« on: July 18, 2012, 08:38:39 PM »

I confess. I killed J.R.

275

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Review of StopGettyImages.com

« on: July 18, 2012, 12:41:48 PM »

That's exactly what I was thinking Matt and Robert. Let a thousand sites sail. The more information out there about extortionist practices and trolling the better. I only wish this web developer would participate on here too. Would be nice to get more back-and-forth and link building going.

Good catch on the "pubic" typo. Hope they fix that soon. SG's Hare pic was the funniest, cringe-worthy pic I've seen all week.

276

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Picscout

« on: July 16, 2012, 12:23:31 PM »

Yes and SG is absolutely right, they did not care. In particular, the collection agency didn't care. But even the sales representative at IStockPhoto was not motivated to help in the least.

But I am not suggesting that you use this to try and get them off your back. I am saying if all the people that had any business dealings with iStock and/or Getty made it abundantly clear that they would not be doing business with them in the future, it may affect change. Ten people complaining to the sales department won't have much impact. But when it climbs close to 100 people I can just about guarantee that they will at least re-evaluate their business.

I just had another client this week that kept talking about getting their footage from iStock. I explained what happened to me, showed them some public domain resources, and told them if they wanted to license microstock they should use a company that doesn't threaten to sue their customers, like Pond5.com.

277

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Drops Case Against Photographer/Graphic Artist

« on: July 13, 2012, 11:38:09 AM »

Haha. Good point.

278

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The continuation of my Getty/NCS IP Solutions Saga...

« on: July 13, 2012, 11:35:19 AM »

The burden of proof lies with your company to show licensed use of the images in question.

I love how they transfer the "burden of proof" to you. Essentially they are saying "hey, it's on our web site and we claim that we are the exclusive representatives of this image." That's BS! The burden of proof is on THEM to prove that they have the rights to represent this image.

Look, I know many people seek closure. They want an end to worrying about this. But in my opinion, sending them $500 is like throwing it in the gutter. (Worse, because you are re-enforcing and financing their racket.)

Also, I stongly suggest you look into what SoylentG mentioned about NCS sending collection letters to non-debt in Canada. Their claim that they are not trying to collect, they are only trying to "assist you in a resolution with Getty" is laughable. Ask them what the "C" in NCS stands for.

279

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Picscout

« on: July 13, 2012, 11:21:30 AM »

One other think cloVSgetty:

iStockphoto is owned by Getty Images. You would think that doing business with a company affiliated with Getty would give you special consideration. Instead, Getty is trying to con you into believing they can send you to "collections."

I urge you to stop doing business with iStock. Tell your friends and other web developers too. There are other microstock companies out there that don't threaten to sue their customers. Last year I started compiling a list of public domain images on this thread:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/

One of the ways to change the way these companies conduct themselves is to be very vocal about what they are doing and to choke them off financially. You can vote with your dollars by not spending any money on Getty or iStock images.

280

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Drops Case Against Photographer/Graphic Artist

« on: July 13, 2012, 11:18:34 AM »

We really need to stop using MF as initials for Masterfile.  When I see MF, I inevitably think of a different term.  LOL.

I rather think the MF designation is appropriate for Masterfile. When I think of the people involved in their extortion racket I consider them all to be MF-ers.

I only wish Getty Images had more "colorful" initials.

281

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Drops Case Against Photographer/Graphic Artist

« on: July 12, 2012, 12:46:07 PM »

This part caught my eye:

New York attorney, Oscar Michelen, "told me that in no way was I to pay Masterfile any money. He said that they didn't have a case and he would be willing to represent me at a reduced rate, but to wait to see how the case developed before sending him any money."

Very nice and very classy. Sort of the antithesis of the troll-lawyers that are out just for a quick buck.

Oscar's my hero of the day today.

282

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 10, 2012, 08:23:42 PM »

According to tineye over 100 sites are using that image. This includes this one (near the bottom):
https://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/OFA/gGMKnl

I wonder how many of these sites have received a Getty demand letter.

Although I guess it is technically legal to collect a bunch of images together and offer them for sale, I do not think it is legal to claim that you possess the copyright on these images. This may be another piece of information prospective Getty purchasers may not be aware of. After all, how valuable is your "rights managed" library if a portion of the images are in the public domain?

Owwww.... too. much. salt.

283

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from photographer similar to Getty issue

« on: July 02, 2012, 12:53:40 PM »

If the photographer has registered this image with the US Copyright office and you verify this it sounds reasonable to me too. But I find it interesting that he is quoting multiple currencies. Where is he located, where are you located and where is the image registered?

284

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hello and I just got a letter from Getty

« on: June 29, 2012, 08:10:43 PM »

Meanwhile I am circling back to Matt and April's comment about contacting the FTC. I think this is an amazing idea and I'm jammed up through the holiday. But I have a note to myself to try and track down the best point of contact for this.

285

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hello and I just got a letter from Getty

« on: June 28, 2012, 10:02:59 PM »

The way I see it, Getty is attempting a little "Double dipping." That image was (presumably) bought and licensed by Microsoft to be used a desktop background. He licensed Windows and took a picture of his computer's screen running the software and he happened to choose an image (almost at random it sounds like) that is from Getty.

How would that be different than a Tshirt company licensing a picture of a lighthouse for use on a shirt? If you take a picture of yourself wearing this shirt and post it on the web, the only thing you are violating is good taste.

This may not be "fair use" but it is a clear cut case of de minimis infringement.