Messages

391

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 05, 2012, 10:31:46 PM »

First, welcome to the forum Nick. I think it's great to have someone from the other side of the pond that is doing something similar to what's being done at ELI. I just now got caught up on the thread.

I just want to respond to the heart of the issue which involves tweaking #2 on your letter and admitting anything having to do with how and where you obtained this image. Although I agree 100% with Matt that in front of a judge it would be imperative to be honest, I see no advantage to spelling this out for your adversary.

That's an important word. Adversary. These people aren't your buddies. They are not your business associates. In fact they have proven time and time again that they have NO interest in converting you to a customer. The moment they decided to calculate a rather large price tag and wrap it up in a threat of legal action, they became your adversary. Their is absolutely no advantage to be had in trying to generate goodwill with them. Really, from the moment you receive a letter your job is to make things as challenging as possible for them.

Admitting you took the image from whatever source does not do this. In fact it does the opposite of this.

In my opinion you need to run parallel lines of defense in dealing with GI / MF / HAN. You need to make it abundantly clear that you are going to make this as difficult and as time consuming and as painful for them as you possibly can. You have to make it clear that you are willing to take it to the mat if need be. But on the other hand, you need to be in a position that should this go in front of a judge, you can make the case that you tried very hard to make sure they owned the image, that they had the right to threaten you and then, if that were the case, come up with a fair settlement.

Again, there is a time and place for everything. But any admission of culpability or mistake seems like it should be waaaay down the road.

392

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Don't get mad, get even

« on: March 05, 2012, 09:46:39 PM »

This is brought up frequently. Do a search for "class action suit" on here and you'll se a lot of threads.

I'm not a lawyer, but the question generally seems to be, "what are you going to sue for?" It might seem like a "frivolous waste of our time" to us, but that's not really actionable. And from their perspective they are trying to protect their IP. Now if (or when?) someone gathers evidence of fraud… then we are in business.

393

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Yet another letter recipient

« on: March 05, 2012, 09:38:55 PM »

As you say, it would be the sales record which would determine the current rate and if there have been no sales then there is no current rate. I'm left wondering what sort of business model is it that allows a company to set it's prices at a level that no-one is ever going to pay. I can certainly find similar photos at around the £10 mark from other places including iStockphoto.

I think most of us believe that it is this exact shell game that is going to bring this practice to an end. Sooner or later someone is going to take this fight all the way to court. GI will have to document how many images were actually licensed at this inflated rate. In the cases where the image is mundane, like a shopping cart, I'm willing to bet it is ZERO. Then GI is certainly going to have some 'splaining to do.

394

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Yet another letter recipient

« on: March 05, 2012, 02:40:27 AM »

This sounds like an ideal strategy. For #4, should they provide proof of registration , then I would require sales records for that image to prove that is the "going rate." (Which, I believe, it is not).

When they do come back at you with #5, I think it is important to just reiterate what you require. Meanwhile it is worth some effort on your part to try and track down sites offering that image for free. Tineye.com may help here. If you can't find the exact image, find similar microstock examples.

395

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Am I doing this right?

« on: March 02, 2012, 09:53:08 PM »

So Getty burned you for a couple hundies? Well I guess the peace of mind was worth it. Just please do us a favor, as your business grows, please make a commitment to not do business with these creeps, okay?

The only way to change their behavior is to stop funding them by paying outrageous demands (too late) and stop being a customer. For your information iStockPhoto is also owned by Getty. There is a list of Public Domain and stock companies NOT affiliated with copyright trolls in this forum. And of course you can always hire your own photographer or shoot your own stuff.

396

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: a quick share from another forum

« on: March 02, 2012, 09:40:29 PM »

But see, that is the problem with some of these nimrod photographers. Instead of being appreciative that someone enjoyed their work, they want to sue. And for what? Did the lady from Chase make a buck? Did Chase? "Real" artists are happy to have their work exhibited and appreciated. Sure, if someone is using it to make a buck, the artist wants a slice too. But this was purely someone going "Hey, I liked your work and I showed it to some people."

I hate greedy people that don't "get it." And you can tell all the photographers on that forum I said so.

397

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: SoylentGreen's Strategy Summary Guide

« on: February 28, 2012, 01:08:36 PM »

This is amazing work by Soylent Green and I missed it the first time around as well. Thank you for re-posting it Matt. This is sure to help out any new letter recipients.

398

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How to delete your Google Browsing History before new policy

« on: February 27, 2012, 04:06:55 PM »

Thank you for that info buddahpi. I have a few Google accounts and I think it is worth it for the sake of privacy. That site was up for me, but should if go down again, it outlined a few simple steps:

1. Go to the google homepage and sign into your account.
2. Click the dropdown menu next to your name in the upper-right hand corner of your screen.
3. Click accounts settings
4. Find the "Services section"
5. Under "Services" there is a sub-section that reads "View, enable, disable web history." Click the link next to it that reads: "Go to Web History."
6. Click on "Remove all Web History"
When you click on "Remove all Web History," a message appears that says " Web History is Paused." What this means is that while Google will continue gathering and storing information about your web history it will make all data anonymous, that is, Google will not associate your Web History information with your online accounts and will therefore be unable to send you customized search results.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320137#ixzz1ncPOlDJI

399

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: an interesting comment on one of the posts

« on: February 25, 2012, 04:28:03 AM »

Thank you for sharing this information. I think this will prove very helpful to anyone that decides to stand up to HAN.

400

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bringing this to the media

« on: February 24, 2012, 06:54:57 PM »

See THAT would be cool. If several hundred webmasters did this for one day, it COULD make a difference. AND it could get media attention. I bet a lot of medium-sized businesses have been hit by Getty and MF and if it were easy enough, I bet many would be up for swapping out their images. I know I would do it and I have about a falf dozen clients that may be up for it.

It would be like when Wikipedia and Digg went "Dark" to protest SOPA and PIPA. But in this case, the site wouldn't go dark, just the images.

401

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bringing this to the media

« on: February 24, 2012, 06:46:32 PM »

I agree with Buddahpi. The first order of business is to get your house in order. Don't worry about getting the word out to the media at this point. Do a thorough audit of your web properties. Go through the pages and remove or replace all images.

If that is not doable in the next few days, you may not need to take the entire site down. I'm sure there is a bit of css and javascript that would allow you to replace all instances of the img tag with a graphic of your own choosing. I would pick something like the circle with the diagonal line through it and add type saying "Image Removed pending copyright review." I would also take snapshots of your sites like this so you would be able to show a good-faith attempt at heading this off in the highly unlikely case any of this goes to trial.

You want to get the word out about what's going on with the stock agencies? this is a good way to do it. When people see your site stripped of images they will ask why and you can open up a dialog about what happened.

Meanwhile, if you do plan to purchase images, be advised that Getty owns iStockPhoto. So since you presumably no longer wish to do business with the company that is threatening to sue you, I would recommend Pond5.com or Depositphotos.com since both of them are independents. You can get images for a buck to 3 bucks each. In any case, keep your paperwork.

You could also use public domain and GPL-licensed stock for free. I put together a list of Public Domain and Free stock sites at:  http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/
But none of these sites indemnify you in any way. So there is some risk there. You would need to document where these images come from.  A third possible solution is to start shooting your own pics.

Once you get your sites straightened out, I think a campaign to make people aware of it IS in order. I just don't think you will be able to hit the big media outlets right away. I think awareness of this issue would be a grassroots effort. First individuals and small groups, then user groups and trade organizations and then industry-specific magazines (I could see an Inc. Magazine article "Is Your Website a Ticking Money Bomb?")

I know we'd all like to see a big expose on 20/20 or 60 minutes. But I think this issue is too small right now, even though it doesn't seem like it to us.

402

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Don't get mad, get even

« on: February 24, 2012, 05:12:04 PM »

Hey Stinger,

I signed your petition and I wish you luck. I wish you would make two little changes to your site. I wish you would clearly spell out why you require an email address and how you intend to use it. I also wish that after you submit your signature the Thank you was more prominent and the part where you hit people up for a donation was a little more subtle.

403

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My letter Experience

« on: February 23, 2012, 11:35:49 PM »

Right. That's a very good point, Peeved. What SG and Matt have been talking about is the idea that you're not gonna out-lawyer a lawyer. And SG is right that if you hope a discussion with them is going to get them to change their mind, then you are misinformed. All you can do is throw up obstacles and demand information that MIGHT get them to question whether going after this yahoo is really worth it.

404

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Masterfile Letter...Let's get started.

« on: February 23, 2012, 01:12:49 PM »

I feel bad for you because NASA provides some stunning shots of the earth and they are free to use. Unfortunately you used one that MF claims to hold the copyright on. But if you think about it, How did MF come to hold the copyright to this image? THEY didn't finance a space expedition to get the shot. We taxpayers did. I doubt NASA would (or even COULD) grant an exclusive license to this imagery. I suppose it is possible that it is some artist's rendering or from a third-party (USSR?).

In any case I would be very suspicious of any claim of exclusive rights to an image of Earth from outer space. And would require detailed information about how they came to have such an image.

405

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My Client Received the "Infamous" Letter

« on: February 23, 2012, 12:57:56 PM »

Yeah at this point they won't likely have anything to do with you. To me, the best option in this case is to completely explain the situation to your client, and offer to pay Oscar's fee on her behalf. The trolls will need to stop contacting her directly and from what I've heard 98 times out of 100 Oscar eats their lunch.

You might also want to search the threads because there are some hinky things with Getty's Stone collection. Seems many of those images were originally available on royalty-free buy-out CDs before Getty acquired the collection.