Show Posts
496
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Success in My Battle With Getty -- By Doing Nothing
« on: August 28, 2013, 04:13:46 PM »
My comments appear in-line in bold.
Congrats on passing the SOL. Your story is very similar to mine. The one difference is a point I am going to respectfully disagree on.
I think it is worth it to respond one time with a fair offer to settle and a request for proof of ownership. It only costs a little education time and a stamp (or a nominal legal fee if you want to get Oscar to make sure it is done right). Of course it will likely be rejected. But in the [probably unlikely in most cases] event that you land in court it might go a long way in showing you took this seriously and tried to resolve it in good faith.
And this is where our opinions begin to merge again. Any further back and forth and arguing is probably just a waste of time and energy in my opinion.
Congrats again.
Reasonable minds can, of course, differ on this point. I don't think it matters much in any case. With that being said, here was my reasoning for not responding at all.
1. I don't think whether you take the demand seriously or try to resolve it in good faith matters at all in a courtroom setting. In most circumstances in federal court, the efforts of the parties to resolve a legal dispute are not even admissible, under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Getty would not try to introduce your settlement letter (unless you admitted to infringement), and there would be no purpose for you to offer it in your case. The issues in a copyright trial (including whether Getty held a valid copyright, whether you infringed that copyright, whether that infringement was willful, and what the damages should be) have little to nothing to do with whether you offered to settle the case. I think it's nlikely that your settlement letter ever makes it into evidence at trial, and even if it does, it is of minimal relevance.
While it is extremely rare for Getty to take anyone to court they have done it including two cases just recently, one of which was over a single image. General consensus around here is they chose that case carefully as it was a slamdunk and would allow them to reference in future demand letters to frighten people.
I believe that the federal court would look at all evidence presented and it very well may make a difference if you can show you tried in good faith to settle the matter as opposed to Getty showing up and saying here is our registration for the image, copies of the letters that were sent which all went unanswered and ignored. If they take you to court it will be shown the address the letters were sent to was your address.
Again just my opinion and everyone must choose the right option for them.
2. However, if you write Getty a letter, it demonstrates to them that you are taking this seriously. That just shows them that you're "a live one"-- you're concerned enough that you've started researching the issue, bought a stamp, written a letter, and offered to pay them. That's their bread and butter. I would imagine that the majority of people that wind up paying Getty off are people who wrote a letter just like that. While I have no idea what their internal processes are, it would not surprise me if the people who get more letters, more emails, and contacted by debt collectors are the people who have indicated that they are nervous or taking this seriously.
Well I do take the matter of copyright infringement seriously but I refuse to pay anyone presenting me a bill without proof.
Besides providing hardcopy proof of your good faith efforts it also shows Getty's hand, that this is just a business model and tantamount to legalized extortion. What open, honest, reputable and ethical company would tell someone they just presented a bill to I will only show you that you owe this bill to us when we sue you? I believe the courts will take note of this if it is presented properly. The courts are showing they have very little patience for trolls who abuse the law.
I can only speak for myself as to my internal processes, if you send me letters threatening to take me to court and sue me unjustly, I personally will respond to you quickly, publicly and effectively within the legal means available to me and to the best of my abilities to end the harassment while showing others who may be in the same situation you can fight back. I provide this thread is an example:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/
3. On the other hand, if you never respond at all, Getty has no idea whether they even have the right address for you. Maybe the business is defunct, maybe the owner has retired or died, or maybe you put down a fake address when you registered your website with GoDaddy. The less they hear from you, the less incentive they have to try and pressure you. They'll just put your address into their automated mailer serice, send you a form letter every three months, and do nothing further.
These are all very good points and it has been shown that this is definitely a valid strategy as well.
4. Finally, there's no reason to take this seriously in most cases. If somebody sends me a letter telling me that I owe them hundreds of dollars for resurfacing my driveway, but provide no proof that they actually resurfaced my driveway, I'm not about to write them a check. Same thing here. Absent any proof that they own the copyright they accuse your of infringing, it's no different than a Nigerian scam email asking you for money. File it away, ignore it, and move on with your life.
I concur with your sentiments about resurfacing the driveway but the main difference from the Nigerian email scam and Getty'sextortiondemand letter program is that the Nigerian scam just send emails out trying to get people to send the money whereas Getty sends emails out along with screenshots showing use of an image.
While I am 100% on board with no money for no proof, this is one of the major contentions with Getty along with the unreasonable sums asked for. Remember that copyright infringement is a statutory offense meaning it doesn't matter how the image got where it was unless it was fair use, licensed or you are given permission from the owner to use it then there is an infringement. As I stated above any honest, reputable and ethical company would listen to the letter recipients and take extenuating circumstances into account and charge accordingly. One example out of many for this would be someone who knowingly takes and uses images on their website because they don't want to take the time, trouble and expense of licensing their images is not the same thing as someone who in good faith hired someone to design a website and was told everything is licensed. Yet in Getty's eyes these two people are one in the same for they try to overcharge the same amount to both individuals.
