Messages

511

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Does this apply to Facebook and other social media sites

« on: August 19, 2013, 01:02:23 PM »

I personally think it comes down to the fact that companies like Facebook and others have lawyers on their staff, you never see Getty going after large companies because they can defend themselves.

it reminds me of a case where Getty sent a letter to a person over a public image photo of an F 16 fighter jet which was purchased in a template from Intuit. After refusing to listen to the letter recepient he file a complaint with the attorney general and wrote to Intuit, who replied we will handle it. The next thing you know there is a letter to the attorney general from Getty stating they were pleased to inform them they were no longer pursuing the case.

I would have loved to have seen letter that Intuit wrote Getty but I am sure that Getty realized they were in for a fight with lawyers and backed off.

512

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 19, 2013, 12:50:20 PM »

I think you could not do better then hiring Oscar. also if your image was linked and not actually on your site you should be alright as the courts have ruled that linking in image is not infringement. lookup perfect 10 v. google

513

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Educational Web Site

« on: August 19, 2013, 08:43:09 AM »

My comment appear in bold.

Greg,

While what you said sounded really nice there are a few problems with your solution. First is for copyright infringement one must make a protected image/article publically available. You don't have to make any money from this availability, it's just the fact of dilution of the copyright holders value.  While the company I paid to create my web site put copyright images on it they didn't make these images publically available.  As such they are not guilty of any copyright infringement. By the definition of what constitutes copyright infringement Go-Daddy should be the one Getty sues as only Go-Daddy (which is who hosts my web site) can make the files/images there publically available. However, Getty doesn't seem to sue anyone with a lot of money like Go-Daddy.  Even though I pay for a web site and someone else puts copyrighted images in the sites directories it's the actions of Go-Daddy that actually makes the images publically available not me.  At any time Go-Daddy can cut this thread and then nothing in my web site's directory will be publically available.

Copyright infringement is a statutory offense so it doesn't matter who, what , why or how you are responsible, others may help responsible as well.  Now courts will look at the circumstances and if it was done by a 3rd party and you assumed good faith that what you paid for was legitimate courts may rule for the minimum fine which is 200.00.  Getty knows this and this is one of the reasons they don't sue, beside the fact that the majority of their images are not registered properly.

Actually if you put a copyrighted image file in a directory that can be addressed from the internet is copyright infringement. This image file does NOT have to be displayed anywhere and even if there is no way it can be seen by anyone one on the internet does not matter at all as far as the law goes.  If the file is in a location where it can se found with a robot (even if it isn't viewed) it is copyright infringement.  So if you get Getty's demand letter you not only need to remove the code from your web pages so the image can't be loaded you also need to delete the image file from the server and all servers that have any sort of internet access.

Again, if Getty took you took court which is HIGHLY unlikely the courts would look at the situation you have described and take that into consideration.  IF you get the letter from Getty you should remove the image on your servers and from the wayback machine if archived there.

I went to see a bankruptcy lawyer a couple week ago to see how bad it could be.  He said I had to have an attorney to represent my company as Glycomeds was a company at the time of Getty's notice (so I couldn't represent my own company myself even if it had no money and I couldn't terminate the company to avoid the infringement).  He said they would sue me in Washington State and claim they have jurisdiction and as I wouldn't have anyone one there to speak for me the judge would go along with it.  As Getty has in-house paid attorneys this action would cost them nothing but $150 filing fee.  As no one would appear it would upset the judge and he would go along with what Getty said - My company made millions of dollars over the years through the sole use of their two images. All in all the bankruptcy attorney said he would expect the judge to award fines and penalties of six or seven digits against my company.

Here is part of your confusion, you consulted a bankruptcy lawyer for a copyright infringement case, this is like me asking a plumber about my broken truck...."hey you fix things what do I do about this."  Getty would have to sue you where your business is based in most cases.  I was told by a COPYRIGHT LAWYER I consulted about my case which is as minor as yours that Getty would have to sue me here, you need to have a lawyer as you can not represent yourself in federal court but he said he tries cases there and knows the judges and if Getty were to bring a de minimis case like this before them and waste their time on a 200.00 case they would not be happy and Getty would know it.

The next step would be for Getty's free attorneys to petition the court to include me as a defendant as I am the head of the company (I am the company Manager of the LLC - there is no CEO or anything else).  Next they would sue me directly in Washington State (I live in Arizona) for mismanagement of company funds for my personal benefit.  They wouldn't have jurisdiction but unless I hired an attorney to contest jurisdiction I would again lose.  I could file a motion with a simple one-liner "I contest jurisdiction" but Getty would argue the Federal case brought me into their Washington jurisdiction.  This would be very difficult to defend for free, for if I sent a letter to the court explaining I didn't live or work in Washington this letter would automatically give them jurisdiction over me...

Again, unless there is some unique circumstance Getty has to hire a lawyer in your area unless their lawyer is licensed for your state.

As soon as I would be accepted into the case Getty would move to freeze my bank accounts so I could not transfer any money out of the country and without me being there at $500 a flight to Washington, the judge would agree. The court would then seize my personal bank account as that is all I have and after they had received all my money (about $150) from my bank the court would send me notice of the pending freeze of my assets.  I know this is exactly how it will go for a fact, as this has already happened to me over a credit card account in Virginia three years ago.  Even though all the money in my bank account came from a protected source, Social Security, the court still took it. It cost me $3500 for a Virginia attorney to get my money back and my account unfroze.  The real problem was every month when the Government deposited my SS into my bank account the bank automatically sent all of this protected money to the court as they were under a court order to retrieve all funds.  I eventually got my account released but this didn't stop the suit and now the Virginia court had actually jurisdiction.

This is a copyright claim not a debt, but since you already know this for a fact there is no point in me going into detail why this would not happen.

It gets worse. We bought our home in 2002 for $120K. It's now worth about $50K but we have nowhere else to go or live (parents, children, etc). I can't pay all of the bills (credit cards are out of sight and killing us) and make house payments so my wife has a job to make the house payments. Once Getty gets me in their Washington court they will also include my wife as we are married and Arizona, where we live, is a community property state.  Then Getty will file a suit against us for about $125 in Washington State court, equal to the Federal copyright fines and fees plus all their trumped up attorney costs against me and my wife (probably well into the seven digit figures by then).  While I am bankruptcy proof my wife isn't as they can attach 80% of her wages. Without her income we will lose our home.

Again, take a step back and calm down, this is nothing like you are making it if the information you provided about the image is correct.  Let's say Getty were to sue you which is 99.99999999% likely they won't and you lost, if you don't have it they can't collect it.

According to the bankruptcy attorney it doesn't stop there but you have the general picture.  He said after all the dust settles we can file bankruptcy but we have to wait until Getty runs out of things to do to us which could take up to five years.  For this it will cost them less than $250 plus some time from their free in-house attorneys.  What they would get for their $250 would be a great case to flaunt publically, scaring more poor people into paying them extortion money for fear of loosing everything or just pay Getty $2000 and everything will just go away...   

The bankruptcy attorney said for me to wait until everything is over and then we could file bankruptcy for $700 (his fee) plus $1200 Federal filing fees...

Stop asking a bankruptcy attorney copyright questions, talk to a copyright attorney or get Oscar to handle it for you.  For 200.00 you can stop worrying and Getty can't contact you again.  You are obviously and understandably stressed over your current situation with everything else going on in your life and I think every time Getty or McCormick sends you a letter you are going to panic again, I think Oscar's program is a great solution for you.

Thanks for every ones help and kind words.

Roger

514

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Educational Web Site

« on: August 17, 2013, 09:28:10 PM »

love it Jerry!

Yeah this is typical Getty M.O. They are trying to collect from the individual owner of a defunct LLC. On top of that, you are essentially "judgement proof" so even if they decided to go after you and they got a judgement, they wouldn't be able to collect.

I always get concerned when people even jokingly refer to suicide. In the grand scheme of things this is as trivial as a house fly. Why would anyone go that way? I would seriously make it my life's work to expose their scam looooong before contemplating suicide.

Anyway, my response would be along the lines of:

"The LLC, Glycomeds, has been a defunct company for some time now. I have forwarded your demand for payment to the party I believe was responsible for infringing on your images. They have not replied to me. If you would like my assistance in collecting further information for you, I can help track them down and provide you with contact information. I charge $100 an hour and I estimate that this would take me a couple hours. Please write me back to express your interest if you would like me to provide this service for you."

515

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Educational Web Site

« on: August 17, 2013, 04:39:06 PM »

Getty and others operate in a grey area of the law which is why it is referred to as "Legalized Extortion"

516

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Educational Web Site

« on: August 17, 2013, 08:38:55 AM »

Welcome to the forums.  First you need to step back and take a deep breath, when it comes to the Getty Extorion Demand letter program you need to realize that 99.999% of the time it is never as bad as Getty makes it sound.  These letters are designed to panic you and make you feel there is an emanate lawsuit pending. They try to get you to pay out of fear before you have had a chance to research how they operate.

Start out by reading the forums, you can find copies of letters you may receive and ask questions. If you can't or don't want to deal with it you can use Oscar's letter program, they will not be able to contact you after he send them a letter.

Keep us posted.

517

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Jonathan Klein and Getty Images, a history of questionable business practices?

« on: August 15, 2013, 04:31:05 PM »

Thread Bump

518

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Jonathan Klein and Getty Images Know How to Treat Their Contributors – Not.

« on: August 15, 2013, 04:30:37 PM »

Thread bump

519

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Jonathan Klein and Getty Images - Do As I Say, Not As I Do.

« on: August 15, 2013, 04:30:08 PM »

Thread bump

520

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I thought Getty Images went away. Just got letter from attorney.

« on: August 15, 2013, 04:12:27 PM »

Don't say you will do it if you have no intention of following up.  I filed the complaints against Getty and ever since they have left me alone.  I let them know if I received any more letters from them I have letters ready to go in the mail within an hour of receiving anything from them that does not contain the reasonable request for proof I have asked for.

I never did hear anything from Mr. McCormack as I told GI in my last letter before filing the complaints that if I heard from him or his paralegals I had letters already to go for him as well including the bars associations mentioned above.

I meant everything I said and followed through, when GI sent their response to the agencies I filed complaints with I sent another letter to the agency pointing out the errors in the facts that Getty made, the obvious omissions where they did not answer many of my complaints about there business model and out right lies.

You can see all the letters between Getty and myself as well as the complaints I filed, Getty's replies and my responses to their replies in this thread:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

Hope this helps and please keep us posted.

Greg Troy:
Resending my last letter to GI to this attorney, with a cover letter stating the points that you just made re: reporting them, might be the right next move for me in this silly chess game. Thanks buddy.

521

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty attorneys are emailing me.

« on: August 15, 2013, 01:19:33 PM »

Lisa Willmer is Senior Director, Corporate Counsel at Getty Images. 

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=32513959&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=l6cJ&locale=en_US&srchid=1155710421376355749300&srchindex=1&srchtotal=3&trk=vsrp_people_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A1155710421376355749300%2CVSRPtargetId%3A32513959%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary

Here are some other of the top Getty counsel members.

John Lapham
SVP, General Counsel
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3087913&authType=name&authToken=jrHU&trk=prof-sb-browse_map-name


Jonathan Lockwood
VP, Corporate Counsel at Getty Images
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=20688768&authType=name&authToken=J-UD&trk=prof-sb-browse_map-name

Yoko Miyashita
Vice President, Corporate Counsel at Getty Images
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=5257250&authType=name&authToken=BiKt&trk=prof-sb-browse_map-name

Lizanne Vaughan
Vice President, Corporate Counsel at Getty Images
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=18969881&authType=name&authToken=HfOp&trk=prof-sb-browse_map-name

I unintentionally forgot to mention Getty's outside council Timothy McCormack who represents Getty but has never to my knowledge be allowed to take a case to court for them. 

Here is the definition of what it means to be outside council for Getty.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Hz8YN1fLTxs/UX5zhz9XCXI/AAAAAAAAKVs/RxGu_HNzE-o/s1600/small+builders+1.jpg

522

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I thought Getty Images went away. Just got letter from attorney.

« on: August 15, 2013, 01:09:02 PM »

If you feel that what they are doing is wrong I would also let them know that if they continue to harass you without providing the proof of claim you will file complaints against Getty, your compliance specialist, Lisa Willmer and Mr. McCormack with the AG, BBB, FTC, congressman and senator and for Mr. McCormack in addition to the agencies listed above the Washington, Oregon and Idaho state Bar associations.  Making note that they are stating in their letters that you are GUILTY (without a trial or judgement against you) of copyright infringement, demanding monies without providing proof of claim, refusing to provide proof unless you are sued and threatening to sue you unless you pay them without any proof of claim.

523

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Letter: Is this a Scam?

« on: August 15, 2013, 12:56:58 PM »

I think my response would have to be let's see what the AG and the FTC have to say about this.

524

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I thought Getty Images went away. Just got letter from attorney.

« on: August 15, 2013, 08:30:13 AM »

In my opinion it would not go well for them when you have stated you are willing to negotiate and you are just asking for proof of claim since you are being presented with a bill.   Also I think it is interesting that Getty and Mr McCormack like to start off negotiations by saying you are guilty without even asking or caring how the image appeared on the site.

525

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI, Florida sinkhole, and pink planet

« on: August 12, 2013, 09:14:48 PM »

Are these images in their Rights Managed collections or Royalty Free Image collection?