Messages

61

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: October 24, 2012, 08:10:37 AM »

As you have failed to deal with this matter in the correct manner and persist in wasting time asking for information which is irrelevant, we are not willing to discuss the matter with you any further.

I would definitely reply and ask what the correct manner is in dealing with an infringement case. I would love to see them justify how your approach is wrong.

62

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: October 24, 2012, 08:08:43 AM »

Although their reply doesn't confirm anything it only serves to strengthen my belief they have no legal right to chase this on Getty's behalf.

63

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Services International is back again

« on: October 19, 2012, 04:54:29 AM »

I would at least ask when infringement was first identified.

The problem with a retrospective licence is it is in the best interest of the copyright holder to wait until making contact. In Getty's case it's usually around 6 months which they still try to charge you for. Ridiculous.

64

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Looks like we have a new troll to deal with

« on: October 16, 2012, 07:24:08 AM »

Says on their website part of their service is 'INFRINGEMENT MONETIZATION'.

http://www.ceg-intl.com/monetization.html

Proof, not that it were needed, that copyright infringement has become a business model.

65

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: October 04, 2012, 10:51:46 AM »

Easy,

Tell them not to contact you by any method other than in writing. Make them send you letters. If they don't send it recorded delivery bin it.

If they do send it recorded, refuse delivery and have it sent back.

I don't believe they have any legal right to pursue you for copyright infringement because they are neither the copyright holder or exclusive licensee so I don't see why you should extend them any courtesy unless they can prove otherwise.

66

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: October 04, 2012, 08:39:07 AM »

Thanks for the clarification!  Perhaps that amount reflects the number of extortion letters that are being ignored! 

Getty's purchase of Picscout was 2011 and was for a reported $20 million.

Trade Debtors are amounts owed by customers who have purchased something which wouldn't relate to picscout.

As I said, it could be a restructure of the way they released images, but to be owed that much at year end is strange. Doubt we'll ever know for sure though.

I think the interest is if these figures do indeed relate to any extortion letters then these would indeed by treated as a debt, which makes any of the companies chasing on behalf of Getty liars when they say it isn't a debt.

Of course this is speculation, and the figures could be related to something else, but perhaps a letter recipient in the UK could fairly ask the question about how Getty views the amount being requested and as the letter also provides an invoice, whether this is listed on their accounts as a debt.

67

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: October 04, 2012, 08:33:24 AM »

If you want more information let me know and I'll message where you can get it.

It's not really a secret and as I said, this information is freely available but I'd rather Getty didn't know where I sourced it.

68

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: October 04, 2012, 07:36:39 AM »

Getty's purchase of Picscout was 2011 and was for a reported $20 million.

Trade Debtors are amounts owed by customers who have purchased something which wouldn't relate to picscout.

As I said, it could be a restructure of the way they released images, but to be owed that much at year end is strange. Doubt we'll ever know for sure though.

69

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: October 04, 2012, 05:39:29 AM »

Something that may be of interest.

I have some data on Getty UK's accounts filed in 2009 and 2010.

In 2009 they listed their trade debtors assets as £72,000.

In 2010 their accounts showed trade debtors as £69,185,000, a small increase of 95990%

Of course it may be something unrelated such as a change in policy that means charges aren't paid up front but it seems a drastic swing in just 12 months.

Just for the record. This information is freely available in their accounts which in the UK are open to the public.

Something else that may be of interest is this:

http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Gettys-CFR-to-B2-from-Ba3-assigns-B1--PR_256183

Probably couldn't afford to sue anyone even if it was their policy :p

70

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: October 03, 2012, 11:56:24 AM »

Even if Getty were not a private company is anyone here even sure how they would reflect in their accounts?

71

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: October 02, 2012, 08:24:36 AM »

I'll go with S.G's point about marketing intelligence. Just Getty looking for data. I can't see anything more sinister here. Getty have always claimed they have worldwide exclusivity for images in their rights-managed collections.

72

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 24, 2012, 06:01:29 AM »

My point wasn't to do with making derivative works but more to do with Getty stance that it's your responsibility to ensure an image you use is licensed.

If somebody takes several images and uses them to make a completely new image and tells you it is ok to use that image, what reasonable steps could you take to ensure the image was not copyrighted to someone else considering that potentially only a very small part of the image is actually copyrighted?

If Getty actually believe there are reasonable steps you could take then what are they because, according to their very own letters, they have to spend a large amount of resources detecting copyright and that is passed onto 'infringers' in the settlement amounts they charge.

I'm not arguing whether it is actually copyright infringement, just the damages Getty feel they are owed in this particular instance. While I wouldn't pay them anyway, I definitely would not pay them for this.

73

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers

« on: September 21, 2012, 08:12:33 AM »

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/10jd/nassau/decisions/index/index_new/phelan/2010oct/016272-08.pdf

http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/221746-investor-files-second-suit-against-iwire

Interesting

Is this the same Levine?

74

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers

« on: September 21, 2012, 05:23:01 AM »

Before we bung up our family dogs with Alpo so that they can defecate on Levine's front lawn, I should mention that the house is actually 15 Evans Dr. 

Good research by Couch_Potato in finding that iWired site.  It was a bit buried in the results.

S.G.

According to the document I linked to 15 Evans Drive is owned by the Harris family.

Perhaps the dogs can just defecate throughout the neighbourhood to be sure.

EDIT: Although the document is perhaps out of date.

75

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 21, 2012, 05:18:40 AM »

They'd never be able to prove intentional infringement because you could never have found out that part of an image is copyrighted unless you knew it was created from several images in the first place.

They will say that the image shouldn't have been used without a valid licence but the truth is you didn't use their image, just an image that contained part of an image they claim to have exclusive rights to.

Your case is strengthened if the terms of the template you used stated you could use it freely or at least as a place holder because that is permission to use the image within the template.

This is a non-starter really. Tell them the matter is closed.