Messages

601

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Just got my letter - I'm a fighter

« on: August 02, 2011, 08:46:23 PM »

Helpi -- Either you are intentionally being vague or I just don't get you. You say: "Actually that is only the rule for unpublished work, you have a 3 month grace period from first publication for published work."

Can you site a specific source for this?

602

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm

« on: August 02, 2011, 08:14:27 PM »

@Helpi: "Recently Jay Maisel (who's a famous photographer) settled for $32,500 for use of one image. Google it."

Let's break that down. The original photographer was very famous. The subject was Miles Davis AND the case never went to court. Frankly, the content that Getty claims to exclusively represent has no where near that value.

For those not familiar with that situation:

Baio produced a chiptune tribute to Miles Davis’ classic album Kind of Blue. He licensed all of the tracks and assigned all profits directly to the five musicians on the album. The one thing he didn't do was check about the cover art, a pixelated rendering of the photo on the original album cover. Jay Maisel, the photographer who shot the photo in question, sued Baio for $150,000 per download plus $25,000 for DMCA violations. Baio settled for $32,500, not because he wasn’t convinced he was in the right (this almost certainly qualifies as fair use), but because it was “the least expensive option available”.

In regards to watermarking images, I agree that they are not under any OBLIGATION to do so. However just including a copyright notice on the edge of the image would stop the vast majority of unlicensed use. So although they are not required to do so, there is a solution at hand.

Again, ironically, the photographer in the subject of this thread DID affix a copyright notice to the picture and apparently it was removed and used to promote a marathon. He also registered the pic with the copyright office. Even then, I doubt he would be awarded $9000.00 for this image. However a verdict might be rendered in his favor and the defendant would be liable for all court costs. I can almost guarantee that this will settle out of court.

603

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Just got my letter - I'm a fighter

« on: August 02, 2011, 05:01:17 AM »

How is this insulting? This is simply pointing out that it appears that in many cases Getty has not registered the work. In some cases they may not even hold an exclusive license. Oscar is explaining that in those cases Getty could not get legal fees even if they win. I didn't read an insult?

604

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm

« on: August 02, 2011, 04:40:11 AM »

SG -- I'm willing to take Helpi at his word until facts prove otherwise. I actually find it useful to hear the counter position to what is obviously the more popular opinion.

It is interesting he is chiding Matt about thinking the "low" figure of $200 to $300 an image is fair on a thread where the discussion is about a photographer-lawyer copyright troll seeking NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a single image.

The bottom line is, if the stock footage companies were serious about wanting to change public perception and prevent abuse, they would be proactive about watermarking images, providing proof of registration and presenting a reasonable settlement offer. Since they are not doing that and they are pursuing few of these cases in court, it is what it appears to be, a cash grab. And I believe judges will see it as such.

All I can say is I was closing in on spending $1000 a year on stock footage from Getty and iStockPhoto. That money is now spent on freelance photographers and on Pond5, which I understand has no relationship with the trolling companies.

605

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm

« on: July 31, 2011, 02:35:39 AM »

@Helpi

Can you just answer one question for me directly? Do you have any relationship with the stock footage companies mentioned here?

606

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Just got a getty settlement demand letter, my company is not registered in US

« on: July 13, 2011, 06:44:08 PM »

Do you LIVE in the UK? I seriously doubt Getty would even be able to serve you.

607

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty letter - offered to pay over time - rejected

« on: July 13, 2011, 06:40:13 PM »

The other strategy is to try and track down what they are currently charging for the photo and reiterate that the page this was on received 54 hits. Offer to pay that. They'll still demand hundreds, but you will have an offer in place. If the one in a million should happen and they sue, you can use this evidence to show that you tried to settle with them. If you win, they will be required to pay your court costs. I think trying to extort such a large amount of money from a start-up for an image that was barely seen will get tossed out of court.

608

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Brandon Sand Settlement Demand Letter

« on: July 05, 2011, 03:21:00 AM »

Yeah sorry to hear Mr. Sand doesn't appreciate people looking into who is threatening them with legal action.

I found the MySpace page of his previous record label interesting. It's at http://www.myspace.com/paramanurecordings and under Bio it says, in part: "We don't believe in Contracts. FUCK CONTRACTS. Besides we are not rich, just like every other starting record label its straight out the pocket, we here do it for the passion and for the love of music, the entertainment, and the culture. "

609

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty's lawyer called our attorney! 30 days to pay or they will file suit

« on: July 05, 2011, 02:50:27 AM »

This is good to know. Can this offer be made at any point before the case goes to trial?

So I understand this: If they decide to actually sue, you could respond with a "best offer" at that point. If you win or the award is less than what you offered, they have to pay your court costs? Does this also protect you from paying THEIR court costs?

610

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Strange third letter from Getty, community input requested.

« on: June 16, 2011, 03:05:53 AM »

 While we may be able to simply claim and demonstrate by encouraging the opposing party to visit our website to see that we exclusively represent the rights managed images in question, if the opposing side cannot show any license for the usage in question, our claims and these settlement discussions are raised in an effort to quickly settle an unauthorized use case to avoid prolonged back and forth and most importantly additional cost.  We are the leader in our industry, with a reputation to uphold and a high standard of excellence. We do not bring frivolous or meritless claims to companies with respect to unauthorized use of our represented images.

So in essence, they are claiming you must have a license for any image from somewhere. This is simply not the case. It doesn't take into account public domain images, nor images that you shot yourself. I love the way they spin it to sound like they can simply post these images on their site, claim they are exclusively rights managed and you have to pay up.

611

Getty Images Letter Forum / Very few Getty copyright lawsuits and ZERO wins for them

« on: June 08, 2011, 06:45:01 PM »

Poking around on the web I have learned that, in the US at least, very few lawsuits are actually filed against companies that Getty determines to be infringing. I only found six. (Ironically there are many more cases where Getty is the defendant. Seems copyright holders find their business practices shady too.) The six I tracked down are outlined below. It seems to this layperson that the Judge tossed one out of court, Getty dropped two of them before judgment and the plaintiff settled out of court on the fourth. I think the other two are developing. If anyone has an update on the status of their case against Advertnet or Baron Associates  I'd be interested to hear.

THIS PAGE HAS A LIST OF GETTY CASES:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=144133&page=7&highlight=getty+images+mccormack

Getty Images (US), Inc., Plaintiff
v.  ICG America Inc., Defendant
ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE: Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that this action is discontinued without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoration of the action to the calendar of the undersigned within 30 days of the date of this order if in fact there has not been a settlement of this matter. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Holwell on 6/19/2008) (jpo) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

http://www.legalmetric.com/cases/copyright/moed/moed_408cv01003.html
Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Ruth Industries, Inc.
STIPULATION (Joint) and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice by Plaintiff Getty Images (US), Inc., Defendant Ruth Industries, Inc.. (Jaffe, Daniel) Notification sent to: Karen Bekker, SATTERLEE AND STEPHENS, 230 Park Ave, New York, NY 10169 and Francesca A. Sabbatino, RUSSO AND KEANE, 26 Broadway, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10004 on 9/16/2008 (MCB). (Entered: 09/15/2008) (LM)
This means the lawsuit was terminated by voluntary request of the plaintiff (Getty)

http://www.legalmetric.com/cases/copyright/nyed/nyed_106cv05916.html
Getty Images (US), Inc. v. ACT Telecom, Inc. et al
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL. It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the parties to the above captioned action, subject to the approval of the Court, that this action including without limitation all claims presently known or unknown arising from the individual allegations made herein, is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice against all parties and each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. So Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 7/11/2007. (Clarke, Melonie) (Entered: 07/16/2007)

http://www.legalmetric.com/cases/copyright/nysd/nysd_108cv03641.html
Getty Images (US), INC., v. First National Bank of Long Island
ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE: Based upon the defendant's letter, dated June 9, 2008, indicating that the parties have reached a settlement, it is hereby Ordered that this action hereby is discontinued, provided, however, that the Plaintiff or Defendant may apply, on or before July 10, 2008 (noon), by letter showing good cause why this action should be restored to the calendar of the undersigned. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/10/2008) (jfe) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

Two cases I couldn't get the results on:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2009cv01895/341399/
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/1:2008cv01972/280596/

The one against Advertnet has been in discovery for almost two years: DISCOVERY PLAN REPORT.Document filed by Getty Images (US), Inc..(Aieta, Mario) (Entered: 08/19/2009) source -- http://ia600409.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.341399/gov.uscourts.nysd.341399.docket.html

If anyone has any other examples, please post them.

612

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can we start a "Success Mission Accomplished" Thread for success stories?

« on: June 08, 2011, 03:57:27 PM »

I think the problem is that there aren't really any "Mission Accomplished" stories. It seems to go one of a few ways.
1.) People get the letter, panic and settle relatively quickly.
2.) People ignore the letters and Getty attempts to escalate the issue. Perhaps they are counting on these people to not take any action and they may be ideal victims to win a default judgment against.
3.) People decide that what Getty is doing is wrong and they decide to fight. They reply to Getty's letters, they outline their position and they wait...

I'm in that third camp. For various reasons I think it would be foolish for them to pursue a claim against me, but that's a story for another day.

Look at Matthew Chan's story. It has been 3 years since they mailed the extortion letter I mean claim and, as far as i can tell, no further action has been taken. There is no way they are going to go after him. He's got his ducks in a row and a very big support network that would gladly kick in to see him win. So Getty won't pursue him. I also doubt that they will pursue the people Oscar represents. It's much easier to find new, easy targets and there seems to be a lot of them.

I doubt Mr. Chan has gotten so much as a postcard from them in the last year or two. But on the other hand, I don't think he is celebrating "Success Mission Accomplished." yet either.

613

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty's lawyer called our attorney! 30 days to pay or they will file suit

« on: June 08, 2011, 03:28:36 PM »

I agree! I'm not a lawyer, but if they DID have proof of copyright ownership and they waited until the issue went to court to spring it on you, you would have proof that your requested these documents prior and they were withheld. Seems to me (maybe Oscar could comment) that at the very least you could reset the court date and ask for time to look into this new discovery. At THAT point you could make the decision to pay them or still argue the fact that what they are claiming is WAY over the image's value.

But I agree with Soylent Green, I don't think they have the proof they registered these images. I'd tell them to pound sand.

614

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Strange third letter from Getty, community input requested.

« on: June 08, 2011, 03:11:32 PM »

Wow. Is there any way we can get before and after screenshots? This would be a valuable tool. If any of the people who have noticed this want to PM me, I will be happy to try and find archival shots of the web page with the previous list price.

615

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Strange third letter from Getty, community input requested.

« on: May 27, 2011, 09:48:40 PM »

When (if) Getty actually decides to take one of these cases to court, I will kick in some money for their legal defense fund. I think it is important that they don't get that initial decision. Also, if Getty is trying to simply stop people from infringing, their settlement offer would be much more reasonable. There current tactic seems to simply be a cash grab.

I used to be a customer of Getty and iStockPhoto. They have lost my business and I wonder how many others have decided to stop doing business with a company that sues their customers. This whole thing is like the RIAA all over again. And we've seen how well suing customers worked for the music industry.