Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 103
646
Call me Greg,  a good thread to read as it has all the letters between Getty and me so you can get an idea of the process and how I fought back can be found here.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

Thanks for the advice Mr. Troy.  I had considered charging them $1000 for my time spent reading the letters and contacting my attorney, since my fee for a deposition is $500 per hour and any part of an hour counts as an hour.

647
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: April 11, 2013, 07:29:10 PM »
You are correct that Getty does not bothered to register images during the demand letter phase. I know I had question the registration on the image my demand letter was about an Getty replied to me basically saying they don't know if the artist has the image registered or not but the image would be registered prior to suing me.

Just some clarifications.  An image HAS to be registered before the copyright holder can sue you in court.  But just to be clear, if you are infringing on an unregistered image, all the copyright holder has to do is register the image and file suite, but only for actual damages (see below *).  I think that generally they dont even bother registering them (if theyre not already registered) during the demand letter stage ... they only bother with that if and when they decide to go to court. 
*If it was registered before you started infringing, then he can get statutory damages and his legal fees.  The registration grace period, as I understand it, allows the photographer to register his image withing 3 months of publication and still have the same options as if it were registered since publication.  If its been 3 months or more since first publication (by the copyright holder) and the image isnt registered there is no way to recover statutory damages and legal fees .... only actual damages.

Its worth noting on registered images, if the infringment can be shown to be unwillfull then the judge is allowed (not required) to lower statutory damages to $200 per infringement.

I know ... clear as mud.
Copyright exists from the moment the picture is taken and belongs to the photographer.  The photog can come after you even if the image is not registered but only for actual damages.  Registering the image allows me to seek statutory damages the  up to 150,000 the demand letters like to quote per image.

I believe there is also a clause in there that says if I find you are infringing I have 3 months from the date I find the infringement to register the image and can then still get statutory damages.  The ones Getty are registering now are outside the 3 month window and Getty is only seeking actual damages on those pics.

I have a question that nobody may have thought about.  Since the majority of images that Getty claims to own or manage do not have a registered copyright, what would happen if a victim of the Getty Scam were to register the alleged infringement image themselves and then claim Getty is the infringer?  What a twist.

648
Greetings Herbman and welcome to the forums,

I would continue reading the forms and educating yourself as they contain all the information you need if you wish to handle this yourself. Also if you prefer to have a lawyer handle it I would recommend using Oscar's defense letter program. For about $200 you will never hear from Getty again and they will have to deal with Oscar who has handled over 850 of these type of cases.

I can tell you that Getty has never sued anyone over the use of a single image on a website to date in the states.

649
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: April 11, 2013, 08:15:43 AM »
Copyright exists from the moment the picture is taken and belongs to the photographer.  The photog can come after you even if the image is not registered but only for actual damages.  Registering the image allows me to seek statutory damages the  up to 150,000 the demand letters like to quote per image.

I believe there is also a clause in there that says if I find you are infringing I have 3 months from the date I find the infringement to register the image and can then still get statutory damages.  The ones Getty are registering now are outside the 3 month window and Getty is only seeking actual damages on those pics.

I have a question that nobody may have thought about.  Since the majority of images that Getty claims to own or manage do not have a registered copyright, what would happen if a victim of the Getty Scam were to register the alleged infringement image themselves and then claim Getty is the infringer?  What a twist.

650
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: April 10, 2013, 10:10:18 PM »
No they are not, I went back and read it again (damn it's long) and what they are doing is on images that were already registered they are asking for statutory damages and on ones that are not they are registering them and asking for actual damages.  It looks like they have learned from Advernet and are doing this one right.

It will still be interesting to see what virtual clinics has to say, from the complaint it appears pretty willful but we have only heard one side.  If it was willful then I don't feel sorry for them.

Getty's registering the copyrights retroactively?  That's the lamest tactic that I've seen in ages.
Also, many thanks to Jerry for pointing out the recent changes in law in relation to this.
Even before these changes, there was only a narrow window of time wherein something could be "registered retroactively".
Some of you may recall how Getty in particular used to try to play the "registration game" on a regular basis in earlier days.
Oscar in particular made note of the practice.  He was a bit steamed about it.

Before we "side with Getty" on this one, let's be sure that we have all of the facts.
That way, we won't have egg on our face if it turns out that Getty's just as scummy as the alleged infringer(s).
Making copyright registrations after the fact makes me a bit less sympathetic to Getty.

S.G.

651
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got 3rd Getty Letter Now I'm Not Sure
« on: April 10, 2013, 10:05:59 PM »
That's some good info, thanks SG!

CowgirlCaz, it's illegal for collection agencies such as NCS to make non-debts in Canada.
I would complain to the Office of Consumer Affairs:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/h_ca02149.html

Also, I would complain to the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, also:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpajump.shtm

Again, it's an illegal practice in Canada, even if the demand comes from the US.

S.G.

652
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got 3rd Getty Letter Now I'm Not Sure
« on: April 09, 2013, 10:30:51 PM »
You can try, you won't get anything but they may leave you alone.  I know after Jerry Witt did this they left him alone. For me it was filing complaints with several agencies and then they left me alone.

653
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: April 09, 2013, 09:00:10 PM »
Yes, many of them are still in the process of being registered.  It appears as if Getty is trying to register them now and seek a retroactive license going back to the first known infringement.  I'm not sure how this will work or if they can still ask for the legal fees and the 150,000 per image stuff like this. 

I thought the law said you only had 3 months from finding an infringement to register if you were suing for the works but again I may be wrong here too.

Oscar, I need your help on this one as I am as confused by this as everyone else.

654
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: April 09, 2013, 07:25:43 PM »
Note: In fairness of reporting and trying to make sure I am accurate with my facts, complaint 31 may not be legitimate, Getty Images has just sued Virtual Clinics for copyright infringement and if it is proven in court that this is a false complaint and Virtual Clinics did commit willful infringement I will remove it from this list and it will not be included in the stats.  You may read the complaint Getty filed here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135014487/Getty-v-Virtual-Clinics

I will keep you posted as the trail progresses.

655
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got 3rd Getty Letter Now I'm Not Sure
« on: April 09, 2013, 02:01:47 PM »
At this point I would send Getty a letter and let them know that if ANYONE contacts you again on this matter you will file complaints with the Attorney General's Office, the BBB, the FTC and your congressman and senator on both Getty and whoever contacted you if other then Getty.  I would also let them know it it is Mr McCormack that in addition to the above complaiints you will also file complaints against him with the Washington, Oregon and Idaho Bar Associations.  I doubt you will hear anymore from them after that.

656
This just showed up in my Google Alerts:

Quote
NEW YORK, April 8, 2013 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Getty Images Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Klein today announced the appointment of Tara M. Comonte as Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the innovative global creator and distributor of still imagery, video and multimedia produc

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/getty-images-names-tara-m-comonte-as-chief-financial-officer-2013-04-08

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/197612/ex-mccann-exec-becomes-getty-images-cfo.html#axzz2PvnIIDhV

657
Getty will tell you they have a contract and that they will not share it because of confidentiality agreements.  The three cases I cited will give you the information you need to make the case for proof of claim, Getty will still refuse to provide you with any proof except through discovery though.  Look up the cases here on the forums as they have been explained in detail and relevant items pointed out. 

658
I would not cite the Morel case unless Getty has taken your images.  Cases that may be relevant and help would be Getty v Advernet, Davis v The Gap and Dakotah, Inc. v. Tomelleri  Information and links to these cases can be found on the site by keyword search.

659
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Letter: Is this a Scam?
« on: April 08, 2013, 09:27:59 PM »
I would reply back to them letting them know that this is a claim not a debt and you are dealing with Masterfile so do not contact you again.  This will kick it back to Masterfile and you won't hear from NCS anymore.

660
I have a feeling it will happen.

It's a shame Getty has such a huge market share already that one photog leaving won't have an impact - the word needs to spread of how they treat their contributors

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 103
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.