Messages

676

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: March 26, 2013, 07:50:39 PM »

I don't know, I saw a letter where it had all the unrelated cases listed in it again after the last several prior to that had them taken out. 

Wow! That is pretty scorching. I wonder how much longer Tim will continue to (mis)represent the Getty claim with a "V." or "Vs." Bet that practice will be coming to a close.

677

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Letter from a Web Designer's Perspective - Any Advice?

« on: March 26, 2013, 07:46:52 PM »

I believe Oscar will work with you on behalf of your client.  Oscar has handled over 850 of these letters from various photo companies and should be able to work out something much more reasonable and realistic.

Welcome to the forums and I hope you will stick around and join in!

678

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: March 26, 2013, 05:31:41 PM »

Here are the complaints from the Washington State Attorney General’s office that were on the fifth CD with the fluff removed. The next CD is due to ship to me on the March 28th.

It appears the fourth CD got lost in the mail as the date of arrival estimated for the CD came and went and then the 5th CD showed up on time.  I have emailed Elizabeth Williamson with the WA AG and ask her to resend the fourth CD.

Complaint #31 is a good one and looks like another Bar Association complaint was filed against Mr. McCormack. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132513794/WA-State-AG-Complaint-New-28

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132513803/WA-State-AG-Complaint-New-29

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132513830/WA-State-AG-Complaint-New-30

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132513851/WA-State-AG-Complaint-New-31

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132513862/WA-State-AG-Complaint-New-32

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132513883/WA-State-AG-Complaint-New-33

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132513887/WA-State-AG-Complaint-New-34

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132513893/WA-State-AG-Complaint-New-35


<<--EDIT-->>

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 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. 

679

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved Letter from getty

« on: March 26, 2013, 05:19:04 PM »

Getty even offers an insurance policy of sorts for the images you get from them in case someone comes after you.  It's in their online brochure "Be Sure Of It"

Just to play devils advocate:  You aren't completely safe buying images from anyone.  If you read the contracts on those sites you have to agree to in order to purchase, I think you'll find that they don't take any responsibility for any copyright violation issues that might arise.  What's to keep a copyright troll from seeding on these sites?  What's to keep a thief from selling someone elses images on these sites?  Is anyone in the entire process verifying ownership? Is it feasible or even possible to verify ownership?  Too many questions for me.

680

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Settlement Purposes Only Letter - 3rd Letter

« on: March 25, 2013, 10:12:17 PM »

Would you be willing to share your complaint letters with me and the responses.  If you prefer I will redact personal information but I keep track of these type of complaints.  If so my email address is [email protected].

Thank you and again, great job!

Received two responses last week- the first is from BBB asking if I was satisfied with Getty's response. I replied no for the reasons previously noted (lack of proof, documentation etc..) they have now considered the matter closed but have noted that I was not satisfied with the response and it is now part of a permanent record. The second response was from the WA Attorney General in which McCormack provides a response to the complaint and attaches a web page photo from my website from 3 years ago (subsequently taken down last year) and reiterates that there is no extortion and restates their basic claim about copyright infringement. A new McCormack para legal (Kate) has now taken the lead but the script is the same. Interesting but nothing from the Seattle Chamber of Commerce as of yet. For now powder is still dry for the Bar associations and the press. Will advise as to what happens next...stay tuned....

681

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today.. What do you think of my response?

« on: March 25, 2013, 07:35:20 PM »

I do find that interesting but would not put it past them. My opinion of them was lowered so much when they tried to collect on that public domain image of Henry David Thoreau that was taken in the 1800s. Of course they quickly back down once the person brought it to their attention that they knew some copyright law and that this was public domain but I wonder how many of these they send out that people actually pay for.

Anyone else find it VERY interesting that Getty Images no longer provides the URL where they claim to have discovered alleged infringements?

I think that they're trying to fool the inexperienced into paying for infringements that they didn't commit.
It's pretty easy even for a novice to notice that an URL doesn't match their site, or that the URL is related to an ad-server.
In the absence of the URL, some people may be more likely to pay up when they're innocent.

Pretty sleazy if you ask me.

S.G.

682

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter Received But No Such Image

« on: March 22, 2013, 07:24:37 PM »

If you are not responding the letters seem to come on a 2 to 3 months interval. If you do respond a reply will usually come as soon as your letter is read or about two weeks after you mail it.

If it were me I would send them one letter letting them know that there is no such image on your site and that Pic-Scout picked up an image that was hotlinked, cite the perfect 10 v. Google case that ruled linking is not infringement and let them know you consider the case closed and will no longer respond to any letters. You may also want to add if they choose to continue sending you letters you will file complaints with the Washington state Attorney General's office, the Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission.

683

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: OK...got a surprise letter

« on: March 22, 2013, 12:33:58 PM »

I concur with the sentiments listed above. From your statement you knew image was not yours and decided to take the risk since it was from a tavern 1000 miles away. You need to settle this claim however I still feel the amount is high for the size image used. I am sorry but I have a little sympathy if you know about copyright law and you take the image and get caught then you should pay.

684

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter Received But No Such Image

« on: March 21, 2013, 12:42:55 PM »

IF that is the case then there was no infringement as the courts have ruled the linking is not infringement.  See the Perfect 10 cases for reference.

685

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Owners of "Grumpy Cat" vow to sue infringers

« on: March 19, 2013, 11:42:40 PM »

Good find and interesting article SG.  Thanks for sharing!

686

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter Received But No Such Image

« on: March 19, 2013, 06:50:10 PM »

Your might want to check all the directories and sub-directories on your server.  Once Pic-Scout gets in it will look through all un-password protected directories.  I have seen where there has been a placeholder image left over from the site design in a directory that is not listed.  look everywhere on the server and you may find it.

687

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from photographer over Getty image

« on: March 19, 2013, 02:09:00 PM »

Welcome to the forums popcorn1234.

This does not sound like a normal type of letter and I would be suspicious of it. The fact that they are referencing it is part of a Getty images collection sends a red flag to me as I believe the Getty images contributor contract requires the contributor to give full and exclusive rights including the rights to determine when and if compensation is required.

If this person's image is part of the Getty collection they may be trying to get a little something on the side or they just may be trying to use the Getty name and reputation to frighten you into paying.

Irregardless it is wise that you have taken the image down and if you are using images in the manner you have stated you may wish to contact the artists directly letting them know you wish to display a picture of their art with a link back to them for purchases. I think most artists would be happy and flattered you have done this in grant you permission. I would keep and hold onto any emails granting you permission for ever as if Getty should ever obtain rights the image and find an archive of your webpage they will come after you and you will want the email proof you had rights to display the image.

I would look into this whole situation a little bit more as this contact seem somewhat suspect to me.

688

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Don't Pay Getty - Thank you ELI

« on: March 17, 2013, 08:25:37 PM »

adding this thread to the archive.

#gettyflubs

689

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Matthews complaint / order posted

« on: March 17, 2013, 07:41:06 PM »

Thank you very much John, everything helps!

690

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Matthews complaint / order posted

« on: March 17, 2013, 07:04:29 PM »

Congratulations on Getting your first year behind you, that is a milestone!

Unfortunately right now the only thing that Matthew can do is work on his appeal, you may also wish to contribute to his defense fund.