Messages

76

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: List of Public Domain stock footage companies

« on: May 15, 2014, 11:19:22 AM »

I haven't posted to this thread in a while and I thought I'd add another image source to the list:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

The Wikimedia organization provides a large number of images. Many of these are in the public domain or released under the Creative Commons license. I have even found images that Getty is selling on there. (These images are in the public domain and listed as such on the site. Getty just sells them to suckers.)

I know several people advocate against getting "free" images of any kind from the internet, often deciding to shoot their own or hire a photographer. However, it is my belief that if you carefully read the permissions granted and document the source, you should be able to push back against an infringement claim.

77

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help from the Eli Community Needed

« on: May 07, 2014, 12:27:48 PM »

I suspect you are NOT talking about Holiday greeting card lists either, Oscar.

78

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Letter but Image was retrieved from Public agency Website

« on: April 30, 2014, 02:35:41 PM »

I agree with Greg's course of action.

79

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Letter but Image was retrieved from Public agency Website

« on: April 30, 2014, 12:08:16 PM »

Well that tools still gave me a price closer to $150. They are making an assumption about how you used the image. You could use that tool to specify how you really intend to use it and the very limited distribution it would receive and generate a much lower price. You could then offer to pay that price to Getty. By the way, I have screen shots of everything, but I urge you to record the page, because GI frequently changes pricing.

80

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Latest on Getty Single Image Lawsuits?

« on: April 30, 2014, 12:02:04 PM »

I thought it interesting that Getty did not seem to even know that Oscar was representing their target when they filed suit. It is also troubling they sent no letters other than the one initial letter 2 years prior to filing the suit. What do you all make of that?

Can you amplify why you believe this to be the case? I have to admit that I have not been following this very closely. I'm sure that Oscar is unable to comment specifically about this right now due to attorney/client privilege. But what did they do that made it seem like they didn't know who was representing their target.

Also do you think now they will purposely go after Oscar's clients or is it still a good idea to retain him if one has received GI letters?

This probably depends on the outcome.

This turn of events is very disturbing as it seems to portend that small businesses that are incorporated with one image "infringement" will be targeted for lawsuits. For one because Getty knows they can't represent themselves and would have to spend money on an attorney. Secondly, it seems that most attorneys would advise a "reasonable settlement" as opposed to fighting in court over one image and I recall Oscar commenting briefly that these cases would not be well received in Federal Courts  if the defendant makes a fair offer to Getty. I surmise the "fair offer" would be much higher than the initial demand or lowest demand. So if this is going to be their trend shouldn't most incorporated businesses settle with them asap after receiving a letter (if they don't have an iron clad defense)? 

Even if the biz was an innocent infringer (for eg didn't realize it was copyrighted and took it down after receiving the first letter) but regardless of the reason had their unpaid image on a commercial webpage it seems like a lawsuit over a single image is a win win for Getty as certainly the majority will settle. I am hoping that isn't the case and it's still just a scare tactic and they won't now be systematically filing suit on every small business that received a letter. Thoughts?

I do wish this site had a way to identify and contact the letter recipients. Because I would certainly contribute to a legal fund as I'm sure others on here would. If any letter recipients are reading this and intend to fight Getty, either by hiring an attorney or representing themselves, I wish they would PM me here.

Clearly Getty reads this board and got tied of everyone advising that Getty never brings a suit against a single image infringement. They decided to fix that. However, this course of action could fail spectacularly if one of their targets was properly prepared.

81

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Letter but Image was retrieved from Public agency Website

« on: April 30, 2014, 11:48:31 AM »

northern,

I have a solution for you. It involves spending money, but not a grand.

Go to http://gregvaughn.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Wildlife/G00002tQ6.2aq7jw/I0000QLvrCmvZk8Y and select "buy".

Choose the settings you would want for a low-circulation, regional-use of the image. I plugged in some numbers and came up with $152.

Pay the photographer directly and then tell Getty to go to hell. This is another case of Getty claiming to "exclusively" represent an image when it is abundantly clear they do not.

I'm sure you didn't expect to pay even $150 for the image, but this is a way to make things right with the photographer quickly and still not pay Getty; all while saving $800.

Good luck!

82

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Here's my letter and contribution

« on: April 01, 2014, 11:25:57 AM »

we could reply to their replies with "We would pay you if you would prove you have the right to the money." Since they won't prove they have the right to the money, we won't have a valid debt, and after 3 years they have to stop writing. Do you think I'm off about any of these assumptions?

I would chime in and say you should not offer to pay unless you have the intention to do so.  $400 is more than half of what they have previously tried to squeeze out of people. (It used to be $850 and up.) But if you have no intent to pay that $400 amount, don't say you will. Instead phrase it as, "We cannot discuss your claim before we ensure that you have the right to represent the image."

The bottom line is: If they provided you with the copyright paperwork and a letter from the photographer transferring the rights to the image to Getty, would you pay them $400? If so, then proceed. If that still seems a bit high, then don't offer it up.

83

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Sued for Patent Infringement

« on: March 19, 2014, 11:34:53 AM »

Thanks for sharing this Greg. I love it when the karma train swings back around on organizations that make their money through intimidation. Win or loose, this will cost Getty.

84

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney advises to JUST IGNORE THE GETTY & McCORMACK LETTERS

« on: March 14, 2014, 12:51:52 PM »

When he was explaining to me the legal ramifications of a response to Getty vs. no response, I was trying to relate this concept of “you responded because thought you should respond” to the closest concept that I could think of at the time, which was an action that could be interpreted (perhaps incorrectly) as an admission of guilt.  He was not telling me that the concepts were the exactly the same.  I have tried to explain this as clearly as I can, but my recall of his words can not be expected to be exact.  The conversation was about 2 weeks ago.  I was only trying to convey the gist and general points of the conversation, not an exact quote.

If this is true, then what about removing the image? Surely the retired judge told you to take down the image. Isn't that also an implied admission of guilt?

(By the way, I hope you don't feel "ganged up on". We just think about and discuss these things waaaaaaay to much.)

85

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Leaning towards the ignore method, but a little worried….

« on: March 09, 2014, 01:56:25 PM »

The bottom line is, they will pester you no matter what. By replying once there is a very slight chance they may realize they are wrong (probably not). By not replying, there is a very small chance that they may think they have the wrong address and stop sending letters.

So really, you have to do what you feel comfortable with.

86

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Beating them up from Canada

« on: March 08, 2014, 11:39:51 AM »

Good job canuckistan. For some time I have been saying people should charge for their time dealing with largely baseless claims. Looks like this strategy worked for you.

87

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Leaning towards the ignore method, but a little worried….

« on: February 28, 2014, 11:22:31 AM »

What lettered said. Reply once, tell them the use was within what the CEO of the company said was allowable. After that I'd ignore other "demand" letters.

88

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: John Deboer Letter and Registration

« on: February 26, 2014, 11:41:03 AM »

Here's the thing... They may (or may not) own the exclusive rights on the image. It'll be interesting to see what your research turns up.

But what kills me is that Getty has ZERO interest in contacting the site you obtained the image from or maybe even told you the image was free to use. You'd think if they were wanted to maintain their rights to the image, they would at least ask you where the image came from. It's like they want to keep these free image sites up and running so they can send out more letters. A great business model if you don't mind turning potential customers against you.

89

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help from the Eli Community Needed

« on: February 24, 2014, 10:50:23 PM »

Wait. Are you moving in the wrong direction?

90

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has anybody heard of Destination360

« on: February 24, 2014, 10:48:52 PM »

Hmmm... I think you best share the content of the letter. One cannot really "put" images on Google. But if they are actually "seeding" images or posting them to FREE sites to ensnare people, AND you have proof of this, please share.