Stinger, you will see Getty through this out from time to time as it is one of their stock answers and runaround is that they give you. I first remember seeing it back in June as Robert posted a letter forwarded to him from Copyright Compliance Specialist Nancy Monson.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-interesting-message-from-a-getty-'copyright-compliance-specialist-'/I also use this quotation as an argument in my defense in my complaint letters filed against Getty with various authorities. I attacked it from a two-pronged approach showing with this statement that Getty does not even know if the artist have bothered to register the images and through in the Advernet case where was determined Getty had no right to collect any monies as there was issues with the registration on all of the images.
It all comes down to just the scare tactics Getty uses to try to frighten people into paying. Unfortunately it works as Getty has adopted this is their business model.
I agree that you should follow Greg and Robert's advice. This letter's tactics are pretty interesting.
"Copyright exists the moment a photograph is created and copyright registration is not a requirement of copyright ownership.This is a true statement.
Getty has contracts with contributing photographers who are the copyright holders. This might be true. It seems like it should be true in general. Is it true about the images they allege you mis-appropriated? Hard to say without proof. If they want payment, they should be willing to document why.
The contributor agreement contains representations and warranties that the contributor is the sole copyright owner. Representations and warranties in an agreement between a photographer and Getty should mean nothing to you. They should have to prove this to you.
Consequently Getty does not require contributors to provide Getty with certificates of registration and leaves the option of copyright registration to the individual photographer. It's great that Getty is so lazy as to not require proof. Since it is you they are asking for money, your policy should be a bit stricter that this. PROVE IT!
Due to confidentiality concerns, Getty would not provide copies of our contributor contracts at this stage of claim. Due to financial concerns, you should not provide them any money at this stage of the claim. That is all it is a claim. And they need to substantiate it to you. If not, they will eventually need to substantiate it to a judge.
Under the USCA, actual damages are recoverable regardless of registration. Another true statement
Getty is currently only requesting actual damages in settlement of this matter. Very misleading this. They have done nothing to substantiate their actual damages. In fact, they may have refused to.
Therefore, copyright registrations are irrelevant at this stage".Perhaps they are irrelevant to them, not you.
There are two completely true statements in there surrounded by a bunch of stuff that they make sound a lot truer than it might be, in your eyes.
Show Posts
