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 - edward1234

Pages: [1]
1

I can't find the "bow down to you" smiley put please imagine it here :D
Thanks to Oscar for his input, and the reminder!!

"Actual damages" refer to the actual retail price of the image; what Getty would license the image for.
The price would reflect where, when, and how long the image was used, as if you actually licensed it from Getty.
It's important to remember that while Getty makes large demands in its letters, the actual pricing is usually much less than this.

"Statutory damages" refer to costs above and beyond the actual price of the image.
This is of major concern, as it may include legal fees incurred by the plaintiff, loss of profits, and other costs.
These damages can really add up, as anyone who's needed the services of a lawyer can attest to.

In the US, one may only seek statutory damages if the image has been properly registered with the Copyright Office.  Otherwise, the plaintiff may only seek actual damages.
In Canada, one may seek either statutory damages, or actual damages.  The choice is not dependent on registration with the Canadian Copyright Office, although that would help the plaintiff's case greatly.

It's easy to see why Getty doesn't give any information about the status of the content that it sells.
They wish to give the impression that all of their images are registered with the copyright office, in order to make the spectre of statutory damages loom over the alleged infringer.
Also, a proper registration is an essential part of proving a case in the event of a dispute.

What Oscar is saying is that if the defendant successfully pleads "innocent infringement", the penalty could be as low as $200 in the US.
But, if Getty felt that the alleged infringer could do this, their strategy may be to sue for actual damages if those amounted to an excess of $200.

In US law, "innocent infringement" is defined as "In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
It's up to the court to decide the validity of the defendant's defense of "innocent infringement".  But, such things would likely include situations such yours wherein something was offered for free use, and you acted in good faith and belief.

Having said all that, the major stock image companies have been largely unsuccessful in their court endeavors.
All this talk of court and lawsuits isn't intended to scare anyone.  Lawsuits are quite rare.
Getty's never sued over a small number of images.  Masterfile has in the past, but they seem to be on hiatus for now.

S.G.

2
I think the below quote sums it up exactly.

Oscar, would you be so kind as to provide further information on this automatic $200 damage amount? How does that work?

Thanks so much!
I disagree that a site in a state of test/construction meets the test of innocent infringement in terms of an image placed on it.
The state of completion of a website should not cause the publisher to determine that any given image is not covered by copyright.
I think that "innocent infringment" is being confused with "de minimis damages".
The alleged copyright holder couldn't prove much value in damages because the site didn't make sales.

S.G.

3
Very interesting discussion.

Is there really a point in telling the customer service rep on the phone about the CEO's comments? Looks like the only power the person on the phone has is to offer the "discount" on the settlement (they probably have guidelines on what percentage discount to make and that is all they can do).

Also, whats the benefit of responding in writing then if there is no upside to them to pursue this case?

4
Hello All,

I have read through many posts on the forum and pages on this site and want to first of all thank all of you for taking the time to share information and resources. Thanks!

My situation in brief: found a free template online and used it as a place holder for a domain name with literally no traffic. The only people who have ever seen the site are myself and Getty's robot. The intention was to put up a real website later.

Received a letter demanding a $1000 for the presence of one image in this template.

The image is in likely hundreds if not thousands of sites all over the net that use this same template. I have found many examples of the same template everywhere by just Googling the filler text that came with the template.

I compared the image in the template to the same image on Getty's website. The template takes the image and cuts it down by quite a bit then blends it with 2 other images to form a header image. Does this get any protection since it is a form of re-hasing or re-mixing of the original image (the same way remixed songs I believe are protected)?

I know even though it is a free template that won't help me much, but hopefully that fact that the site received zero traffic will.

Thank you so much for any insight!

Sincerely,

Eddie

Pages: [1]
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.