Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Getty Letter Story

« on: August 10, 2014, 05:50:58 PM »

Thanks Matt. I think having another thread for this is a great idea! Just to expound a bit more the unlicensed images according to Parallels on site are problematic in two products Parallels Plesk Sitebuilder AND Parallels SiteStudio.
Also here is a thread discussing it a tad on Parallel's site http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?261320-Getty-Images-Copyright-Infringement-Notice-from-SiteBuilder-Image

One of the more problematic issues with this is that many people and companies purchased the templates from their website host and not Parallels directly. Some of those hosts or resellers may no longer be in business and/or as in the case here are claiming they never got any notices from Parallels to warn their customers or at all.

Parallel's position is that they will not assist anyone that did not purchase from them directly. An alleged manager at Parallels stated that sometimes the problem arose because Parallel discontinued certain templates and therefore stopped paying licensing fees and in other instances they aren't really sure why the unlicensed images exist. The manager said he is also 100% certain the image was originally in the template. (Not sure why he said that but there it is) They claim they alerted all their customers. Sure doesn't look that way. Even if they did this explanation is really not acceptable as many of those sites I am quite sure are the recipients of the Getty letter due to this and in the USA as you already know the end user is responsible under the law.

All we know is that Parallels admits the issue in black and white:
"Symptoms
You have a website and were told that one of the images on the website is unlicensed.
Cause
Websites created using Parallels SiteStudio or older versions of Parallels Plesk Sitebuiler (below 4.5) might contain unlicensed images that belong to Getty Images."
Note they can't even spell Builder correctly.

Since the heavily accented overseas support also said they don't keep copies of the templates or images - IF that is correct not sure how this can be resolved fairly if they also don't keep copies of the licenses for the pics. They weren't sure if they have copies or records of the licenses or not.

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Getty Letter Story

« on: August 08, 2014, 08:06:05 PM »

I think you misunderstood me. Mainly the point was about KB Parallels and their admission of having sold templates with unlicensed Getty images. http://kb.parallels.com/en/116513
"Unlicensed images on the website
Article ID: 116513
Created On: Jul 22, 2013
Last Review: Jul 10, 2014
Views: 
APPLIES TO:
Parallels Plesk Sitebuilder
Parallels SiteStudio
Service provider products licensing
Symptoms
You have a website and were told that one of the images on the website is unlicensed.
Cause
Websites created using Parallels SiteStudio or older versions of Parallels Plesk Sitebuiler (below 4.5) might contain unlicensed images that belong to Getty Images.
Resolution
If you are a website owner, please get in touch with your hosting provider. They should either remove the images in question, or discuss usage terms with the image owner."

The question of what to do pertained to whether or not to contact the host that provided the templates legal department as was suggested by Parallels since the people are not 100% sure if the image was in the template, and wondering if anyone else had dealt with or heard of this issue with Parallels templates, and the outcome.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Another Getty Letter Story

« on: August 08, 2014, 10:16:49 AM »

Our friends have a very small business and yes are incorporated with a registered agent - as is required by their state. They received the Getty letter on a single image and took it off the site. Their teenage son helped build the site years ago - and said he only used "free images"  and they honestly don't recall how that image got there and as it was in the frame of the site could even have been an image included in Sitebuilder - who Parallels has admitted they had a problem with some of their older templates - of which they had one from their website host provider. http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?261320-Getty-Images-Copyright-Infringement-Notice-from-SiteBuilder-Image 

http://kb.parallels.com/en/116513

They spoke to parallels who said all website providers received notices to discontinue these older templates but the host says they received nothing and know nothing on this.
The host says they are willing to send it to their legal department if our friends want them to (and presumably go after Parallels to make it right but that wasn't spelled out).  Both Parallels (customer service)and the host said they don't keep copies of such old templates nor the pics in them. However, if they do keep copies of the licenses from that time and the pic was not in the original template maybe that will be worse than ignoring Getty by getting the host legal department involved?

Our friends received one letter but did not answer it over a year ago. A few other letters came to the office where their mailbox is but it was addressed to a person or "department" they don't have and sent back unopened. They haven't heard anything in about a year and are unsure of what to do. Yes they read every post  and suggestion on here and know the options. LOL.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Statistics in Stock Photo Industry

« on: August 08, 2014, 10:00:54 AM »

Thanks Matthew. Good points. I guess the scary thing resulting from the Virtual Clinics case is the potential for a very very high statutory potentially almost automatic damages amount so that will pressure the small corporation or llc  they are targeting to settle up to some usurious amount - more obviously than the pic was worth, and will now include attorneys fees on all sides and court costs. The problem is that by law many are not "innocent" but simply ignorant in using the pic. Maybe they got it from what they thought was a free site, didn't have a watermark on it etc. If they used it on a commercial website -  and are incorporated - even if they pulled it down after getting the letter - I think Getty will be more likely to go after them.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Statistics in Stock Photo Industry

« on: August 07, 2014, 10:26:07 AM »

Thank you for all the statistics and other info it is all extremely helpful. What are the common denominators of the Plaintiffs that Getty (and or the others but particularly interested in Getty) has selectively chosen to sue for single images in the past year? Why were they in particular chosen out of the many thousands in your opinions to sue?

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

« on: August 01, 2014, 05:18:53 PM »

Another wave of single image lawsuits is coming? Against small incorporated companies no doubt that can't afford to hire counsel AND pay Getty. (And incorporated companies cannot represent themselves which of course Getty knows and is taking advantage of). So far every company sued has settled apparently, regardless of the facts - even when the law was on their side (like the hotlink case Oscar just discussed). So basically it seems to make sense to pay on a single image alleged infringement at the first and lowest amount offered in the first Getty Letter (which by most accounts is under $900) if the potential defendant is a LLC or a corporation - because as discussed here it would cost more to fight it than to pay it.  I surmise it would cost even more than what the letter asked for to retain any counsel at all (even Oscar) to even settle for that original amount they asked for. If I am wrong please let me know and why.

7

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

« on: May 07, 2014, 02:22:03 AM »

Thank you for responding Oscar. I understand you can't comment on the particulars. Will Pacer reveal the amount(s) settled for? That is the real issue and the one I was getting at in this thread.

What does it mean the lawsuits "went away amicably" in terms of dollars?? Also how much Oscar would charge to defend these suits - I can't imagine his fees along with the dollar amount of the settlement is any less than the original demand they could have paid prior to being sued?

What have we learned from these lawsuits?

What is a good strategy for small incorporated businesses that receive a demand letter for a single image in light of these suits/settlements?

1. If the amounts settled for combined with attorneys fees are higher than the original amount Getty demanded should the small incorporated businesses with a single image alleged infringement settle after receiving the first or lowest demand letter?

2. Is it still advisable for a small incorporated business to still hire Oscar for the letter program?
Not just because it looks they may intentionally be targeting Oscar's clients but also because I don't quite understand what the program would do now for a small incorporated business.

(Admittedly I don't know what that program did or will encompass - maybe Oscar will try to settle for less than the original demand in his letter program? Or is there just a letter sent to Getty asking for proof of the claims? I ask for clarification because it seems as though the latter  happened per one of the defendants and then his small incorporated business was sued out of the blue with no negotiations with Oscar)

3. Will small incorporated businesses now be targeted for lawsuits as a matter of rote if they don't settle/pay up prior to getting sued?

Is this the new Getty scam? Filing lawsuits against incorporated businesses with one single image alleged infringement because they know an incorporated business must hire an attorney to even file an answer?? A single image seems to be a logical pain point for many small businesses because from what I read on here the average claim for a single image has been lawsuit has been $2500.

Whereas a small business might pay to retain counsel over two or three images ie an $8 - 10 k or more demand, a single image demand of $2500 may not seem worth fighting over because it's a lose lose for the small business that MUST hire an attorney to file an answer that will in most likelihood charge at least that in a retainer and $2500 is maybe an amount they can muster up but no more and still stay in business.

I think a typical scenario in what looks like a new scheme could be an incorporated business receives a $800 demand in the first letter and whether they don't pay because they ignored them, or answered them and asked for proof of the claim will now be sued for $2500 because now Getty has court costs and attorney fees to recoup and/or more so because they know the corporation or LLC is over a barrel in that they have to hire an attorney to answer them and that doesn't make economic sense for that dollar amount.

If Getty is making even making a penny over what they asked for initially in this settlement (which it sounds like they are making far more in this new scheme - I think Matthew said they had about $1000 invested) why wouldn't they sue most single small incorporated businesses that don't pay up prior to the end of the statute of limitations?

8

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

« on: April 30, 2014, 10:58:21 AM »

Thank you for all the great information! I posted this earlier in another section but no response so moved it here. The single image lawsuits I think are the most troubling development and was hoping to get some answers or thoughts.

I was wondering if any answers were filed in response to the complaints yet? If so can someone with access please post them? What is the latest going on with these filed cases?

Does anyone know how many demand letters GI sends to small businesses as opposed to non profits or blogs per year?

I was wondering why Getty is starting primarily with the 11th circuit to file suits?

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?

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 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?