1
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty/NCS Contacting Our Broker
« on: November 23, 2008, 11:54:57 PM »
Thank you most kindly for your response. I will email you and we'll go from there.
| 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.
Pages: [1]
2
Getty Images Letter Forum / How they find you
« on: November 23, 2008, 08:23:33 PM »
I'm just so happy to have found this forum and hope I can get some assistance with my particular situation. But, I also want to contribute.
How does Getty find the offending photos? I wondered about that in view of the fact that probably the majority of photos have been renamed, have been altered, have no ID# that matches the ID# Getty provides, etc. I doubt very much that they have spiders or robots of their own that can find obscure photos based on the criteria above. Impossible. I doubt they employ people to randomly look at websites alphabetically. How then?
It came to me that it was only after I began purchasing photos from them, that I came under their guns. I've also read some anecdotal posts around the internet that others had noticed something similar. That, having bought photos from Getty, suddenly they were attacked. I tend to believe that. After all, only people who own, manage, create websites buy photos. And so, Getty (or, as I've read they claim here, a "third party") gets specific identifying via tracking cookies, IP tracking, referring IP, to find out where the purchased photos are going, and start looking around their members' websites or websites their members design, etc., for unlicensed photos. And, they find them, apparently.
The only problem with this is that they are violating their own Privacy Policy which very clearly outlines what they can and cannot do with information that they collect on members, mostly limited to offering you more photos to buy, incentives, specials, OR tailoring ads aimed at you according to what preferences they've discovered you may have based on your web habits at the time you visit their site. What it does NOT permit them to do is give your personal information to a third party, or permit their own employees to use it in ways OTHER than as set forth in their Privacy Policy.
So, they are not permitted to use the information they collect on you to go snooping. Definitely not. I am convinced that they're doing this. I have no idea how this information could be used in The Crusade, but attorneys are very good at thinking through systems and finding something worth pursuing.
How does Getty find the offending photos? I wondered about that in view of the fact that probably the majority of photos have been renamed, have been altered, have no ID# that matches the ID# Getty provides, etc. I doubt very much that they have spiders or robots of their own that can find obscure photos based on the criteria above. Impossible. I doubt they employ people to randomly look at websites alphabetically. How then?
It came to me that it was only after I began purchasing photos from them, that I came under their guns. I've also read some anecdotal posts around the internet that others had noticed something similar. That, having bought photos from Getty, suddenly they were attacked. I tend to believe that. After all, only people who own, manage, create websites buy photos. And so, Getty (or, as I've read they claim here, a "third party") gets specific identifying via tracking cookies, IP tracking, referring IP, to find out where the purchased photos are going, and start looking around their members' websites or websites their members design, etc., for unlicensed photos. And, they find them, apparently.
The only problem with this is that they are violating their own Privacy Policy which very clearly outlines what they can and cannot do with information that they collect on members, mostly limited to offering you more photos to buy, incentives, specials, OR tailoring ads aimed at you according to what preferences they've discovered you may have based on your web habits at the time you visit their site. What it does NOT permit them to do is give your personal information to a third party, or permit their own employees to use it in ways OTHER than as set forth in their Privacy Policy.
So, they are not permitted to use the information they collect on you to go snooping. Definitely not. I am convinced that they're doing this. I have no idea how this information could be used in The Crusade, but attorneys are very good at thinking through systems and finding something worth pursuing.
3
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new info on Getty
« on: November 23, 2008, 07:05:16 PM »
davep42 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>... I believe you are on the right track Oscar. I
> would want to believe that any judge looking at
> how the internet has developed would agree with
> the "innocent infringement" defense...
That's where I see a big problem. Judges understanding how the internet works, how websites are developed, how results show up on Google and Y!, etc., etc.
I tried to explain a situation involving how websites compete for Internet placement (results pages) to my attorneys (at the largest firm in the SW), and it was very difficult for them to grasp, even though two of them were relatively young. I doubted they could write an answer to a complaint from a competitor of mine, and so I had to do all the work so they could defend.
I worry about judges being uninformed or misinformed, or not able to grasp how the Internet really works, and how the law applies to cyber issues.
-------------------------------------------------------
>... I believe you are on the right track Oscar. I
> would want to believe that any judge looking at
> how the internet has developed would agree with
> the "innocent infringement" defense...
That's where I see a big problem. Judges understanding how the internet works, how websites are developed, how results show up on Google and Y!, etc., etc.
I tried to explain a situation involving how websites compete for Internet placement (results pages) to my attorneys (at the largest firm in the SW), and it was very difficult for them to grasp, even though two of them were relatively young. I doubted they could write an answer to a complaint from a competitor of mine, and so I had to do all the work so they could defend.
I worry about judges being uninformed or misinformed, or not able to grasp how the Internet really works, and how the law applies to cyber issues.
4
Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty/NCS Contacting Our Broker
« on: November 23, 2008, 06:35:52 PM »
Sorry to appear selfish and make my first post is about MY Getty problem, but I believe I have an unusual situation. So, before I email the very gracious attorneys at this website to treat with Getty on my behalf, I'd like to outline my situation.
I am a real estate agent and started my own website for myself as an licensed agent in 2001. At that time I hung my license as an I.C. (commissioned salesperson) at a big national R.E. franchisee locally. I was there for six years. Starting out, I bought some templates of business-oriented photos. They were inexpensive. I used them freely, developed my website into a fairly good-sized entity, year by year. As time went by, I started purchasing licenses for photos from IStock because they were of good quality. But, in and about the website were photos from the original business templates I had purchased online.
I left Broker 1, and went to another broker, again, as an I.C. According to our state laws, I am required to put the name of my broker on my personal website. But, of course, my website is extremely and overwhelmingly branded with my name-- me, me, me! The Broker's name is waaaaaaay down at the bottom of the page. Probably people can imagine why that is. It's so that people contact ME and not the broker or other agents who work there!
Sometime in 2007 I rec'd an email from Getty about 1 photo along with the traditional demand for payment. I immediately removed the offending photo. I responded to them telling them that. I read further about their tactics online, and didn't respond any further. I rec'd another email, but this time I noticed that it was addressed to my Broker. I immediately emailed a response that the website did not belong to my Broker, that I was the owner of the website; that in fact, my Broker had his own company website distinctly separate from my personal website. That I, and only I was the responsible party.
So, I started looking for some way to defend myself if I had to. Track down the origin of the photo. I learned how to examine the offending photo. I found that it came originally from a China-based website, was from a portfolio called, "Business10", and from the properties, it had been PhotoShopped on a certain date. Visual exam of Getty's photo and the one I'd bought showed it had been altered. The original website where I bought the package was defunct. I didn't contact Getty and tell them about what I'd found out. l figured I'd save that info till needed. Don't know whether it'd work anyway.
So much for how I obtained the photo and how I had used it. Subsequently, Getty sent a threatening letter to my Broker. I tried to explain what it was and assured him that I'd taken responsibility. I also told him it was best not to answer them. (This I had learned by research online). About 2 weeks ago, the letter from NCS comes to the office (settlement letter) addressed to the Broker's company, and again I say I will handle it. But how to do that? I'd intensely dislike talking to my Broker about it, know pretty much he'd send them the $1200 and take it out of my commissions. I don't think that's what I want to do. I think it's wrong.
According to what little I know about legal matters, I remember that one has to go after the appropriate entity in any legal matter. That one cannot go into court and bring an action against the wrong party, either a person or a corporation. I'd assume that trying to collect a debt from a party who is not obligated would be the same. So, I'd like to answer NCS appropriately. I'd very much NOT appreciate them continuing to try to collect a debt, even a bogus debt from my Broker. Quite honestly, I fear I might be severed and lose all my listings. I have a very lucrative business built up over 9 years. In these tough times in real estate, my listings and contacts are extremely attractive to other agents in the office and my Broker, who is hurting.
So, if it is helpful to other Getty sufferers to have my post answered in the forum, great. I am also willing to pay for help with straightening this out. It is doubtful that I could explain this to my own attorneys, and would much prefer working with attorneys who are completely familiar with this mess. If I can get my Getty problem behind me, I'd like to help others out in any way I can!
I am a real estate agent and started my own website for myself as an licensed agent in 2001. At that time I hung my license as an I.C. (commissioned salesperson) at a big national R.E. franchisee locally. I was there for six years. Starting out, I bought some templates of business-oriented photos. They were inexpensive. I used them freely, developed my website into a fairly good-sized entity, year by year. As time went by, I started purchasing licenses for photos from IStock because they were of good quality. But, in and about the website were photos from the original business templates I had purchased online.
I left Broker 1, and went to another broker, again, as an I.C. According to our state laws, I am required to put the name of my broker on my personal website. But, of course, my website is extremely and overwhelmingly branded with my name-- me, me, me! The Broker's name is waaaaaaay down at the bottom of the page. Probably people can imagine why that is. It's so that people contact ME and not the broker or other agents who work there!
Sometime in 2007 I rec'd an email from Getty about 1 photo along with the traditional demand for payment. I immediately removed the offending photo. I responded to them telling them that. I read further about their tactics online, and didn't respond any further. I rec'd another email, but this time I noticed that it was addressed to my Broker. I immediately emailed a response that the website did not belong to my Broker, that I was the owner of the website; that in fact, my Broker had his own company website distinctly separate from my personal website. That I, and only I was the responsible party.
So, I started looking for some way to defend myself if I had to. Track down the origin of the photo. I learned how to examine the offending photo. I found that it came originally from a China-based website, was from a portfolio called, "Business10", and from the properties, it had been PhotoShopped on a certain date. Visual exam of Getty's photo and the one I'd bought showed it had been altered. The original website where I bought the package was defunct. I didn't contact Getty and tell them about what I'd found out. l figured I'd save that info till needed. Don't know whether it'd work anyway.
So much for how I obtained the photo and how I had used it. Subsequently, Getty sent a threatening letter to my Broker. I tried to explain what it was and assured him that I'd taken responsibility. I also told him it was best not to answer them. (This I had learned by research online). About 2 weeks ago, the letter from NCS comes to the office (settlement letter) addressed to the Broker's company, and again I say I will handle it. But how to do that? I'd intensely dislike talking to my Broker about it, know pretty much he'd send them the $1200 and take it out of my commissions. I don't think that's what I want to do. I think it's wrong.
According to what little I know about legal matters, I remember that one has to go after the appropriate entity in any legal matter. That one cannot go into court and bring an action against the wrong party, either a person or a corporation. I'd assume that trying to collect a debt from a party who is not obligated would be the same. So, I'd like to answer NCS appropriately. I'd very much NOT appreciate them continuing to try to collect a debt, even a bogus debt from my Broker. Quite honestly, I fear I might be severed and lose all my listings. I have a very lucrative business built up over 9 years. In these tough times in real estate, my listings and contacts are extremely attractive to other agents in the office and my Broker, who is hurting.
So, if it is helpful to other Getty sufferers to have my post answered in the forum, great. I am also willing to pay for help with straightening this out. It is doubtful that I could explain this to my own attorneys, and would much prefer working with attorneys who are completely familiar with this mess. If I can get my Getty problem behind me, I'd like to help others out in any way I can!
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. |