1
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:23:33 PM »
Here's an update from my client...
I wrote a response letter for my client to Getty regarding the preview image supposedly used on their blog. The image was 100px by 133px - so really small.
1) We removed the image as soon as we were notified. This alleged infringement was unintentional at best and we want to keep it that way.
2) The image was used on a blog post discussing a news story and was not commercial - not directly. So we are claiming fair use. Probably not the best line but it was a paragraph non the less.
3) We send a document showing the same image on hundreds of sites via Google search. Many of these sites had publish dates in excess of 6 years so they are not hell bent on finding infringers if I can find so many in 5 seconds. Though we only pointed out that the image was prolific.
4) We searched their catalog and found the image was in a different color than the one in their catalog.
5) Keeping the above in mind how could we be sure Getty was indeed the legal copyright holder? We asked for the original copyright claimant and any assignment or granting of exclusive rights including the right to enforce violations.
Last week they sent a reply via FedEx. It's basically a similar form letter to the ones already posted. It more or less ignores the documentation requested on grounds of confidentiality. It also lowers the requested amount and puts in a nice fast date to make the receiver think fast. My client was actually out of town and thus didn't even get the letter till after the date had passed.
The most interesting thing was that the response letter DID NOT COME FROM AN ATTORNEY - but rather from Getty's "Copyright Compliance Department." Not sure if this shows a shift in strategy to keep the heat off from the AG and WA Bar.
Our reply strategy will be to ask for documentation on the copyright claimant and any assignment so we can be sure we are dealing with the right entity. We are willing to agree to confidentiality if needed but until we have that information we cannot simple assume Getty is telling the truth.
I wrote a response letter for my client to Getty regarding the preview image supposedly used on their blog. The image was 100px by 133px - so really small.
1) We removed the image as soon as we were notified. This alleged infringement was unintentional at best and we want to keep it that way.
2) The image was used on a blog post discussing a news story and was not commercial - not directly. So we are claiming fair use. Probably not the best line but it was a paragraph non the less.
3) We send a document showing the same image on hundreds of sites via Google search. Many of these sites had publish dates in excess of 6 years so they are not hell bent on finding infringers if I can find so many in 5 seconds. Though we only pointed out that the image was prolific.
4) We searched their catalog and found the image was in a different color than the one in their catalog.
5) Keeping the above in mind how could we be sure Getty was indeed the legal copyright holder? We asked for the original copyright claimant and any assignment or granting of exclusive rights including the right to enforce violations.
Last week they sent a reply via FedEx. It's basically a similar form letter to the ones already posted. It more or less ignores the documentation requested on grounds of confidentiality. It also lowers the requested amount and puts in a nice fast date to make the receiver think fast. My client was actually out of town and thus didn't even get the letter till after the date had passed.
The most interesting thing was that the response letter DID NOT COME FROM AN ATTORNEY - but rather from Getty's "Copyright Compliance Department." Not sure if this shows a shift in strategy to keep the heat off from the AG and WA Bar.
Our reply strategy will be to ask for documentation on the copyright claimant and any assignment so we can be sure we are dealing with the right entity. We are willing to agree to confidentiality if needed but until we have that information we cannot simple assume Getty is telling the truth.