Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: No Getty Ownership?

« on: February 25, 2017, 01:00:53 PM »

1. Yes. I wouldn't pay for anything unless I had the proof of claim. It doesn't mean that can't sue you though.

2. If you ask for proof, they already have a response, usually something in the lines of "we will only provide it in court". They might reduce the fee, but being that it's only three digits, it seems unlikely. The downside to this strategy is they know you're worried and want to pay to make this "go away". That is the lifeblood of this tactic.

3. I wouldn't contact the photographer. The reason being, they get a cut of the settlement and it seems most of them are pretty stingy when it comes to "infringement" issues anyway. Not worth your time, and if they actually did take you to court, I wouldn't want comments made to the photographer being used against me.

I got one of there letters too, asking $2500 to settle (for one image) so you're not alone. I didn't negotiate a lower price, but I did send them an email asking for proof. They sent a reply email, which is verbatim to what others have posted here, that any documents produced would be done so in court. My lawyer was CC's on my email to them, he told me he sent a letter just asking future correspondences be sent to his firm and that I should just let him deal with it. Once he saw the letter, he was surprised I didn't want to settle but I took this personal (not always the smartest thing to do, but I don't really care). The image they said I "infringed on" came from my watch collecting blog which is sacred to me. I set it up to share my time pieces, discuss the industry, etc. It was something I enjoyed and I have a group of friends who also take part in it. It was never meant for copyright trolls looking for easy income, especially over an image that was not being being used, it was just left on the images folder that came with the template. So far, we have not heard anything and it's been about six months since my lawyer sent his letter.

I have not seen any lawsuits from these people over one image. I would like to provide a donation to anyone in this situation, I find it incredibly predatory and petty.

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Voices of Jupiter Florida" Discussion Thread

« on: February 06, 2017, 11:37:20 PM »

April, are you seriously trying to hook up with Albrizio?

3

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Beware of Photographer Nicholas (Nick) Youngson of NYPhotographic.com

« on: November 22, 2016, 06:26:04 PM »

Received the same letter asking for $2K.

Research so far makes this seem like a scam.  Something is just not right here! The problem is to uncover the scam is going to take time and money nobody whats to waste on these people.

I have my theory on how this scam works which I will keep to myself for now.

Any help on how to tackle this extortion would be appreciated. 

I would definitely say these are a racket, especially in cases like Mr. Youngson's. It has been well documented that he submits his photos to Free Wallpaper websites, basically a honeypot to facilitate the proliferation of his images, in some cases showing up under creative commons search engines. 

In your case, I would research your photo as best you can and determine where you got it (if you haven't already).  Definitely read up on the Aloha Plastic Surgery Counter-Claim. Not that it may be a strategy in your case, but good reading none the less and showed how one individual was able to turn this business model on its head. Now that this extortion has become a business in it's own right, I like to think of ways to make this more expensive and time consuming for the extortionists. However, that might not always be the best choice, although it has worked in other cases. Definitely do your homework.

All these extortions are the same. They hope to scare you enough to settle and in most cases, their initial offer is around twice of what they expect to receive. You can settle it, ignore it, or fight it. The option you choose is the one you think will have the best outcome. The common Getty letters have been ignored by a lot of recipients and due to the large scope of their operation, the costs of suing people for de minimis copyright infringement, and other factors usually nets a good a outcome in those cases. However, in your case, it may be different and that is why researching these forums, pacer, and the internet might be a good way to determine a course of action.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files two more lawsuits in 2016

« on: November 02, 2016, 12:18:49 PM »

Mojo88,

I am dealing with a similar case myself, so you're not alone. If you don't mind me asking, how many images and what is their settlement offer?

In my case, it was for one image but they are asking $2500 to settle. It was an image that was on a template page that was inadvertently left public. I have a feeling the new lawsuits are to add some teeth to their LCS operating model.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Agence France Presse - CLS Letter

« on: October 27, 2016, 08:19:54 PM »

Do a reverse image search on tineye and google to find out the origin of the other images. I would recommend removing all the images you do not have copyright or license to use, this is how they "get you" as you have learned.

If you want to take it even further, have your site deleted off the archive.org, not that other archives might exist. Just a precaution.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files two more lawsuits in 2016

« on: October 16, 2016, 05:35:20 PM »

Yeah, I would be interested in hearing some of the details if you have the time. Thanks.

7

Legal Controversies Forum / Youtube's Content ID

« on: October 13, 2016, 05:47:32 PM »

I have a question that I have had a hard time getting an answer to and thought I would try here.

It's in the same realm, albeit with music and video.

Youtube has a system in place to manage copyrighted music and video. If you're not aware, the system identifies copyrighted works, and if it has a deal in place with the publisher/copyright holder, then it will respond by either blocking the video, muting it, or monetizing it with ads. It's up to the publisher to choose which option with most choosing to collect royalties off of advertising.

So here is my question, is the user still on the hook for copyright infringement under this system? For example, if I made a video that used a unlicensed song but was allowed to upload it to google because the publisher agreed to collect royalties. In this scenario, the youtube video would be the only place the video would be viewed from. I could understand that it wouldn't be a blanket authorization, but something seems awfully sketchy about the legal parameters.

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files two more lawsuits in 2016

« on: October 12, 2016, 01:15:21 PM »

Interesting!

I wonder how large these companies are and the number of images used.

9

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Joel Albrizio (Adlife Marketing & Communications) Gets Nutty on Copyright-Trolls

« on: October 10, 2016, 02:27:26 AM »

Glad to see that someone is taking up an interest in this company and their practices. Anyone who has received one of Joel's letters should take note, and prepare a letter to the Massachusetts AG if they wish to shine a light on this very shady operation. They go beyond the corrupt Getty style, reaching more towards a traditional racket.