Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: another copytrack letter

« on: August 16, 2018, 12:02:03 PM »

I am a citizen born here in the US.

They claimed the use was a violation and I asked them to please explain how they don't see the use of the image as fair use and their first response was that it was "they don't think fair use applies because they see my website as commercial".

I said there are lots of examples of fair use applying to commercial sites and I added that I disagree that the use is commercial pointing out a lack of products I'm selling, no ads, or calls to action, and no reasonable connection between the image or the blog and any commercial activity.   They couldn't come up with anything and pivoted to say that the photographer is German and fair use doesn't apply in Germany.

I should also point out after looking at my emails again that they claim that the image was first detected on my site over 3 years ago.  To me that sounds like it hurts their case because it means they detected it and did nothing for an extended time.

at that point they seemed like the case was getting weaker every email and they said they were going to pass it to their us attorneys.  Months later I get collections attempting to collect (this is days ago).  Nothing is on my credit report though.

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: another copytrack letter

« on: August 16, 2018, 10:11:45 AM »

I did have the thought that requesting validation or disputing the debt and threatening to report them to the FTC will only get them to send me the same bogus bill copytrack sent me along with the legal minimum information they have to send (address, client name,etc) I could essentially get nowhere at the cost of acknowledging them and getting higher on their radar.  The blog is run by an LLC but they are mixing me personally into the paperwork and they have also been trying to contact my spouse who is not part of the LLC.

I really could care less about my credit score even if they could get a disputed claim to affect my personal credit I'll never take a loan in my life because of my personal financial principles.  I don't get a paycheck and I don't mind blocking their number.

I'm wondering at which point I ought to get a lawyer involved.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: another copytrack letter

« on: August 16, 2018, 09:48:03 AM »

No I'm from the US

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: another copytrack letter

« on: August 16, 2018, 01:02:48 AM »

Hey David,
Thanks for clearing up the misunderstandings statute of limitations has never been something I've brought up in any emails but something I wanted to keep an eye on.  I've always assumed they are simply trying to gather information to help themselves so I've tried to minimize what I say to them. 

I think its more complicated because when they contacted me no such image was on my site in fact what they showed me looked nothing like my site at the time.  So they are going to have to claim that they knew about it probably at least years before they contacted me or they saw it on some copy of the page from their crawler app (therefore knowing about a possible issue for a long time and not informing me).  On a side note: It's a little weird that they can make an app that crawls/copies pages and stores them online without permission or knowledge that isn't a potential copyright issue.  Their pages that copy content from the crawler are public you just need the url.

The letter they wrote me however claims they don't use crawling tools which is obviously not true.

While I'm not willing to show the image I could describe a similar scenario you could imagine searching pinterest for "Dogs playing in water" and then someone making a board that is called "Top 10 funniest photos of dogs playing in water" then writing a personal blog about why I love dogs playing in water and why you should take your dog to a water park and then showing the images and describing what I liked about each image and sharing some informative tips about taking certain breeds of dogs to water and linking my pinterest board that shows where I found each image.  Then doing a similar blog weekly about dogs.  Also the blog never got any traffic other than crawlers which is part of the reason I deleted it.  That would be very similar to the use I am getting harassed about.

Even the copytrack employee agreed it was fair use.  Their argument was that fair use doesn't apply in Germany.

Additionally, this particular image was being circulated as someone else's work (not the copytrack client) when I found it.  At least the person copytrack claims took the photo isn't the same person who is credited for the photo on pinterest.  I also have screenshots of the content that shows another person claiming to be the original photographer and encouraging the image be shared.  When I asked if copytrack could show me something to verify that their client is the person took the photo they refused to do so.

I've mostly just asked questions when getting emailed by copytrack "Why do you not think this falls under fair use?" "How is the amount you're asking for not arbitrary?"(no real answer, they implied it was based on how long the image was used but they didn't show how they calculate it) "Can you show me proof of copyright?"(no) "Can you show damage?"(no) "How is this comparable image not a fair estimate of the value of this image?"(I got a mean insulting answer from that question).  I've always been respectful to them on email but they've been pretty nasty toward me.

I have told them that if they can show me that I've actually damaged someone or violated a copyright in a way that wouldn't reasonably be considered fair use that I'd be happy to pay a fair market value for the image based on the going rate of similar images plus any damages that they can show.

I showed some proof that the photographer who made the image appears to have intentionally distributed it on social media and chose to not disable sharing tools then ignored it for years while the image was being distributed.  There are some items on Pinterest's terms of service at the time that would probably hurt copytrack one being that content creators can file an image as copyrighted and it will be blocked from Pinterest and to this day the creator hasn't done so.  They can also file DMCA claims and they haven't done that either.  They can also disable sharing.  The image is fairly boring and widely distributed which is usually a sign that it's been paid to be boosted or the creator underwent extreme efforts to have the image shared and distributed.  If they are indeed the photographer it's a problem that another photographer is credited with the work and no copyright issue has been claimed on pinterest.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: another copytrack letter

« on: August 15, 2018, 11:59:57 AM »

I had a similar experience with Copytrack.  I had a fair use of an image from over 3 years ago where I critiqued an image on a blog that gets essentially zero traffic which was removed when I switched my website's format long before Copytrack contacted me. 

The Copytrack employee contacted me and didn't realize the image wasn't even on my site because they were using their own content delivery service as their source for information which used cached copies of websites.  So a cached version of the site but not the actual website and apparently it took them about a year to email me about the issue.  I kept asking them for a link to the image I'm using without permission and they kept linking their own website's cached copy.  I just told them that they are linking their own site and to please provide a link on my website.

After they figured out the image wasn't actually on my site tried to say I removed it in response to their email.  I told them that isn't true either and I can prove it's not true because I have logs of updates to my site and my site hasn't had a blog for almost a year.  Later they corrected this and tried to say I owe them anyway because I used the image years ago. 

At which point I asked them to please show me why this isn't an example of fair use.  They incorrectly told me fair use doesn't apply for commercial websites they also harassed me and tried to shame me.  Then I really dug my heels in that this was fair use.  I asked them to please show me something to verify fair use never covers commercial websites then they changed their tactic and tried to claim fair use doesn't apply because the supposed original photographer is German.  (As I can tell, Germany does have something like fair use that protects critiques about images for public benefit or education).  However, I don't think it's a given that I'm subject to German laws anyway as a US citizen.  I would think it's at best an international copyright issue.  I told them if they could justify that I actually owe them something or that I caused damages I would be happy to discuss payment, I even showed them that very similar images are vaued at estimated 2.79 each on stock sites.  At which point they told me they would no longer respond to me.  Not really seeing a path where they had grounds to justify that I owe them anything I expected them to take the next step of sending a letter and then to collections.  Which is what happened and where we are now.

They sent this to  Recoverable Management Services  out of Columbus OH.  They left me a voicemail and I ignored that and they sent a letter now saying I have 30 days to dispute the debt.  I wonder if I should continue to ignore this as I don't see how they might have a case.

I don't ever plan on getting a loan but I'm not crazy about the idea of the invalid debt on my score either.

Some issues that kind of make it more nuanced:
I also understand that copyright may have a 3 year time limit for them to begin a lawsuit which should have passed as the image was originally published on a blog over 3 year ago.
There is also the fair use issue which I think is strong and Copytrack got pretty disrespectful and vulgar with me over email and I asked them to cease communications which they ignored and I also asked that they don't hire third parties to communicate on their behalf since this is clearly not an example of copyright infringement or I would consider that harassment I also added in that I don't see their case as an attempt to collect a valid debt.  Obviously they ignored that as well.  They are asserting I owe $1500 for a single image and it's an image that is used over 100 times online that the original photographer spent money to distribute publicly on pinterest so that he could attempt to sue people and on pinterest I've seen the image attributed to another photographer who is from the US and not the person they claim took the image.