75
« on: March 11, 2016, 05:40:39 PM »
That's a far better letter than anything I've seen from Getty or McCormack IP Law in the past. In fact, it even acknowledges your letter and answers it specifically.
Be cautious in that many people on this web site (myself included) have stated that Getty has, in the past, moved images from their Royalty Free page to their Rights managed page. Doing so could obviously mean significantly greater settlements from their trolling program. I would try to verify if the images in question were ever offered on Getty's Royalty free page or if they were ever offered by any other company.
The former would indicate that they are playing dirty. The latter would certainly draw into question their claim that since the image exists on their page and since they provide a warranty on their page, that they have the rights they claim in the image.
There are cases in case law where Getty could not provide a contract, signed by Getty, granting them the rights to the images they claim. You can find mention of them on this sight. I think one included a firm called Advernet.
You made the right first move by taking things down. If these are being handled as separate cases, it's unlikely they will sue because of the costs involved. If it were me, I might point out to them that because their website says they have the right to market the images, does not necessarily make it so.
If memory serves, a few years back, Getty was not only licensing images but also selling warranty insurance in case anyone else claimed the images as theirs. I think you are correct in demanding proof and shoot not settle for BS claims.