Click Official ELI Links
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.


Messages - Couch_Potato

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
16
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Should I respond?
« on: June 10, 2013, 09:18:27 AM »
Any advice is always appreciated but any response here has to factor in that:

a) Most first timers have no idea of their situation or rights. They've received a scary letter asking for a lot of money so what they need is information.
b) The person receiving the letter may not want to ignore it (some people just can't)
c) That they may actually have done something silly (like take the image from the Getty site)
d) No matter how small there is a chance that Getty may take action.

17
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Should I respond?
« on: June 07, 2013, 05:56:03 AM »
DavidVGoliath is correct, there is no time limit on bringing a claim in the UK.

However entering the legal arena is expensive and unsure, particularly on civil claims. Getty would be at a massive disadvantage waiting months before bringing their claim because it would weaken their argument to be protecting copyright.

What he doesn't also factor is that from detection of infringement there is a lag of about 6 months before they contact the infringer upon which they try to charge you for that time, which again would weaken their stance to be protecting copyright and may even be borderline illegal as they are inflating their claim deliberately.

Courts will look at mediation attempts before deciding on award of costs which is why ignoring them is not recommended. If during mediation you ask for proof that they have the right to bring the claim and they refuse, they again weaken their case.

Let's get real here, Getty has been in the game long enough. If they cannot provide the contract between the photographer and themselves why not, at the time of a photographer registering, they ask them to sign a one page document confirming Getty has been assigned copyright and that Getty can provide this document as proof in the event of an infringement. That would negate any data protection argument about not providing the proof which Getty makes.
Of course the reason they won't do that is because then they couldn't scare you with the costs of litigation if they have to provide it.

There are so many holes in Getty's approach it is no surprise they don't bring many claims to court. Especially the blatant misrepresentations made in their name by Atradius and the other companies they use to try to collect on infringements.

18
If Getty acquired the image after it had been on your site it would be almost impossible for them to prove their claim. They'd have to prove you acquired the image 'illegally' in the first place. While theoretically it could be proved it would be a costly exercise. Something we know Getty does not like pursuing usually.

Not being able to provide them with a licence for an image they have not always held the rights to distribute would not be proof that you infringed so I think it is entirely relevant of finding out when the image was acquired.

Of course, they could have always held the rights to this image, but then they should quite easily be able to confirm that...you'd think!

19
The link adds something after .pdf.

Delete that and you'll ge the document.

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/77fr40268.pdf

20
If you don't even have $200 to use Oscar's programme what exactly are Getty going to take from you? How much of their legal costs could they expect to recoup by going to court?

Sounds like a dead end from their perspective.

21
What's wrong with a scenario where there is a free to use image registration system? That essentially fixes the problem.

If a person doesn't care enough about their work to register it, it can be re-purposed and even sold by others. If they register it and someone uses it, there could be codified penalties for doing so. And if someone doesn't care to spend the time to check out if an image is freely available they can just pay a content aggregation company that finds images and then does the clearance legwork.


The problem with your scenario is it assumes people even know about this change in law and what it means. It's no different from Getty relying on ignorance of copyright law to hammer people who use their images in good faith.

The other issue is, because copyright was always automatic and you owned the property, people may have thousands of pictures in several different online places. Trying to locate them all and registering them is an unfair burden.

Who really benefits from this change in law? This will not benefit anybody in Getty's letter programme because they would never have any proof they performed a diligent search to locate the copyright holder because in the most cases they aren't aware the image isn't licensed properly or used a third party to build their website.

22

Secondly, when it comes to the value of an image, you might as well ask how long is a piece of string. The rightsholder sets the fees and terms as they see fit; if someone feels that the fee for an image is excessive, then they're certainly free to shop around for an alternative elsewhere.

My personal belief is that you don't get the luxury of arguing over the fee after you've used an image - no matter if a lower priced, similar alternative exists. It's akin to sitting down in a restaurant, ordering without looking at the menu, eating the meal and then attempting to haggle over the bill when it turns out to be way more than you thought it would - all because similar outlets on the other side of town charge far less.

(Yes, it's not a perfect analogy, but you get the point)

We'll have to disagree here.

Your analogy is irrelevant to copyright infringement and the reason it is dealt with separately in law. I could make an analogy whereby if I buy a stolen car unaware it was stolen then I am not asked to pay damages to the owner. Simply return the car. Deleting the image is restoring the property to it's rightful owner under that analogy.

The rights holder may set their terms but that is the point here on the forum with Getty's model. I could take loads of photos, put them on the internet asking for £5,000,000 per photo and if somebody infringed ask them to pay me that despite knowing it would never ever sell for that price. I would not get that amount in court. The photos Getty are sending out their letters on the back of are simply not worth what they are asking and do not sell for that price which is why they are unable to ever offer up a sales history on request to prove the images worth.


Whilst I agree that most small businesses would not license a single photograph for a three figure sum (especially where the subject matter of the photograph might be generic, easily replicated or have similar alternatives available elsewhere for a lesser fee.) the company should have gotten a contract with the web design firm whereby they would be indemnified and held harmless for any legal claims arising from the acceptance of the work done by the design firm for them... absent such contractual protections, the company would be exposed to the risks and liabilities that operating solely on a trust basis can bring to their door.

A contract cannot indemnify you from the law. All it would do is strengthen your case in recouping any amount you had to pay out.

I think a lot of your comments are very relevant and appropriate for copyright infringements in a generic sense. However, here we are talking about the actions of Getty specifically and their actions are not compatible with a company simply seeking to protect copyright.

If you are protecting copyright why would you absolutely refuse to provide any proof you have a right to demand that money?

Why would you refuse to provide any proof of the value of the image?

Why would you threaten litigation but very very rarely even follow through with that?

Getty are not protecting their contributors. They are using a quirk of law as a revenue generator and many here disagree with that.

23
I have two main issues with this bill.

1) How can it be ok to sub-licence for profit a photo you don't own any rights to?

2) A lot of images on the internet are ones uploaded by people for social purposes. How is it ok to be allowed to use those images for profit and why should everybody have to register images they are not selling for profit just to ensure some multi-national doesn't use it.

Would any of us be ok with Getty sub-licencing our images for profit?

24

Again, I can't speak for stock images, but I've shot many an event for Getty where I've been the sole person with "inside" access on the red carpet, at parties, closed door functions and so on. You can't get much more exclusive than that.

Nobody here has an issue with those exclusive images costing a lot of money to licence. They are obviously rare and should be priced accordingly.

However, that is not really the issue with Getty on this forum. The issue is Getty are putting stock images into their rights managed section and then expecting an innocent infringer to pay more than the image is actually worth by pressuring them with fear of litigation.

An image of 3 people smiling around a business meeting table is not worth £500 to a small business for 3 months use on a secondary page of a website. Not even close, and in most instances the company in question hasn't sourced the images on their website. They have trusted their web designer to do it.

25
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Jupiter Images
« on: May 08, 2013, 04:34:57 AM »
It's been two years and they haven't taken you to court. I don't think I'd be all that worried.

Before you incur the expense of a lawyer why not just email Getty, offer them the 3 usernames you used on clipart.com and tell them you obtained the image from there in 1996 (or whatever year) and since they own the site they can confirm that.

If they still demand payment after you've proved you had the appropriate licence then involve a lawyer.

26
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Jupiter Images
« on: May 07, 2013, 07:03:07 AM »
Maybe I've misunderstood but the original post stated a letter was received from Getty two years ago, but then states no letter from Getty was received in reference to the McCormack letter?

Are they unrelated?

It also states the images were no longer on clipart.com when searched. Where are they now offered? The Getty letter usually offers a link to the site where they offer the image as 'proof' they own the image.

I think this kind of situation is probably more common than we hear. Perhaps cleared up before the letter recipient looks online for help. When Getty purchases a stock image site they would only have the records provided by that company. If they were a mess then Getty wouldn't know who had licensed what. This could probably easily be cleared up by writing to Getty, telling them you have a licence from clipart.com and that you therefore have no case to answer.

This highlights why the Getty letter is a big problem. It marks you as guilty before you have had the chance to explain yourself even when they know their records are a big mess.

27
When does Getty's behaviour bridge the grey area between legal and illegal?

They love to tell letter recipients that ignorance is no defence of the law but surely blatantly lying to someone about what constitutes copyright infringement in order to obtain money could be considered extortion.

28
Getty doesn't bring cases to court anyway. This won't stop their letter writing campaign because that relies on ignorance of the law.

However, I have to say the legislation seems ridiculous. Using orphan works I might be able to make a case for, but allowing them to be sold for profit wholesale is clearly wrong. They haven't even sorted out a proper copyright registration database.

It also doesn't help anyone in the position of using a third party who uses stolen images. They'll still get hammered as usual because they don't know better.

29
You shouldn't have necessarily removed the RSS feed. Only check that you are allowed to feed them into a commercial site (if yours is).

You haven't infringed any copyright so no need to remove them unnecessarily.

30
The real issue here is not whether you infringed on Getty's copyright, you clearly did not, but whether you were allowed to use the RSS feed to display on your site, particularly if your site is commercial.

A lot of RSS feeds state in the T&C's that they should not be used to display on another commercial site. You may want to check that.

Either way it's nothing to do with Getty as an RSS feed hotlinks so the image may have appeared on your site, but will not have been stored there which means you wouldn't be liable for copyright infringement.

EDIT: Just to clarify because I didn't spell it out. Don't pay Getty.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
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.