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 - geezer123

Pages: [1] 2
1
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Letter Advice
« on: June 01, 2017, 06:15:25 AM »
Read the forum and educate yourself.

Your call obviously but my experience is and I have had half a dozen of these letters last relating to the same number of images is to ignore them completely.

I do take the images down but never respond to the letters. I am aware they can follow up and actually force me to court but I am comfortable with that knowing they never have yet.

2
The letters always follow a similiar pattern, a demand for money for an alleged copyright infringement.

Seems you are acting in a professional capacity (web designer?) so have a good read about of these forums. There is plenty here for you to chew on.

Sounds like you have a per-purchased license so you have no need to worry in the slightest. It is for the firm to prove that you do not have a licence not for you to prove you have.

The letters look very startling at first but once you have more information in your noggin from these parts you will become to realise they are by and large just a fishing exercise with a view to extort.

3
Excellent Example of Getty selling images they do not have the rights too.

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/113493550

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon_B._Johnson_taking_the_oath_of_office,_November_1963.jpg

Shame we cannot post images here or hotlink to them.....  ;) I suspect that is for a reason....

4
One only has to do a general google search on 'getty images extortion letter' to find literally dozens if not hundreds of results, this forum of course amongst them
The content is always pretty much the same, bulk sending of emails and letters alleging infringement and demanding payment or proof of licence on threat of court action. The business practice is well known and is reported across numerous sites.

In essence, pay us or prove licence or we will sue you. A very hostile opening, why should anyone want to converse with this firm, even if they have a licence?

The web results tell us almost exclusively that those who do try and speak to Getty get little mutual co-operation and that they are only ever after money.

My observation is through research of this site and many others which demonstrate the same tactics in the vast majority of cases. Very few reports though of cases actually being taken through the courts... Maybe because this is they cannot prove the persons does not have a licence? Clearly there is the case you took but that applies to a very specific detail (partly print publication) and should not be compared with IP infringement of an image.

Quote
I’m told by folk more technical than me that all the social media (SM) sites are set up as mere conduits, that they provide the ‘building’ but others provide what goes on inside it, the content.  Because of that, the SM sites, themselves, are not liable.  If there is an infringement, it would be by the poster, the content provider, who can be difficult to identify and probably not worth chasing.  Also, it may be that the BBC, Daily Mail etc. have bought the rights to ‘share’ the photo and article so their appearance on SM sites is authorised.  Again, the details matter.

Or maybe because it is the social media sites will not co-operate with getty by providing IP addresses of posters who have potentially infringed. Of course they could request a Court order under existing case law ( Norwich Pharmaceutical Order) to have the information provided and in the current climate it would probably be granted but that would cost many thousands of pounds and as this is about making money rather than enforcing a principle would not be worthwhile.
DCMA is certainly US legislation although the term is accepted this side of the pond in relation to copyright takedowns. More often these days FACT and other Organisations have sought and been granted high court orders where IPS's have been required to block assess to web sites which betray IP rights.
One was only granted last week in relation to video streaming sites where Virginmedia in the UK blocked access to putlocker and some other large scale media hosting sites.

Quote
And that is what we one-man-band photographers have been doing for 4 or 5 years now.  As well as Picscout, there are several other reputable companies doing the searching and reporting to the copyright holders for assessment.

Hopefully by adopting a reasonable approach rather than demands and threats you are able to strike up a dialog and seek a mutual resolution to the issues.

End of the day court action is still available. If anyone thinks they have been wronged then they are entitled to have the case heard by a court.

If Getty or indeed anyone thinks there IP has been infringed then they should seek redress through the these channels..






5
And then there is hot-linking of an image and the placement of it on a website at server level....

Two completely different things one is potential IP Theft the other much less clear..... Getty Ect don't differentiate between either and do not produce evidence of the background code to prove how an image was placed.

Social media is with us big time. I see images on their sites every day (twitter, facebook and others) hot linked from the likes of the BBC, Daily Mail, PA and all sorts. Some I suspect are even uploaded and placed on the social media sites. Strange that our courts are not overwhelmed with cases of the social media giants being taken through the system.

They all have dcma notices which explain all one needs to do it contact them and request removal which by and large they do.

Another example of double standards Chasing the internet naive and frightening them to pony up the funds?

A much better business model would be picscout identify potential breaches and then informing the IP holder who can then check their records and enter into a reasonable dialog with the alleged infringer.


6


‘Geezer123’ said:
In which case you should keep proper records should you not?
I agree, we should all keep good records.  My point was that I do keep good records but am human so either, I might make the odd mistake, or, without my realising it, the computer may lose data, usually when moving it from one place to another.  These things happen.  Losing data is rare but I just think it’s prudent to keep this in mind as a possibility.  In my 100 or so cases, I had complete data and full records, as far as I was aware, but could find no mention of the picture users requesting any licences or paying fees.  That meant they almost certainly didn’t have licences but, importantly, it didn’t actually guarantee it.

‘Geezer123’ said:
You Getty/LCS or otherwise are attempting to prove copyright has been infringed. If they are so unsure that they have to ask for 'proof of use' then they are clearly fishing.  The letters should be framed 'you have infringed copyright and we seek reasonable damages and costs' not a request for the alleged infringer to produce proof of use.  Not a very professional business tactic I must say. If you are to accuse others of wrongdoing then you must be sure of the ground you stand on. By implication no one is under any obligation to do anything prior to a civil case being pursued into the courts.
We copyright holders are in a lose/lose situation when it comes to the first approach.  If I ask a possible infringer to provide a copy of their licence, some respond by saying I should have come right out and accused them of infringing my IP.  If I do start by accusing them, some would say, why didn’t I just ask to see the licence before making such an accusation?  As the point of contacting them is to resolve the issue as amicably as possible, I think it’s better not to start by accusing someone of unlawful activity, just in case I’m wrong.  Much better to say there may be an issue here, could we look at it together, please?  I don’t know how Getty operates but we sole trader photographers would not bother contacting an alleged infringer until we are as sure as possible that we have a valid case and evidence which would convince the court.  It’s a time consuming business and really not worth doing unless it’s pretty open and shut.



‘Geezer123’ said:
I for one would not produce a licence without a summons and then I would only show it to the judge along with a complaint of vexatious litigation and request appropriate damages for the inconvenience.  In such a scenario the judge look very dimly at the complainant as not having correct business records and for bringing such a case before the court on a 'hunch'.
I would also expect that same judge who view vexations complaints very seriously to be very sympathetic towards an out of pocket costs claim against the complainant.


The court requires both sides to have done all they can to resolve the issues before taking legal action and does not like anyone to hold back relevant information.  If an alleged infringer has a valid licence and refuses to show it when asked, the court would take a dim view of that because it is unhelpful.  Why would you not show it?  Well, I suppose, if a big library were building a reputation for scamming and an alleged infringer wanted to ‘even things up’ a bit, then I can see that motivation.  But, otherwise, there seems no benefit to not showing it.

Geezer123, if you withheld a valid licence until you were in front of a judge, my personal experience of the court is that you could expect the judge to throw the book at you for wasting court time.  The whole point of the pre-action protocols is to lay out the method for attempting to resolve these cases and explore all avenues before court fees are incurred and certainly before the hearing.  I don’t think you are allowed to suddenly produce crucial evidence at the hearing.  That may happen on TV in criminal cases but not in civil cases at the IPEC. 

Best to look up ‘vexatious litigants’.  I don’t think it could be applied to individual cases.  There must be a series of similar actions to be seen as vexatious.

But, coming back to Getty and similar big libraries, ‘Geezer123’ said:
In most if not all cases they do not even know if the person alleged to have infringed holds a licence or not and part of their so called process requires the alleged transgressor to prove they have the licence.
And I had asked how you could know that.  Many thanks to those who gave examples of a few cases.  I was unaware of those and am interested to learn about them.  But I’m still left doubting your claim here, that ‘In most if not all cases, they do not even know if …’.  How can you know this and know that it’s more than half of all cases?  OK, there are some cases which are discussed on this forum, but do they constitute more than half of all the cases Getty and others pursue?  Personally, I’d be very surprised.  What do you base the claim on, please?  If, on reflection, you feel you may have overstated the situation, it would help others if you would now say so.  That would prevent others from being tempted to rely on the claim and view it as a fact, if it is not a fact.

Let me say again, I am chipping in on this forum because I, and other one-man-band photographers, have seen a pattern where alleged infringers base their actions/defences on wrong or incomplete information and we see that costing them money tome and again.  I want to help provide some information you can check out so you know where you are, what could happen and what your realistic options are.  The actions you take are, of course, up to you.


With cases you suspect are scams, I’m not sure I’ve fully understood the situation, what the problem is.  If a picture user receives a letter alleging IP infringement, then it is up to the claimant to prove that infringement by providing evidence of it.  If the picture user did not make unauthorised use of the photo, there would be no evidence, there couldn’t be, as far as I can see.  If the claimant provides no reliable evidence, end of problem.  That’s correct, isn’t it?  But, if the claimant does provide proof of unauthorised use, then the infringer has to consider how to respond.  Is the perceived problem that big libraries keep on making claims which are not backed by evidence?  Is that the real problem, that it’s an ongoing scam on a large scale?  But, do people pay such claims when there’s no evidence?  I guess, those are the situations you see as extortion?

In all types of cases, if both sides agree there has been an infringement but cannot agree on the fees due, I see three options for the infringer.  1. Ask for a discount in exchange for quick payment, but have this conversation on a Without Prejudice basis.  2. Get  good advice on where you stand legally so you can be sure of your position.  3. Delay, obfuscate and hope it goes away (sometimes it will but I don’t think it safe to presume that means it was a scam, there can be other reasons).  Much has been written on what an infringer must pay.  The Court of Appeal ruled that, where there is a gulf between the sides on this, the IP holder’s rates are more important, as long as they can show they are normally paid at those rates. 
See: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/423.html (Irvine & Ors  v.  Talksport Ltd), particularly s.114. 

The judge said:
‘In my judgment, the unchallenged evidence leads ineluctably to the conclusion that TSL would in all probability have had to pay at least £25,000 in order to enable it to do lawfully that which it did unlawfully, that is to say represent by means of the image appearing on the front of the leaflet that Mr Irvine had endorsed Talk Radio.’
END.

Basically, the Appeal Court judge is saying that the defendant must pay what the claimant would normally charge, not what the defendant would normally pay or wants to pay.  By inference I think it also means the view, ‘what a willing buyer and willing seller would agree’, does not apply because this was one of those cases where there would have been no agreement.

If you think anything I say is untrue or I have misunderstood something, please tell me.

John Walmsley

If the claimant is sure of their grounds and that an infringement has been committed then they should pursue it to court.

The key is being  'sure of the grounds' to proceed The claimant is seeking redress or damages. The so called infringer has not asked to be brought to court the claimant has decided to take them there.
The onus is on the claimant to prove the case.

Clearly if the infringer does not have a licence and the defence consists of well I didn't know sorry ect then the judge is entitled to take a dim view of that conduct and award taking into account the intransigence of the infringer. Damages would be much more than they would otherwise have been.

On the other hand the claimant is expected to have their 'ducks in a row' and be sure of a licence or not before they proceed to court for damages. The infringer is under no obligation, to produce at any point. Clearly if they were arraigned before a court it would then be very wise to produce it.

The claimant of course is free to seek a court order demanding production of the licence  if they so wish which again would settle the matter one way or the other if granted.

The infringer is under no obligation to make the claimants job easier for them, even in civil cases the bedrock of English common law exists, innocent until proven guilty.

Clearly we have differing interpretations of the word vexatious. I have quite a bit of experience in appearing as a lay officer in employment tribunals. Experience of those situations tells me that the judges would take a poorly thought out case bad form and would not blame the party compelled to appear.

If a plaintiff is progressing a court claim they need to be sure of their case otherwise they also can be accused of wasting the courts time. The court of course would ask itself if it was deemed reasonable for the infringer to produce the licence and in normal circumstances that would certainly be the case, the trouble here is the 'reputation' that Getty/LCS/Others have attained in their attempts (and I pick my words carefully) to insist money is forked over for the so called infringements. There is reams of material available these days across the internet demonstrating the poor tactics employed so Getty have 'buggered' it up for themselves.

Just my point of view. I of course respect yours and thank you for engaging and explaining the opposite point of view. I fully support your rights to your IP at all times. If I had for example infringed (with your material) I would want to be discussing a remedy with yourselves not some bully boy stock photo company that is fishing for £££ for its own bottom line.

7
Thanks, 'geezer123'.

You said,
The problem here is Getty/LCS/Others are fishing for payment without the knowledge of the original copyright owners and where they are able to achieve a payment may or may not be passing on a percentage to that person...

Do you know of cases where Getty/LCS/Others have asked for payment from a picture user where the copyright holder has no contract with Getty?  Which cases?  Please specify.  I have no connection with Getty but do know the contracts between photographers and their agencies allow the agencies to pursue possible infringements on behalf of the photographers.  The photographers probably are not informed when this happens and there is no need for the agencies to tell them as it is already covered in the contracts.

You said,
In most if not all cases they do not even know if the person alleged to have infringed holds a licence or not and part of their so called process requires the alleged transgressor to prove they have the licence.

How could you know this?  You would need to have access to Getty's own records to know this, wouldn't you? 

I really do want to understand what's been going on.  I wonder, why would Getty contact someone out of the blue?  If that person has not made use of a Getty photo, then there's no case to answer.  If they have, it should be relatively easy to establish if a licence was requested and granted as there would be a trail of correspondence and payment, wouldn't there?  If Getty has found one of their photos being used by that person and Getty can find no record of a request for a licence or payment, then Getty would contact that person.  This all seems fair and, from the first line of your post, you seem to agree with this (hope I have not misunderstood).

Asking that person to produce a licence seems to me a sensible question which could save both sides time.  As a one-man-band myself, this is the first question I ask because I know my records may not be complete and I may have granted a licence to that person but lost that record.  It can happen.  My own experience of this over 100 cases is that not once has the picture user been able to produce a licence (so, maybe, my records are not that bad).

In which case you should keep proper records should you not?

You Getty/LCS or otherwise are attempting to prove copyright has been infringed. If they are so unsure that they have to ask for 'proof of use' then they are clearly fishing.

The letters should be framed 'you have infringed copyright and we seek reasonable damages and costs' not a request for the alleged infringer to produce proof of use.

Not a very professional business tactic I must say. If you are to accuse others of wrongdoing then you must be sure of the ground you stand on. By implication no one is under any obligation to do anything prior to a civil case being pursued into the courts.

I for one would not produce a licence without a summons and then I would only show it to the judge along with a complaint of vexatious litigation and request appropriate damages for the inconvenience.

In such a scenario the judge look very dimly at the complainant as not having correct business records and for bringing such a case before the court on a 'hunch'.
I would also expect that same judge who view vexations complaints very seriously to be very sympathetic towards an out of pocket costs claim against the complainant.

8
Thank you for your valuable input Mr Walmsley.

You are of course quite correct if a persons creative work is used and a copyright exists then that persons deserves payment for use of the material. Of that there is absolutely no dispute.

The problem here is Getty/LCS/Others are fishing for payment without the knowledge of the original copyright owners and where they are able to achieve a payment may or may not be passing on a percentage to that person...

In most if not all cases they do not even know if the person alleged to have infringed holds a licence or not and part of their so called process requires the alleged transgressor to prove they have the licence.

This clearly is arse about face.

Getty/LCS/Others are using a well known tactic in harassing potential infringer's and those who have not infringed to 'pay up or face legal action'. This in itself may well be breaking UK law. (Untested at this time)

Two wrongs do not make a right.....

I did read the transcript of your case http://www.turin-ip.com/course-documents/documents-2007/2013-edition/copyright/walmsley-v-education-ltd-in-wl-2014-2194626 and found it unusual in that the copyright material was first placed in a printed publication before being copied to the 'internet'. It also related to copy and was not confined to photographic material.

Clearly this influenced the outcome and good luck to you, clearly the defendant should have folded earlier but in any event it made a goods test case as as copied from a print publication it was obvious it was protected material. (all if not all print publications contain the usual copyright disclaimers)

Getty/LCS/Others are pursuing people for large sums of money (not in the slightest related to the actual loss incurred) for the honest error of people unknowingly breaching copyright in the using of photographs of the internet.

There is a fine borderline between the honest capture of fees and a scam. To claim fees without the original copyright holders knowledge or permission probably puts this in the latter category. Which magazine as posted elsewhere on  this forum would also seem to agree.

9
Thank you for your support and comments but just not worth it.  If you could see the amount of effort put in by the solicitors for less than £500 on behalf of Getty then would just hope the solicitors are charging them by the page our count on 2 letters rand to 33 pages!

Along the way have managed to get up the noses of a couple of fancy titled execs at Getty UK, debt collectors and solicitors so had some fun and almost got value for money!!! :D

Oh well, kudos for at least having a go......I suspect you were the Guinea Pig to be tested in the small claims so they could use your case on future extortion correspondence.

I am up to two emails and two letters now. I shall completely ignore them right up to the point when the small claims paperwork comes through and then tell them I will present the licence in court....... 8)

10
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Snippet Which Magazine UK.
« on: May 05, 2016, 08:05:15 AM »
Which Magazine is a highly respected consumer publication in the UK....

Found this on their blog regarding the top digital scams of 2016 and how to avoid them.

https://blogs.which.co.uk/technology/security-software/digital-scam-watch-2015/

Quote
Stock photo payment scam

If you have a website or blog of your own, chances are you also have some images on it. You may have taken these images yourself, or obtained them from a legitimate stock photo website.

You might receive an email from a legitimate-sounding company stating that your images are unlicensed or copyrighted by them and that you must pay them for using them.

Do not send them any money. For the most part, you’ll probably know where the images on your own website come from and just who owns them. In the off chance that you don’t (you just grabbed them from a Google Image search, for example) it’s highly unlikely that the owner will hunt you down and demand payment.

The worst case scenario is that you’ll receive an email from the true owner asking for accreditation or for you to remove the image. Do not send money to anyone claiming rights to imagery, no matter how threatening they may sound, without them providing further evidence and conducting your own research first.

Yet further evidence that Getty or LCS may be dancing in the dark and may not actually hold the exclusive copyright to progress matters to court..

Some questionable business practices being displayed on this web page.....

Are they suggesting rights owners tell lies when they declare exclusive copyright?

https://support.500px.com/hc/en-us/articles/205330167-What-is-License-Compliance-Services-

11
As I understand it, the claimant has to justify their demand and the Citizens advice exemplifies this.

They cannot just pluck a notional figure and say that sounds right they have to break it down. If you can find the image for sale on their website then a screengrab showing the actual cost of a licence can only be beneficial to your defence.

Having read through these pages it seems Getty are making an example (or attempting too) and unlucky as it sounds this is you. Interesting though that they have decided to go down the small claims route as this may well hinder what they can claim and now having named the figure it cannot be 'inflated'.

Small claims is designed to be a simple supposedly stress free route to settle civil claims and persons shouldn't be afraid of the experience.

Citizens advice have a whole section on the procedure at such courts and I suspect you have already read it.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/

At first glance a couple of things could well stand in your favour..

Are you in London? I hope you live in Inverness and can apply to have the case transferred there..   :)

Quote
Any money claim must be issued at the County Court Money Claims Centre. Other cases can be issued in the local county court.

The court will then transfer the case automatically to the defendant’s nearest county court if:

the case is defended, and
the claim is for a fixed amount, and
the defendant is an individual, not a company.
In other cases, either party can ask for the case to be transferred to another county court.
My bold....

Quote
In most cases, the court will not order solicitors’ costs to be paid by the losing party in a small claims case, and if you instruct a solicitor you will have to pay the costs yourself. For this reason most claimants deal with a small claim without the help of a solicitor. It is possible to have the help of a friend or ‘lay representative’, for example, some Citizens Advice Bureaux can offer trained advisers to help people with small claims.

Glad to hear you are going to contest the action. I wonder if Getty have worked out that by the time they get to the end of this it will have cost them a lot more than £420.00 not including the £100 legals which by the sounds of it they are not entitled to claim anyway...

Speculative invoicing, unreasonable, threatening and harassing demands needs to be confronted. The Judge I think will not be amused of the bullying tactics as you have pointed out. Whilst they may have a copyright infringement case they do not have the right to 'put the frighteners' on to extract payment.

Good luck and please keep us informed as to how you get on...


12
Am assuming it is this form?

http://hmcts.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Forms/n001-eng.pdf

With the Guidance notes of

http://hmcts.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Forms/ex302-eng.pdf

Did you ever establish if Getty had exclusive copyright on the image(s) you are supposed to have offended with.

Now would be a reasonable time to ask them to provide evidence of such....

Read through the notes at the link. The court expects every party to take every opportunity to settle this out of court. Seems to me you have already taken a step in that direction.

Quote
Do I have to take my claim to court?
No. Going to court should always be a last resort. It can be expensive, stressful and can take
a lot of time.
Before going to court, you should try to find an agreement in another way, for example by:
• negotiating an agreement direct with the person or organisation;
• involving an ombudsman who can act as an independent referee;
• using a mediator to help you and the other person to find a solution;
• involving an arbitrator who will make a binding decision that will solve the
problem; or
• contacting a regulator who can help you deal with issues to do with landlines and
mobile phones, the internet, and water and domestic energy supplies such as gas
and electricity.
Using an alternative way may solve your problem more quickly and cost you less. It might
also give you a better, longer-lasting solution to your problem.
Remember, you are expected to find another way of reaching an agreement before
taking your claim to court. Otherwise, the court might decide that you will not get
your costs back or that you should pay the other side’s (defendants) costs, even if you
win the case.

13
Claim form?

What do you mean Summons to appear? Which court address are they using..

14
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty/Atradius/Solicitors
« on: April 22, 2016, 09:19:41 AM »
They probably think you are ready to throw in the towel and settle based on the fact you are prepared to pay them something.

I would be tempted to tell them we have attempted mediation and made you a fair offer, over and above that we will argue that our offer is fair in Court.

If in the unlikely event they do serve a summons this will stand you in good stead with the judge. If their damages demand is as ridiculous as we think it is and bears no relation to the sums lost,the judge may well consider their application vexatious and act accordingly.....

15
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Question if I May
« on: April 22, 2016, 06:54:16 AM »
An image is for sale on a rival photo agency website (say a small one like Pinnacle or a large one like the PA) but not on Getty or any of it's subsidiaries.

How does Getty/LCS know that a licence hasn't been purchased for legitimate use of the image(s)?

I appreciate in a lot of these cases they are shooting in the dark and hoping to sucker in some gullible people but even if (and it is a very big if) rival agencies provided Getty licensing information who is to say that a web designer purchased a licence (in their own name) and placed the image and recovered the cost in their overall fee.

Just another piece of the puzzle I am trying to put together.... Topical question I guess would benefit other forum users also..

Pages: [1] 2
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.