Messages

31

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: just received an email

« on: January 04, 2013, 07:51:46 AM »

This sure has an amateur feel to it.

Also Getty Images are also aware of stolen content on your site.

They don't state that it's the same content! Maybe they are aware of additional content on his site that belongs to Getty, and are just throwing Getty's name into the fray to create fear and confusion.

Grammatically, they don't need to write the word "also" twice. They also switch between "I" and "We" throughout the letter. But it seems that AMA is one Matthew Ashton. He actually "Self Published and authored GOODBYE GAY MEADOW - a coffee table book on the old stadium of Shrewsbury Town FC".

Therefore can you tell us on how you wish us to proceed.

Despite having written a book, the above sentence should end with a question mark, and the word "on" shouldn't be there!

You can learn more about the photographer here

http://matthewashton.com/about.html

There is no mention of any affiliation with Getty images in his career summary, and a search on Getty's site reveals no results for AMA sports photography. So why does he mention them at all

32

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screen shots of web sites that contain getty images

« on: October 20, 2012, 01:54:40 AM »

I am not a lawyer. A "fair use" defense in your case seems more than reasonable to me.

However, it's also irrelevant.

If you are sued, the economic cost of hiring a lawyer to defend yourself will always be greater than Getty's demands. It wouldn't make economic sense to fight in court.

On the other hand. it doesn't make sense for Getty to sue you either. With your "fair use" defense, Getty would be taking an unnecessary risk. Getty can't afford to lose in court, or even win, but receive a symbolic payment. It would take away the fear from their "extortion" letters.

Getty has the luxury of choosing its strongest cases to sue with. In my opinion, yours would not fit into this category.

Ian

33

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 13, 2012, 09:57:29 AM »

Google translate - sorry! yet another article on a leading Israeli Internet site. The story is gaining momentum!

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mako.co.il%2Fdigital-internet%2FArticle-424a714c1c95a31006.htm%26Partner%3Drss

34

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 13, 2012, 01:13:37 AM »

Here is another Internet legal article that mentions Getty Images. "Mirrors Image" is Marot Image. The translation is courtesy of Google!

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpatent.glazberg.com%2F2012%2F10%2F%25D7%25A4%25D7%25A1%25D7%2599%25D7%25A7%25D7%2594-%25D7%259E%25D7%25A8%25D7%2590%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2590%25D7%2599%25D7%259E%25D7%2592-%25D7%25A4%25D7%25A2%25D7%259C%25D7%2594-%25D7%259C%25D7%2590%25D7%259B%25D7%2599%25D7%25A4%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2596%25D7%259B%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2599%25D7%2595%25D7%25A6.html%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3DFeed%253A%2Bglazberg%252FEkXd%2B%2528%25D7%25A4%25D7%2599%25D7%2598%25D7%25A4%25D7%2595%25D7%2598%25D7%25A0%25D7%2598%25D7%2599%25D7%259D%2529

35

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 12, 2012, 03:46:40 PM »

Thanks for the compliments, but I am not so sure that now is the right time for the video. The class action suit is very much ongoing, and I am still helping half a dozen others in their individual suits against Marot Image. Maybe at a later date. For now, I am more than willing to talk to anyone on Skype privately.

The verdict of two days ago means that Marot can no longer directly threaten people with legal action, as the judge ruled that they have no legal rights to take any such action. The judge ruled specifically that even if Getty owns the exclusive license, they cannot transfer it to an additional party ( Marot ) . It was the first time that a court judgement has related to this issue. Only the copyright holder or the owner of the exclusive license have the legal right to sue for copyright infringement. Marot is neither!

Furthermore, it was also the first court ruling in Israel that resembled the Righthaven verdicts in the USA, by stating that the transfer of the right to sue, as a stand alone right, was not legal under Israeli copyright law.

Now the question is whether Getty will return to Israel to sue in its own name. I have my doubts! We will be waiting for them!

36

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 11, 2012, 02:58:11 PM »

Robert, if you want to talk on Skype one day, I can explain the entire case. I was in court yesterday. I also prepared the defense. I know the case inside out! I also have the protocol.
Ian

37

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 11, 2012, 02:47:23 PM »

Were Marot and Getty actually "connected"?

Yes! totally connected! Refer back to my post on the class action suit. A whole section is devoted to the Getty's active involvement in the actions of Marot Image.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/class-action-suit-filed-against-getty-images-master-delegate-in-israel/&sa=U&ei=FxR3UMz7ArDa4QSK7YA4&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE2Lccwx53dnMxawXdet6iGgySFkQ

38

Getty Images Letter Forum / Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 11, 2012, 02:35:27 PM »

Yesterday, we had a very important court victory against the ā€œGetty Images Master Delegateā€ here in Israel. A court in Tel Aviv wrote a very long, detailed and totally damning verdict against Marot Images.

This was the first time that any case involving Marot Images as the sole plaintiff went the full distance, and Marot Images suffered an extremely damaging verdict, and hopefully killer blow to their ability to continue with their ā€œbusiness modelā€.

Here are the basic details. A woman called Gili Mazor received the standard ā€œ pay up or we will sue youā€ letter. She signed a compromise agreement, and agreed to pay around $1000 to Marot Image ( Getty Images representative here in Israel ).

She then found me online, and I explained to Gili why Marot could not possibly own the exclusive license needed here in Israel for Marot to have a legal right to sue her. Her case was even more clear cut because according to the website of Dorling Kindersley books (part of Penguin books, owned by Pearson Education), that also sold the same image, they (DK) owned the copyright! In other words, even Getty did not own the exclusive license, so how could Marot have received any such license from them? The photographer in this case no longer owned the copyright. I also wrote to DK books, and they informed me that they had not given an exclusive license to any other body, including Getty (that only had a non-exclusive license to sell the image). In this case, neither Marot nor Getty had a legal right to sue.

Gili then hired a lawyer (the same lawyer as in the class action suit ā€“ Shahar Zamler), and informed Marot that she was canceling the agreement as it was signed under false pretenses and as a result of deception (Marot did not own the right to sue her as they had claimed).

Marot sued Gili for $1000 for violating the compromise agreement. At the first court hearing, the judge warned Marot not to continue with their case, but they insisted. Four months later, they produced (out of the blue) a letter from the photographer in which he wrote that he ā€œgave Marot Image an exclusive licenseā€, but the license itself was not attached! The letter was not dated, nor did it state precisely when any such license had been granted to Marot. No agreement between the photographer and Getty was produced (despite Marotā€™s claim that they had such an agreement in their possession).

Marot believed firmly that they would win this case, because they felt that the judge would view the fact that Gili violated the agreement as the main issue. However, the judge wrote a 17-page verdict that totally tore their case to pieces. He threw out the letter, explained why Marot did not own an exclusive license, and accepted Giliā€™s claim that Marot had deceived her into signing the agreement in the first place.

Here is a link to a legal site that wrote a short summary of the case today. Itā€™s a Google translation from Hebrew to English, but itā€™s the best I can do! Actually, itā€™s pretty clear!

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psakdin.co.il%2Fnews%2Farticle.asp%3FPDUID%3Dnws_nlrx

Hereā€™s the verdict itself, which none of you will be able to read!

http://www.psakdin.co.il/kAnnex/nws_nlrx_1.pdf

You can look for the words GETTY in the verdict if you like ā€“ גיטי

The verdict is the first ever that involves Marot Image as the single plaintiff (they had sued together with Getty prior to 2007), and the main conclusion of the verdict is that Getty cannot transfer an exclusive license or right to sue to Marot Image ( under Israeli law ). This was a very important verdict that hopefully will strengthen the class action suit.

I still canā€™t believe that Marot was so eager to go all the way. They stood to lose so much more than they stood to gain!

Ian Cohen

39

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Infringement Letter from a Getty contributor

« on: October 06, 2012, 11:35:33 AM »

  Don't write to some photographer and admit that you've infringed.

I agree! Do not send details of your web site or image. My feeling here is that it's not the real photographer that has written to you. If the real photographer replies, she might be totally unaware of the e-mail sent in her name.

It's interesting that the alleged infringer "sounds" like a brit or canadian to me, but states US copyright law to a person from the Philippines. lol.

Sounds more like a Nigerian to me! I am from London. None of the grammatical errors are typical even to the least educated Brits! As for Canadians, I have no idea!!

40

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Infringement Letter from a Getty contributor

« on: October 06, 2012, 11:14:55 AM »

@Scraggy, as far as I can tell no-one in this thread has threatened to use or even mentioned a suit..

The original e-mail did state as follows:

refusal to settle the sum due will be interpreted as a willful breach of my copyrights and will be referred to my copyright attorney's office for further action at their direction.

In any case, the gentleman is in the Philippines, and is not dealing with Getty.
It has the feel of a copyright scam ( because of the wording and means of payment ).
I don't think that  princereyn sounds particularly stressed, and certainly not as result of what I wrote!

41

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Infringement Letter from a Getty contributor

« on: October 06, 2012, 06:31:37 AM »

Anyone can fake the FROM e-mail address using any e-mail program.

Why don't you send the real photographer an e-mail ( don't reply, but open a new e-mail instead ) , and ask her if she is responsible for sending such e-mails.

I doubt that the real photographer is behind this.

and even if they are, ask them for Getty's agreement in allowing them to sue you instead of Getty. Why would Getty give them this??

and above all, you are in the Philippines, so why worry??

Also, look on the bright side! You removed the image before Getty got to you!

42

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Infringement Letter from a Getty contributor

« on: October 06, 2012, 05:22:40 AM »

I do not have any record of having issued you with a license to use this image.

She wouldn't have a record, would she! Getty would have the records!

This image is available for licensing via my online archive at the following link

If the image was licensed exclusively to Getty, the photographer would not be able to sell licenses him/herself!

Lots of poor English here! What is the photographer's nationality?

further action at their direction.

Absent such a license

I trust that you will find my request to simply be made whole for my lost license fee

Very poor English!
I do not believe that the photographer is the one who has written to you.

and finally, this!

sum of $ 450.00 which can be effected via wire transfer or PayPal as suits.

It's a scam!

43

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Infringement Letter from a Getty contributor

« on: October 06, 2012, 02:11:41 AM »

From what you have written, this sounds like an Internet scam. I think everyone here would love to see the wording. Could you copy/paste here and remove the details that identify you and your image.

It is most likely someone pretending to be the photographer. The photographer actually cannot sue you without Getty's permission. In the GETTY IMAGES CONTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT  -  http://www.aphotoeditor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-contributor-agreement-v.4.0-d-sample-english.pdf
 , it states that

If Getty Images elects not to pursue a Claim, you will have the right to pursue it.

So Getty gets first bite!

Let's not forget that you are in the Philippines.The supposed photographer will have to sue you in your country if he wants to see any money. This would seem most unlikely!

Finally, the e-mail went into your spam folder. Even your e-mail filters knew that it was a scam!

Please copy it here for others to see. It's very important to warn others of such a scam.

44

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: October 01, 2012, 05:21:23 PM »

My opinion is that there can only be one exclusive license holder for images that are licensed for display on the Internet. Such a license would necessarily be worldwide because the Internet cannot be exclusively divided geographically.
 
For Getty, the home country of the purchaser is not a factor, only the "primary audience" of the website. ( As the price remains the same for whatever primary audience you choose, this is also not a relevant factor !! )
 
I believe that the local Getty representatives in the non listed countries are only local salesman selling Getty's product, but they don't own any exclusive license. Getty owns that! However, creating the illusion of a local owner of an exclusive license facilitates the ability to extort and sue local people.
 
 
I sent the following question to Getty's sales representative on 30 January 2012

If I buy an image for the net, I see that many countries are missing from the list - and some pretty big ones among them!! - such as China, South Africa and Russia!

Do I need to buy separate licenses for these countries, or will one license do the trick for everywhere?

Thanks for your time

I didn't think this would be so complicated!

Ian

His reply was as follows:

Hi Ian


You are right they are missing, but I can do it this end for you and cover it for World use, itā€™s a function only we have for some reason.


Kind Regards


Mark

So Getty has the worldwide license, and there is no genuine reason to send those whose primary audience is missing from the list to the local representative.

Ian

45

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New wording and interface on Getty's site

« on: September 29, 2012, 03:21:07 PM »

Getty sells image rights to individuals from all countries, but supposedly not for use on Internet sites whose "primary audience" is in a country that doesn't appear on their list ( a third of the world! ). This is, of course,totally absurd! In my opinion, it's part of the Getty scam! Getty's licenses cover the world. If not, then website owners who purchased licenses would have to block a third of the world from viewing Getty's images!