Messages

16

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Letter

« on: March 12, 2014, 03:42:47 PM »

who was the website registered to?  the non-profit? an individual?

17

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Leaning towards the ignore method, but a little worried….

« on: March 10, 2014, 12:48:18 PM »

Personally, I don't agree with the approach of completely ignoring them.  Though, after asking for proofs and stating my case, I don't think I'd engage further than that.  Best thing, I think, is Oscar's letter.  That has the added benefit of not hearing from them again in many cases, I think.

Hmm.  I was actually part way into writing a letter when I checked the forum and saw Matthew's reply.  I was convinced that a letter to them basically stating that

1) I immediately removed the image and
2) it was for a school project

was the way to go.  But now it seems maybe Matthew is suggesting not sending them anything at all?

Thanks again for helping me out!  Very much appreciated.

18

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Big Change at Getty -- Free Use

« on: March 07, 2014, 05:49:10 PM »

I didn't think it was snarky.  This would be snarky:

http://bit.ly/1ikAOjG

lol

Yes I know I was just being snarky..

19

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Big Change at Getty -- Free Use

« on: March 06, 2014, 09:47:24 AM »

I would think that infringements would increase with this strategy.  I wonder if that is the real intention?  Sort of a veiled seeding?

20

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Leaning towards the ignore method, but a little worried….

« on: February 28, 2014, 09:59:01 AM »

If I were in your shoes, I'd be inclined to write them and tell them that their CEO Jonathon Klein gave the OK for using Getty images for school projects without buying a license.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/22/for-pinterest-revenue-will-turn-copyright-questions-into-problems/

But he hasn’t eliminated the ability to right-click on a Getty photo and save it to your computer. Anyone with the most basic of Photoshop skills could easily get rid of the Getty watermark within minutes. That’s because he’s not concerned about people playing with Getty photos, teenagers using them for school projects, and folks putting them up on their personal blogs — or, at the moment, even Pinterest.

So when does Getty snap into action? The moment that a website starts running ads alongside those images. As Klein told me in the interview embedded above:


“We’re comfortable with people using our images to build traffic. The point in time when they have a business model, they have to have some sort of license.”

21

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty filed a lawsuit against me

« on: February 09, 2014, 07:55:03 AM »

I just don't know.  If the parties agree to something among themselves, and the plaintiff agrees to drop the case as a part of that, is the judge even privy to the settlement amount details?  As far as settling "too many" their cases offline with the other party before judgment, I always thought that was quite common and actually encouraged by the court.

But really I'm not entirely sure how that works.

IF they do very many of these settlements you can make the case that Getty is using the federal court as a collection agency and the courts will not like that in my opinion.

If they take these cases to court they run the risk of the court becoming angry with Getty for wasting their time if they are small dollar amount cases.

Getty is walking a fine line here and they certainly don't want the courts seeing the type of information any good lawyer will ask for through the discovery process.  The more I look at this to me it looks like a loose loose prospect for Getty but that's just my opinion.
 

22

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty getting some of its own medicine

« on: February 09, 2014, 07:47:20 AM »

Thanks, Greg.  My SOL is long past and my letter is so old it has dust on it, but I still stop by from time to time.

Nice to see you back again Lettered!

23

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty filed a lawsuit against me

« on: February 08, 2014, 10:05:34 PM »

I'm not so sure.  Assume they get it in the court system, then offer to settle for a very low amount ($100 . . . $1 . . . whatever), with a confidentiality agreement attached to the settlement ... how would something like the following look?

" . . . single unregistered image  . . . infringement lawsuit . . . settled today for an undisclosed amount . . . side note: copyright law carries penalties up to $250,000 per infringement and 10 years in prison . . .  blah blah blah . . . more scary stuff here . . ."

I might guess that something like that gets them everything they are looking for with this . . .

In my opinion, this is a huge and unnecessary risk for Getty Images. If they lose in court, or even if they win a small amount, that removes the fear factor so vital for the success of their settlement demand letters.
And it's quite possible that they will lose ( see the Advernet verdict ) or receive a very low symbolic amount.

However, it's always going to be cheaper for the victim to pay up, rather than put up a defense. Lawyer's fees are higher than the cost of a settlement.

I think that the anti copyright troll lobby against Getty Images with ELI at the helm, has put a huge dent in their money making enterprise, and Getty needs a change in tactics, to increase the fear level in letter recipients.

Ian

24

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty getting some of its own medicine

« on: February 08, 2014, 09:53:57 PM »

I would certainly hope so ...

I agree with you Lettered that Getty does not want their liability to be anything more than what you paid. 

However, if you combine that with the following facts:

• they market themselves as digital image experts
• they don't really do enough to verify that they have the right to license the images they license.  They write an unsigned contract with customers limiting their liability to money's paid.  They write an unsigned contract with contributors saying the contributors are responsible for owning the rights the contract transfers to Getty.

Wouldn't someone expect an expert to have a little more responsibility than that?

25

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty getting some of its own medicine

« on: February 08, 2014, 11:11:10 AM »

I interpreted it a bit differently, but I could be wrong.  The indemnification is "subject to the terms of Section 5.2" which says "GETTY IMAGES SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO LICENSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ANY PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR OTHER SIMILAR DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT".

Which seems to me to say in other words "we promise it's OK, but we won't reimburse you for any damages if it's not"

I can't imagine even Getty stooping that low, but it does appear to me that they have the contractual right to reimburse license fees and nothing else.

Again, I could be interpreting it wrong, and maybe even the law wouldn't allow such a thing even if it did exist in the contract ...

Either way, itll be interesting to see how Getty plays it out ...

I'm breaking up my comment because weird things are happening.

5. Warranty and Limitation of Liability.
5.1   Getty Images warrants that: (i) the Licensed Material will be free from defects in material and workmanship for thirty (30) days from delivery (Licensee's sole and exclusive remedy for a breach of this warranty being the replacement of the Licensed Material); (ii) it has all necessary rights and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement; (iii) Licensee's use of the Licensed Material in accordance with this Agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (i.e., excluding any modifications, overlays or re-focusing by Licensee) will not infringe on any copyrights or moral rights of any person or entity; and (iv) if a release is provided by Getty Images pursuant to Section 4.1, Licensee's use of the Licensed Material in accordance with this Agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (i.e., excluding any modifications, overlays or re-focusing by Licensee) will not, where a property release is provided, infringe on any trademark or other intellectual property right and/or will not, where a model release is provided, violate any right of privacy or right of publicity.
5.2   GETTY IMAGES DOES NOT MAKE ANY OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING THE LICENSED MATERIAL OR ITS DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. GETTY IMAGES SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO LICENSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ANY PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR OTHER SIMILAR DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, EVEN IF GETTY IMAGES HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT PERMIT THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF DAMAGES. GETTY IMAGES SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF OR AS A RESULT OF MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE LICENSED MATERIAL BY LICENSEE OR THE CONTEXT IN WHICH LICENSED MATERIAL IS USED IN A LICENSEE WORK.

So Getty does warrant that they do, indeed, have a right to license on the part of the copyright holder. The license further reads

Getty Images shall, subject to the terms of Section 5.2 above and  Section 6.3 below, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Licensee and its parent, subsidiaries and commonly owned or controlled affiliates and their respective officers, directors and employees from all damages, liabilities and expenses (including reasonable outside attorney fees), arising out of or as a result of claims by third parties ( “Claims”) relating to any actual or alleged breach by Getty Images of its warranties set forth in Section 5.1(ii)-(iv) above. Getty Images shall have no obligation under this Section 6.1 for any Claims that arise out of or are a result of: (i) Licensee’s modification, overlay or re-focusing of the Licensed Material, where the Claim would not have arisen but for the modification, overlay or re-focusing made by Licensee; (ii) the context in which Licensed Material is used in a Licensee Work; where the Claim would not have arisen but for such context; (iii) Licensee’s failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement; or (iv) Licensee's continued use of Licensed Material following notice from Getty Images, or upon Licensee's knowledge, that Licensed Material is subject to a claim of infringement of another's right. The foregoing states Getty Images' entire indemnification obligation under this Agreement.

I read this to say that if BBB is sued by a claimant claiming the Getty was not authorized to license the image, Getty will pay their costs and will do so even if it turns out that Getty did was authorized.

I think the following says to get Getty to cover the costs, BBB has to inform Getty of the claim. Getty may elect to represent BBB in court:

The party seeking indemnification pursuant to this Section 6 shall promptly notify the other party of such claim. At indemnifying party's option, indemnifying party may assume the handling, settlement or defense of any claim or litigation, in which event indemnified party shall cooperate in the defense of any such claim or litigation as may be reasonably requested by indemnifying party. Indemnified party shall have the right to participate in such litigation, at its expense, through counsel selected by indemnified party. Indemnifying party will not be liable for legal fees and other costs incurred prior to the other party giving notice of the claim for which indemnity is sought

26

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty getting some of its own medicine

« on: February 07, 2014, 11:53:31 AM »

Not saying this is what's going on here, but ...
I always wondered how many (if any) people were selling other people's work on Getty ... and whether Getty took any action whatsoever to make sure their contributor's actually own the work they sell through Getty.  Is the "unknown party" an unnamed Getty contributor?  If so will Getty "take the hit" for Yankee Candle and Bed Bath and Beyond ... or "throw them under the bus"?  Being potentially large clients, I doubt it.  Wonder what they'd do for a smaller client caught up in this?
Maybe this lawsuit will bring some of that kind of thing to light.

27

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA

« on: February 06, 2014, 04:32:43 PM »

If I understood Oscar's post in another thread correctly, avoiding service can be a costly mistake, I think he addresses the type of service that JLorimer was alluding to as well ... unless I misinterpreted:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-files-3-new-lawsuits-over-single-images/msg17478/#msg17478

I was reading about people who avoid being served yesterday as part of an unrelated incident.  It seemed that in the event a person avoided being served, there was a final option that allowed the person to be served without being directly served (sorry, I don't remember the exact terminology).  I would think Sanders would choose this option or else it could also send the message that if you are able to avoid being served long enough they will leave you alone.

If the company has a registered agent, they can be served that, it's exactly what Getty has done with the most recent outbreak of single image suits, it's much easier and cheaper to a registered agent if a company has one.. If not it's a bit more difficult..don't answer the door, make oneself scarce, go on an extended vacation...

28

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I got a letter today

« on: December 20, 2013, 09:30:40 AM »

You might be interested in this quote from the Getty CEO which, seems to me, pretty much fits your situation:

“We’re comfortable with people using our images to build traffic. The point in time when they have a business model, they have to have some sort of license.”

http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/22/for-pinterest-revenue-will-turn-copyright-questions-into-problems/

29

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: getty image in free template -- still avaible for download

« on: November 07, 2013, 06:17:40 AM »

Just a slight correction. 
I think "de minimus" doctrine is used to completely dismiss a matter because it is too trivial to waste their time looking at it and not really directly related to damage amounts.
  The $200 is not a fine, but it is leeway (a lower limit) granted to the judge to award smaller statutory damages in the case of an image that was registered with the copyright office before the infringement began, where it is determined that it was "innocent infringement".  If the image wasn't registered properly before the infringement (and I doubt it was) then statutory damages aren't even a consideration at all.
but I don't think a case like this one would ever make it to court either.

Copyright exists from the moment the picture is taken whether the image is registered or not so unless the image is so old that it has fallen into public domain or it's a public release government image then someone has rights to it.  Rights may be waived and the image made public.

You letter from Getty should contain the artist name, from there I would use that information and go here http://www.copyright.gov/records/ to look up if it is registered.

If an image is not registered it limits what can be sought in court but you should not really worry about as it is HIGHLY unlikely Getty would waste their time on your case.  Get screen shots of the free site and the TOS page you quoted.  I am not a lawyer but in my opinion if everything you have stated is correct this is a de minimus case with a 200.00 fine.  The federal courts would not be happy if Getty wasted the courts time over a 200.00 case.

30

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Small Business up against big Getty

« on: November 05, 2013, 10:46:39 AM »

I'm not surprised.  From my experience the legal field is fraught with incompetence and indifference, and you just have to keep "shopping around" till you find a "gem" that specializes in your situation.  In this case that "gem" would be Oscar, in my opinion.