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.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com
« Last post by Jafer on January 22, 2019, 08:00:53 AM »
Hello all,

I have just received a letter claiming that I have infringed on copyright laws that has been sent from PICRIGHTS on behalf of Agence France-Presse (AFP). I have contacted them(Picrights) where they referred me to their website and mentioned that my company was using images from Getty which led to their immediate removal from my website. I removed the photo as the price of paying for the images is rather high as I searched on getty images where other images were being sold for 385 pounds. I have tried to clarify this with all the agencies involved, who have repeatedly forwarded me to an email. After suspecting that this was a fraudulent letter I researched this and this thread has led me to believe that Picrights who have contacted me is simply a scam.

The line at the bottom was suspecting which was addressed from Anne Sinclair which is what some other users here have also received. As there is no registration within the UK of this company I have difficulty believing this is a genuine claim. I believe my two options are to contact AFP to see if there is an actual ongoing dispute or to simply ignore the letters from Picrights. The first letter I received today led to me contacting picrights who were requesting monetary compensation which I am unwilling to do at this point. Could anybody who has ignored similar letters confirm if further action was taken before I contact Agence France Presse. I am hoping that my removal of the images from my website is sufficient to not warrant any further action. Any advice regarding this would be greatly appreciated and I am able to provide further information about this if required. I am currently under the assumption that if I ignore them they will not pursue this further but I feel that simply ignoring them is likely to have severe consequences which is the main reason for my post.

Thanks and any advice whatsoever would be appreciated. Also, it may be worthy to note that a letter of "Cease and Desist" was not sent by them and the first contact they made was the demanding of payment rather than a warning, which further increases my doubt.
72
Can you tell me what the outcome of your situation was? How did you handle Leslie Burns?
73
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ImageRights
« Last post by Ethan Seven on January 20, 2019, 12:39:37 AM »
Image Rights
Image Protect
Image Defenders

How many of these similar sounding companies are there?
74
Ditto what BuddaPi said.   Nailed it.

Class action claims seem to be a reoccurring fantasy on this board.  There seems to be at least two common patterns.   One, ironically the idea is posted by someone who makes an admission that supports a reasonable basis for the copyright claim, which would be enough to thwart the class action claim.  Two, the claim is accompanied by a conspiracy theory that is easily explained, such as the other images appearing in Google Image search results do not have watermarks or are a bigger size because they are either licensed versions or unlicensed copies of licensed versions. 

For what it is worth, entrapment is not a defense to copyright infringement or a basis for a class action.   

75
I'll nibble. thanks for the cringe worthy post of the week.. my thoughts in bold...

Hello All,

Today I received a demand letter from Higbee Associates on behalf of AFP and not at all surprised to find this forum. I am so taken a back by the tactics used by this law firm to get me to a.) admit guilt and b.) extort money from innocent people - that I am exploring the possibility of starting a class action lawsuit. I will explain the story and then lay out my case for willful entrapment and extortion on the part of AFP. My background is in marketing so if anyone has any legal insights here, or would like to debate the issue, I'm all ears!

class actions have been mentioned many times here in the last 10 yrs, hasn't happened yet, likely never will, good luck proving "willful entrapment and or extortion.

I did not personally receive the demand letter. It was issued to 4Humanity, a 501(c)3 nonprofit client of mine, claiming copyright infringement for using an image on 4Humanity's website which expired from the ICANN registry in August 2018 and hadn't been used since 2016. In this particular instance fair use is clearly established as follows:

"clearly established" in your mind maybe, but that's for a judge to determine..and it's a  very grey area

1.) The image in question is transformative - From what I gather, the original photo was taken in Hong Kong in 2011 to document the total monkey population in Kam Shan, part of the Kowloon Hills. 4Humanity used this cute picture of a monkey eating a banana to help spread awareness for atrocities humans commit against animals of all kinds in the United States.

you just kinda admitted guilt...

2.) The image was used in good faith, for both nonprofit and educational purposes: It was a thumbnail size image of a monkey eating a banana, on a secondary page of a website, aiming to spread awareness about the treatment of animals in the US.

3.) There is zero evidence whatsoever that it effected the potential market for the photo.  Not only didn't it effect the market for the photo, it's absolutely laughable to think a website which receives less than 500 page views per month could possibly effect much of anything let alone the potential market for any stock photo on the face of the earth. Especially when the very company licensing the photo also owns iStockPhoto which licenses nearly identical images of monkeys eating bananas for $12 - Seriously? It could very logically and reasonably be argued that Getty Images damages the market for their own photos every time they license iStock images for $12 rather than the $1775 they are demanding 4Humanity pays immediately to resolve the issue.

"nearly identical images" has nothing to do with the actual image in question, those are likely royalty free images, while the image in question is likely a rights managed image..

4.) Lastly, the photo on the website was cropped significantly, downsized, and altered to the point that not 1 pixel of the photograph retained any of the original color information.

Obviously fair use is a nuanced thing, but in this case it's pretty clear. There is also very recent precedent set last summer re:
BRAMMER v. VIOLENT HUES PRODUCTIONS, LLC

This case is currently being appealed and IMHO will likely be overturned.

Now to my main point willful entrapment and extortion of innocent people...

Pretty peculiar isn't it, that it's impossible to save or download any image from Getty's website without a watermark yet if you search Google Images there they are, completely free of watermarks. Furthermore, if you click on the un-watermarked photo in Google Images it directly links to a page on Getty's website WITH a watermarked photo. Hmmm...What's also interesting to note is the size of the images in Google is also significantly larger than the images on the front-end of Getty's website. Why is this important? Anyone who does design knows thumbnail size images which are watermarked are totally useless. The images on Google however are not totally useless, they are not watermarked and they are large enough to be viable in many uses. One could claim fault on the part of Google or ignorance by AFP, but this is also untrue as AFP sued Google in March 2005 for populating AFP material in search results without permission. The two parties struck an undisclosed licensing deal for Google to use AFP material in their search results.

A watermark is not required, copyright exists at the moment of creation, every google image search result page states images may be copyrighted.....

"Google or ignorance by AFP, but this is also untrue as AFP sued Google in March 2005 for populating AFP material in search results without permission."

this is factually incorrect AFP sued google over the fact that google was using images and news snippets in its "google news" service, which is seperate from a typical google image search. Google does not need to have permission to show image results in it's image search results, as they are simply linking to images and not making a copy of them.



Fast forward to present, Google is legally allowed to populate search with AFP images, yet the images they are populating and prioritizing do not have watermarks. How is this possible? AFP uploads a medium resolution photo into their database, not watermarked, and uses simple coding language to size the images down and make it impossible to save them on the front-end. Why do they do this? So that Google bots can scrape the code on AFP's website, locate the source image without watermark, only then to prioritize the un-watermarked images in search, baiting innocent people around the world into using them.

good luck proving this ina court of law

Are you telling me the developers and SEO people at the world's 3rd largest news agency don't know full well how to populate an image into Google without a watermark? Are you telling me that the most genius developers and cutting edge AI on planet earth at Google don't know how to prioritize images, especially ones that are copyrighted with watermarks all over them? Child, please!!!

It's not googles job to enforce the copyright of others, a watermark is just that a watermark and not a legal requirement..and again virtually all of the images in a google image search are "copyrighted" unless they are in the public domain..

You can try this yourself. Here's the link to the original image on Getty:

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/macaque-eats-a-banana-as-it-scavenges-for-food-at-a-country-news-photo/107955395

Now go to Google Images and search the image title:

https://www.google.com/search?q=A+macaque+eats+a+banana+as+it+scavenges&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj21vaejvTfAhUKmoMKHfu8A1UQ_AUIDigB&biw=1621&bih=939#imgrc=_

Am I the only one who finds it odd and coincidental that the Getty image has no watermark, yet somehow every other photo from a stock photo site has a watermark? Not only that but Getty Images are also astronomically higher in value than the rest?

Someone who is way smarter than me please tell me the legalities here.

i'm not a lawyer but here goes...
1. copyright exists at momnet of creation.
2. watermark not required.
3. "I did not know it was copyrighted" is not a valid defense.
4. "fair use" is not straightforward.
5. getty & istock 2 different business models, each allowed to set their own pricing structure...why is a rolls royce so much more than a kia, after all they are both cars, and pretty much do the same things..


Higbee supervisor seemed to agree - they know millions of people around the world search google images everyday and innocently infringe on copyright. BUT! Young Buddha, did you or did you not have a monkey eating a banana in a 200px circle on your website a long time ago?! Ohh ohhh oooh, so your admitting guilt?!

You Mr. Supervisor at Higbee, you are not a lawyer either my guy. I established fair use in an hour on Google. Take a breath. We are all the same. We will all die.

I digress...

So does AFP and Getty's marketing departments not check Google Images or...? They are advocating on behalf of the creatives right?

why would they check? what would they be checking for? google just links to things it finds to bring in revenue, AFP & Getty are advocating for their bottom line, they could care less about artists and photographers, this is plain as day when you look at the measly commissions they pay.

They never manipulate search rankings via SEO?

Huh.

It has to be more beneficial for Google to have amazing photos for free, than lo-res watermarked stock photo previews that cost $1775 after applicable taxes + fees? Right? Am I crazy?

why is this beneficial to google?....NOTHING IS FREE

Imagine if Pexels.com could manipulate search like AFP! Look at all these infringement free photos you could get of monkeys:

https://www.pexels.com/search/monkey%20eating%20a%20bana/
https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/

I cringe at the thought of how many pirated images exist on pexels.com, all of the images are uploaded by users, god only knows where they get the imges... might want to read their terms.

"5.6. While photographers and users that upload Content to our Website represent and warrant to us that they have all the rights therein and that the Content does not infringe any third party rights, Pexels cannot reasonable monitor all Content uploaded to the Service. We therefore do not make any representations or guarantees for the rights granted hereunder to you.

in other words "use at your own risk"


To the overwhelming majority Google has become as automatic as thinking thoughts and breathing. A little bit of code solves a whole lot of innocent copyright infringement.
not googles job, when using google you are agreeing to their terms of service, which in part states "Using our Services does not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights in our Services or the content you access. You may not use content from our Services unless you obtain permission from its owner or are otherwise permitted by law."

It hurts my heart they do this entrapment scheme while simultaneously preaching their altruistic intent trying to collect on behalf of the creative community. This is the same company that got caught, prosecuted, and found guilty in 2013 for stealing images of the Haiti Earthquake from a photog on Twitter, selling them on their platform, generating huge revenues and forgetting to pay the photographer. Whooops!!!

I've been in the creative world for quite some time. Getty is having an increasingly difficult time competing against economical competitors and began committing suicide when they acquired iStock. Who is going to spend that much on a photo when you can get them for free from Pexels.com - In addition, who in their right mind would knowingly infringe upon a copyright of a $1775 image when they can get it for $12 on iStock or free on Pexels.com? The very logical answer would be NO ONE.

"The very logical answer would be NO ONE."...well except maybe 4humanity and coiuntless others..

I am very passionate about fairness, justice, and pushing society forward in a positive direction. It is only possible if we come together and stand up for what's right.

What do you think?
I wholly agree on this statement, and I wholly disagree with what Higbee, Getty and countless other trolls do to generate revenue, but folks need to at the very least get educated, before trying to make an argument that may backfire


Do we have a case?
sure, everyone has a case, the question is, is it a winning case?? or better yet, what are the odds of having a lawsuit filed? If so is it worth it to fight it, maybe win, maybe loose??
76
Hello All,

Today I received a demand letter from Higbee Associates on behalf of AFP and not at all surprised to find this forum. I am so taken a back by the tactics used by this law firm to get me to a.) admit guilt and b.) extort money from innocent people - that I am exploring the possibility of starting a class action lawsuit. I will explain the story and then lay out my case for willful entrapment and extortion on the part of AFP. My background is in marketing so if anyone has any legal insights here, or would like to debate the issue, I'm all ears!

I did not personally receive the demand letter. It was issued to 4Humanity, a 501(c)3 nonprofit client of mine, claiming copyright infringement for using an image on 4Humanity's website which expired from the ICANN registry in August 2018 and hadn't been used since 2016. In this particular instance fair use is clearly established as follows:

1.) The image in question is transformative - From what I gather, the original photo was taken in Hong Kong in 2011 to document the total monkey population in Kam Shan, part of the Kowloon Hills. 4Humanity used this cute picture of a monkey eating a banana to help spread awareness for atrocities humans commit against animals of all kinds in the United States.

2.) The image was used in good faith, for both nonprofit and educational purposes: It was a thumbnail size image of a monkey eating a banana, on a secondary page of a website, aiming to spread awareness about the treatment of animals in the US.

3.) There is zero evidence whatsoever that it effected the potential market for the photo.  Not only didn't it effect the market for the photo, it's absolutely laughable to think a website which receives less than 500 page views per month could possibly effect much of anything let alone the potential market for any stock photo on the face of the earth. Especially when the very company licensing the photo also owns iStockPhoto which licenses nearly identical images of monkeys eating bananas for $12 - Seriously? It could very logically and reasonably be argued that Getty Images damages the market for their own photos every time they license iStock images for $12 rather than the $1775 they are demanding 4Humanity pays immediately to resolve the issue.

4.) Lastly, the photo on the website was cropped significantly, downsized, and altered to the point that not 1 pixel of the photograph retained any of the original color information.

Obviously fair use is a nuanced thing, but in this case it's pretty clear. There is also very recent precedent set last summer re:
BRAMMER v. VIOLENT HUES PRODUCTIONS, LLC

Now to my main point willful entrapment and extortion of innocent people...

Pretty peculiar isn't it, that it's impossible to save or download any image from Getty's website without a watermark yet if you search Google Images there they are, completely free of watermarks. Furthermore, if you click on the un-watermarked photo in Google Images it directly links to a page on Getty's website WITH a watermarked photo. Hmmm...What's also interesting to note is the size of the images in Google is also significantly larger than the images on the front-end of Getty's website. Why is this important? Anyone who does design knows thumbnail size images which are watermarked are totally useless. The images on Google however are not totally useless, they are not watermarked and they are large enough to be viable in many uses. One could claim fault on the part of Google or ignorance by AFP, but this is also untrue as AFP sued Google in March 2005 for populating AFP material in search results without permission. The two parties struck an undisclosed licensing deal for Google to use AFP material in their search results.

Fast forward to present, Google is legally allowed to populate search with AFP images, yet the images they are populating and prioritizing do not have watermarks. How is this possible? AFP uploads a medium resolution photo into their database, not watermarked, and uses simple coding language to size the images down and make it impossible to save them on the front-end. Why do they do this? So that Google bots can scrape the code on AFP's website, locate the source image without watermark, only then to prioritize the un-watermarked images in search, baiting innocent people around the world into using them.

Are you telling me the developers and SEO people at the world's 3rd largest news agency don't know full well how to populate an image into Google without a watermark? Are you telling me that the most genius developers and cutting edge AI on planet earth at Google don't know how to prioritize images, especially ones that are copyrighted with watermarks all over them? Child, please!!!

You can try this yourself. Here's the link to the original image on Getty:

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/macaque-eats-a-banana-as-it-scavenges-for-food-at-a-country-news-photo/107955395

Now go to Google Images and search the image title:

https://www.google.com/search?q=A+macaque+eats+a+banana+as+it+scavenges&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj21vaejvTfAhUKmoMKHfu8A1UQ_AUIDigB&biw=1621&bih=939#imgrc=_

Am I the only one who finds it odd and coincidental that the Getty image has no watermark, yet somehow every other photo from a stock photo site has a watermark? Not only that but Getty Images are also astronomically higher in value than the rest?

Someone who is way smarter than me please tell me the legalities here.

Higbee supervisor seemed to agree - they know millions of people around the world search google images everyday and innocently infringe on copyright. BUT! Young Buddha, did you or did you not have a monkey eating a banana in a 200px circle on your website a long time ago?! Ohh ohhh oooh, so your admitting guilt?!

You Mr. Supervisor at Higbee, you are not a lawyer either my guy. I established fair use in an hour on Google. Take a breath. We are all the same. We will all die.

I digress...

So does AFP and Getty's marketing departments not check Google Images or...? They are advocating on behalf of the creatives right?

They never manipulate search rankings via SEO?

Huh.

It has to be more beneficial for Google to have amazing photos for free, than lo-res watermarked stock photo previews that cost $1775 after applicable taxes + fees? Right? Am I crazy?

Imagine if Pexels.com could manipulate search like AFP! Look at all these infringement free photos you could get of monkeys:

https://www.pexels.com/search/monkey%20eating%20a%20bana/
https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/

To the overwhelming majority Google has become as automatic as thinking thoughts and breathing. A little bit of code solves a whole lot of innocent copyright infringement.

It hurts my heart they do this entrapment scheme while simultaneously preaching their altruistic intent trying to collect on behalf of the creative community. This is the same company that got caught, prosecuted, and found guilty in 2013 for stealing images of the Haiti Earthquake from a photog on Twitter, selling them on their platform, generating huge revenues and forgetting to pay the photographer. Whooops!!!

I've been in the creative world for quite some time. Getty is having an increasingly difficult time competing against economical competitors and began committing suicide when they acquired iStock. Who is going to spend that much on a photo when you can get them for free from Pexels.com - In addition, who in their right mind would knowingly infringe upon a copyright of a $1775 image when they can get it for $12 on iStock or free on Pexels.com? The very logical answer would be NO ONE.

I am very passionate about fairness, justice, and pushing society forward in a positive direction. It is only possible if we come together and stand up for what's right.

What do you think?

Do we have a case?



77
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ImageRights
« Last post by Keeping It Real on January 10, 2019, 10:35:37 AM »
This was the test post some may have seen but it is actually mine and the help has been great to get this posted.  Hope this helps others.

 I have monitored this site for years and this is the first time posting my experience.  I learned much and did not play the extortion game.  Waited out 3 separate image accusations within the same month from Getty, Picscout and License Compliance Services, all the same, and they went away after many unanswered emails, mailed hard copies and phone calls going unreturned.  I went dark and remained dark, so I am not easily frazzled especially when I always play by the rules.  The images in question were under old web designer whom let me know about these scams, and I simply could not get to removing fast enough since my site is huge in content and I was working on it daily, plus the time frame to find the right replacement images for my content.  Long story short, have had a business site for over 12 years and changed web site platform and designer 6 years ago.  Once I switched, I proceeded to repurchase and license all new images from iStock and Fotolia since I was leaving my old web designer using transferable licenses to create and develop my site.  When I wanted something special for blog or content, I purchased my images myself.

A new issue has arisen of an Image I purchased through iStock before Getty purchased them.  I have owned the image in question for 6 years.  Image Rights Int'l flagged it and their emails have been going to a spam folder as I designated all types of these contacts as spam.  I did not open the email and copied the link in the preview window and put it into search engine to see the image in question which has been declared a Rights Managed image now from an international photographer from a Scandinavian country on his own website.  I immediately went to iStock to pull the original license and low and behold they have no files for any purchases before 2015 and a portion of 2014 which are not even when I made the purchase. It was much earlier so their records are all messed up.  All my invoices are gone and only a few select images I purchased are visible to reproduce for proof. 

Now I don't feel comfortable using any of those images before the date of ownership change.  They have left a disclaimer stating for invoices or images before the said dates to contact them for assistance.  I did, and they only recovered 16 out of 21 images after I sent them all the unedited images I bought.  I have taken screenshots of those licenses.  Based on their bad record keeping, I removed the image and repurchased at 123rf dot com a similar image, basically appearing almost exact but slightly different. But new image is up and has been since first contact.

Of course,  now Adobe purchased Fotolia and all my licenses have been moved to Adobe with yet another disclaimer of no guarantee to continue to support my Fotolia licenses. WTH! I’m gathering by such a disclaimer that unless I become a paid subscriber, perhaps they will dispose of me in the future. I have safeguarded my purchases through taking screen shots of every image I own and purchased through Fotolia.  Anyone that tries to tell you this is about supporting photographers’ rights is not understanding the larger game here.  I abhor people that rip-off artists, but I am not nor never have been one. Trust me I feel the pain caused by thieves since my content has been stolen more than several times over the years.  I respect artists and creator rights.  But this low hanging fruit, extortion thing is out of hand.

I play by the rules and this person with Image Rights, once a week for 3 weeks now, keeps sending me the fated emails which in and of themselves do not bother me and I continue to ignore.   In the emails she continues to insist the image has not been removed when in fact it has and under new license with 123rf.  She escalated the 4th email and I am not fazed by her threats but angrier that she continues to accuse me of not removing it.  I am not a mind reader so don’t know her game plan and I realize it is not my job to educate the scammers.

UPDATE: after the holidays, I guess she decided to check my site and now sees the new image is up and her escalated threat has been reduced to the niceties of her original email of please pay $300.00 for the license. What is comical however, is with each email she sends she only refers to the most recent dated contact, instead of the original date of contact.  I am keeping copies of everything since it appears to be a ploy of going beyond the SOL with ongoing harassing emails. Since iStock/ Getty essentially have assisted in sabotaging my efforts to comply with old license proof, it makes one ponder, are images disappearing deliberately off of Royalty free sites to rights managed to screw people for free money?

 Hope this info I have shared helps someone else that might be under the impression they owe any monies at all or maybe, just maybe you are being scammed.  Any feedback as to this scenario is welcome as well.  I appreciate you all!"

UPDATE 1/22/19  Keeping you posted in regard to worrying about imagerights.  It is now over 3 weeks since her last email requesting I pay the $300.00.  So this thing may be over already with them.  Yep I may get another but the initial aggressive contacts have stopped, at least for now.  Keep you posted as time passes.
78
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights/AFP at a Student Org
« Last post by Matthew Chan on January 09, 2019, 07:59:14 PM »
Nearly every stated figure to settle in a demand letter is subject to negotiation and reduction. But you do have to put in the work to provide explanation of how it happened (assuming it was unintentional), removal of images in question, issue an apology, and counter-propose a number you think is more appropriate. So, with the right explanation and responses, that $710 can be reduced significantly. Again, that is a generalized statement which will have varying degrees of success.
79
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: This Will Be Interesting To Watch
« Last post by Matthew Chan on January 09, 2019, 07:55:03 PM »
I certainly welcome informed opinions from legal minds to the forum. I am good with some level of debate and disagreement. It goes to show that interpretation of law and cases are not absolute. The best we can hope for is consensus even if we all agreed here because there is always someone take can have a differing opinion or a different perspective.

Welcome aboard.

I'm an attorney and wanted to respectfully disagree with the analysis on this thread.  I've read some of the other Higbee threads and have read the NY complaint and the memo of law opposing the motion to dismiss.  It will be interesting to see how this works out, but judges rarely grant motions to dismiss early in lawsuits.  It deprives the plaintiff their day in court.  In this particular case, the law firm advances a fascinating legal argument and exposes Higbee and Youngston and their business practice.  Please keep up the reporting and have some faith, the New York law firm's pleadings come across as credible and legit.
80
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: This Will Be Interesting To Watch
« Last post by Legaleagle1 on January 09, 2019, 07:49:45 PM »
I'm an attorney and wanted to respectfully disagree with the analysis on this thread.  I've read some of the other Higbee threads and have read the NY complaint and the memo of law opposing the motion to dismiss.  It will be interesting to see how this works out, but judges rarely grant motions to dismiss early in lawsuits.  It deprives the plaintiff their day in court.  In this particular case, the law firm advances a fascinating legal argument and exposes Higbee and Youngston and their business practice.  Please keep up the reporting and have some faith, the New York law firm's pleadings come across as credible and legit.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
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.