ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => UK Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Angry Welshman on June 27, 2013, 09:29:24 AM
-
Hey all
I've been poking around here for a week or so cramming as much as possible into my head and having fun learning law obviously due to receiving one of them infamous "stand and deliver" letters from getty.
The picture in question has been used on a small store website, taken from a forum where it had been flipped (whether to hide it in a vain effort from picscout etc I do not know) and found via yahoo images. It was accidently left on the website when It was created until we could take our own.
we have been charged the usual £1300, However my questions are what path do I follow in regarding this?
The "Getter letter is illegal due to missing important info" route?
The "ignore it completely" route?
The "Offer them a small sum to make them go away without admitting fault then ignore all further correspondence as we made the offer" route?
Or (my personal favourite)
The "Ask for proof of copyright and affidavit that the photographer has not made the images available anywhere else (for free or for sale) and ask for how they came to that cost" route.
Do I bring up the 6 month waiting period between them discovering our use and informing us (therefore inflating their claim?)
Do I also bring up that any funds they ask for should be to recoup their losses, not for their betterment. (this isn't compensation)
Both of which would be frowned upon in court.
Just a few ideas bouncing around my head.
Any help would be hugely appreciated.
Thanks all
-
Welshman, as you have certainly discovered, there are many routes you can pursue going forward. You have certainly done a good job of beginning your education with respect to this topic.
In my opinion, which route you choose to pursue, should be dictated by two important factors:
- The actual facts of your case.
- What can they prove?
- The number of images involved?
- The likelihood of them actually coming after you, rather than just threatening?, etc.
- Your temperament and pre-disposition to the activities to follow.
You have certainly denoted some options in terms of paths. My best advice to you would be Do not let their artificial deadlines dictate your actions. Take whatever time you need to fully understand the facts of your case, your opponent, and the strategies open to you. Make your choice with conviction (not out of haste). Stick to your guns.
And if you have any energy left over, do your part in letting the world and your lawmakers know about digital image trolls and the tremendous toll that they take on the world's productivity.
-
Best advice I can offer if you are going to respond is tell them no more than the absolute minimum in order to make your point. Don't confirm where the image was obtained and don't admit to anything.
I wouldn't make an offer unless I was provided proof to bring the claim. Who would do this anywhere out in the real world?
-
I will admit, yes we did have the one pic on our website, however I do get the feeling that the "ask for proof of exclusive copyright" is the best route to go down, followed by ignore and just save all the other "discussion" point I have in case they play hard to get ::). All sent via snail mail of course.
I have also filled in all the hm petitions etc I can find already stinger ;)
I've also come to the conclusion as well to work at my own pace and reply when I'm good and happy. They can dance to my tune rather then vis a ve.
-
Don't forget if they have sent you a snapshot of your website showing the image, they have also infringed your copyright for content, design and layout.
Now that's a copyright infringement and I'd bet you could prove how much they benefitted from it! (exactly the amount they are trying to extort). I'm sure everybodys terms and conditions state no copying, storage, reproduction or exploitation for gain!
So you are dragged over hot coals for an image accidentally obtained by mistake but they purposefully and with full intent and flagrancy took a copy of your website and infringed it.
Oh my days!
-
Don't forget if they have sent you a snapshot of your website showing the image, they have also infringed your copyright for content, design and layout.
Now that's a copyright infringement and I'd bet you could prove how much they benefitted from it! (exactly the amount they are trying to extort). I'm sure everybodys terms and conditions state no copying, storage, reproduction or exploitation for gain!
So you are dragged over hot coals for an image accidentally obtained by mistake but they purposefully and with full intent and flagrancy took a copy of your website and infringed it.
Oh my days!
Snapshots, screen captures and like would NOT constitute copyright infringement, and I would noteven go there and mention this, it's been discussed many times in the forums..
-
Thanks guys, at the moment all I'm trying to find now is a sample of a "getty reply letter" to get an idea of how to set it out etc.
-
Most people on this forum advocate that you make your letter yours. That's why you will not see a lot of form letter examples where you just fill in your company name and signature. Each cases details are different. It is more work for Getty and their ilk to have to deal with different specific cases. Otherwise, they would just say, "if we receive this form letter, answer it with our form letter 352B". Some will argue they do that anyway. But it plays against them because their form letters are often not on point.
That said, I believe their are some good discussions and examples of what should be contained in a response on this forum. Greg Troy's thread, "An experiment against Getty" comes to mind as a place I might start looking for ideas. It is a long thread, but full of good examples.
-
I'm not after a "copy and paste" solution. I was just after something to see how others have done and worded it to get an idea, and more importantly confidence. I argue with everyone, but I'm yet to argue with a "legal department" (I use the term loosely) ;D
-
Don't forget if they have sent you a snapshot of your website showing the image, they have also infringed your copyright for content, design and layout.
Now that's a copyright infringement and I'd bet you could prove how much they benefitted from it! (exactly the amount they are trying to extort). I'm sure everybodys terms and conditions state no copying, storage, reproduction or exploitation for gain!
So you are dragged over hot coals for an image accidentally obtained by mistake but they purposefully and with full intent and flagrancy took a copy of your website and infringed it.
Oh my days!
Snapshots, screen captures and like would NOT constitute copyright infringement, and I would noteven go there and mention this, it's been discussed many times in the forums..
I have been through quite a lot of the forums but haven't yet found the ones you specifically mention - the forums have become quite extensive and I'm only just on the scene!
I'm guessing you are meaning this comes under fair use. Did you mean any more by "I would not even go there". Are you foreseeing pitfalls in even mentioning it?
-
yes "going there" or playing "Getty infringed by copying my site with a screen capture", will not get you anywhere, it would simply be refuted by them..You'd be better served to argue items that at least have a chance of standing up in court..
Heres one such thread: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/a-non-lawyer-idea-about-'the-letter'/
-
I would imagine Getty prioritise cases where they feel they are dealing with somebody unprepared and may more easily part with money.
Never put anything in a letter to them that you aren't sure is correct. If you tell them that they infringed your copyright by taking a screenshot of your website then they'll know they are dealing with somebody who has no clue about copyright infringement.
From everything I've seen on this site the people who get their facts straight and let Getty know they aren't a pushover are the ones who never hear from them again.
-
Hey all,
Just an update letting people know I have decided to call out their "exclusivity of copyright" (a redacted version of course) and a few other pieces. Just waiting now for their response. I shall keep you all up to date when the usual auto response arrives.
-
So just a quick update regarding this. After poking around on DK images, it appears the image is also for sale on there ???
Now I know the image on getty is labelled as "part of the DK collection". Surely that negates gettys claim of copyright, as the so called infringement would be with DK and not getty themselves? :o
-
So just a quick update regarding this. After poking around on DK images, it appears the image is also for sale on there ???
Now I know the image on getty is labelled as "part of the DK collection". Surely that negates gettys claim of copyright, as the so called infringement would be with DK and not getty themselves? :o
When folks become a "Getty Contributor" the artist / photog ALWAYS retains the copyright, the contract allows getting to license the images "exclusively" and protect the copyright on behalf of the artist. Also part of the contract states that for "Rights managed" images the artist cannot sell the same image elsewhere. Looks like what we have here is one of two things.
1. The artist photog, is no longer associated with Getty ( plenty of them have been leaving as of late) and Getty is still selling the image or trying to collect on the image when they have no right to. We've seen this once before, the artist was contacted and was not happy that Getty still had his images for sale, when the clearly did not renew the contract.
2. The artist / photog may be double dipping, by allowing Getty to license the image, while at the same time selling the image on their site or possibly other sites..
Herein lies the issue, who is Getty to say that you did not purchase the image directly from the artist? It's not up to you the end-user to prove your innocence, it's up to getty to prove your guilt, and they would also have to prove the image in question is registered and registered properly, and it probably isn't, which iin turn means they would only legally be able to collect a very small amount, if anything.. The whole schem is based on fear of being sued.
-
Well it looks like I hit a nerve with Getty, as they decided to forgo the usual back and forth due to us receiving a atradius letter demanding payment. ::)
So, Just ignore from now on then?
-
well, I've now gotten my second letter from atradius,
this paragraph sums up the whole getty issue in itself "you have been notified that unorthorised use of the image(s) constitutes copyright infringement under the copyright, Design and patents act of 1988. Copyright legislation provides for strict liability, meaning that you can be found liable for infringement regardless of your level of knowledge of the infringement or your intent."
So basically Getter like to blackmail. "you MAY be found liable" but pay us £1230 and you wont be. Such a nice company.
-
So it would now appear atradius are phoning us to chase. Anybody got any opinions on how I should handle this?
Thanks all
-
Laugh and hang up.
-
I have a sneaking suspicion that Getty have sold the 'debt' onto Atradius as when I got my phonecall, they hadn't a clue what was written in previous correspondence with Getty and was interested either.
-
What debt? A claim is NOT a debt.
-
I know that and you know that, but you can't sell a 'claim' on :D
-
here's a copy of the email and my reply
Dr Mr _______
Please find attached a copy of the correspondence previously sent to your office by our client.
Our client claims that one of their images was used on your website without authorisation.
Our client’s images are encoded with a marker which is identifiable with their software. When their images are located the details are cross referenced against their database of clients and if there is not a match a letter is sent to the websites owner.
Our client’s letter clearly shows the image that was used on your company website.
If you had permission to use this image please supply evidence of this. If you do not have permission then you are liable for the costs as detailed in the letter and payment should be made immediately.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Rebecca Allwood
Atradius Collections
my reply is very similar to what I sent to getty themselves.
Hi Rebecca, Thankyou for your email. From now on we require all further correspondence in writing so we have hard copies thanks.
Before we proceed any further we will need the following provided from getty.
1. Proof of copyright exclusivity being given to Dorling Kindersley by Mike Millman (Redacted copy of contract acceptable) for image No -------.
2. Proof of copyright exclusivity being given to Getty Images by Dorling Kindersley (Redacted copy of contract acceptable) for image No------.
3. A signed affidavit from BOTH Dorling Kindersley and Mike Millman stating that the image has never been offered via any other locations, either free of charge or not.
4. A breakdown of the invoice showing how they came to the figure of £1000 and a VAT figure of £230.
Until getty provides ALL of the above (either directly or through yourselves) and prove they themselves legally own the copyright for the dates we are accused of, we shall consider the matter closed.
Thankyou.
-
So a nice follow on email this morning
Good Afternoon,
With respect to your extensive list of requests, all information can be found on the correspondence already sent. If you would like to peruse the Getty website for the image in question for any other additional information, please proceed.
Pre-action protocols are being abided by, if this matter cannot be settled amicably, we will advise our client to pursue via legal action.
Regards,
Rebecca Allwood
Atradius Collections
3 Harbour Drive
Cardiff CF10 4WZ
United Kingdom
Tel. + 44 (0) 29 2082 4582
Fax. + 44 (0) 29 2082 4508
Email: R.Allwood.collect@atradius.com
to which my reply was
"All further correspondence to be in writing thanks. As requested."
straight and to the point.
-
So just had another call from atradius (theyre persistant)
I said to them we're still waiting for the signed affidavits etc from getty, to which the rather snotty reply came
"well they're a large company, and you used the image without a license and there's the large amount of damages"
my reply was
"what large amount of damages? for a small amount of bytes? do me a favour, any further information you with to correspond with us, do it in paper thankyou"
and put the phone down :D
-
Good job replying to the atradius goon.
Put it in writing and don't call me again, $!#^%$#. I'm not byteing on your baloney, bud! :)
-
As Attradius are a member of the Credit Services Association they have to comply with the CSA code of practice.
A quick look at the code of practice turns up this paragraph which may be of interest, I have highlighted the phrase of interest.
1. Key Requirements
Every member shall
.
.
s: make contact at reasonable times and at reasonable intervals,
taking into consideration the reasonable wishes of the debtor,
which may include the preferred method of communication. Where
possible, make debtors aware of business opening times and
highlight contact periods
.
.