ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => UK Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: nixlyn1 on March 04, 2012, 04:35:15 AM
-
Dear Matthew
Just to let you know that in the UK our team is doing much the same as you www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk with solicitor Liz Ward.
We now have a video with the link http://youtu.be/er2MkBu3q1g which is also on our website.
I know you get a lot of contact from the uk too so it would help if you can let these people know about us!
Best Regards
Nick Bloomfield
-
Nick,
Respectfully, from what I can tell from your website, you are NOT doing the same as what we do. It is not even close. While it appears you have a solicitor working with you to help provide a working solution to Getty Images letter recipients that need help, the main focus appears to be selling a template letter program for letter recipients to use starting at 150 British pounds ($237.50 US Dollars). From what I understand, there will be some background legal support in the use of these letters but essentially letter recipients are self-representing.
What ELI does is much larger in scope. It is first and foremost an advocate website that openly fights and challenges extortion letters of all kinds. Secondly, we highly encourage widespread education of the relevant issues. Third, we have established an online community,document library, and video archive read by hundreds of people to increase the awareness of the issue but also help letter recipients defend themselves by directing and educating them to issues they need to understand.
Certainly, I brainstormed and worked with Attorney Oscar Michelen to develop the Defense Letter Program in 2008 which actually provides solid legal representation. Quite frankly, we are proud to say that it is an excellent value ($195 US Dollars) that has been unmatched in the U.S. since its inception.
It has only been very recently that I started providing 30-minute telephone support calls for those who want and need it. And very soon, I will be releasing our Special Report that will include advice on how to write defense letters. But more importantly, I feel that people need to know and understand more than simply sending out sample or template letters.
I don't want to sound critical of your efforts because it appears you are offering more than anyone else has in the U.K. (that we know of). But quite frankly, at 150 British pounds ($237.50 US Dollars) for self-representation template letters, you have created a category all your own. We have nothing of that equivalent higher pricing except for full legal representation by Oscar. For us, we try to serve a larger number of people and we try to keep prices at a nominal level wherever possible.
I don't want to say what you offer isn't of value because value is relative. But if you really want to offer greater help to the U.K. community, might I suggest starting an online discussion forum and educate others in the legal issues specific to the U.K.? You certainly are not required to. But if you don't, your website simply comes across as opportunistic where you and your solicitor are there just to sell your product. And anyone else who doesn't buy your product is left out in the cold.
Admittedly, Oscar and I are very unconventional in how we operate and how much we openly share. Some people might say we are crazy to do so. We are so crazy that we know the major stock photo companies read our forums also. I know this because I see the web traffic logs.
We have a passion for the positions we stand for. We have few secrets. While we certainly cannot freely give our personal time away on a one-on-one basis anymore, we continue to contribute to the larger cause through our legal research, analysis, editorials, blog posts, videos, and our online credibility and influence. WE have even established relationships with other copyright troll fighting websites who do it for the sheer passion of the mission.
We are more than willing to send U.K. letter recipients to your website but I would only do so conditionally simply because there appears to be nothing else available.
Your post will be seen by our U.K viewers but they will also see my constructive comments about how you and your solicitor might better serve letter recipients in the U.K. community beyond simply selling Letter Templates for $150 British pounds ($237.50 US Dollars).
-
Hi Matthew
I apologise for saying we are doing the same thing as you. I was so keen to get the video information out there that my post was a bit short and perhaps misleading.
What I would say is that we are 'fighting' getty and their obnoxious letters in the UK. I myself am a 'victim' and when I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk and eventually met them it was the first time that I felt that there was somebody there to help!
I offered to help them with both website and video work so that the message could be spread. I take no payment for this but obviously the solicitor and company need some finance to keep the whole project going.
We are in the process of redoing the website and the offer involved but I would stress that Liz will be defending participants on a no win no fee basis should it come to that so there is perhaps more to the offer than at first appears. Also the template letters will continue to be supplied for the two year period. We are also offering an enhanced service where we will do the letters from the company as opposed to supplying them to the participants.
I don't believe that yet another forum would be that helpful as a, you have an excellent forum on this site and there are many more in the UK. What tends to happen is that after a while the whole thing starts going round in circles and then forum members start abusing each other. The FSB (Federation of Small Businesses UK) forum is a case in point. Then you get the Getty 'moles' attacking. One on the FSB forum who appeared to be a Getty mole called themselves 'Bambi' which was quite amusing.
Anyway, I apologise again for appearing to offer what you do but personally speaking, although the cost may be higher here than the service you are offering I still feel it is worth offering.
Best Regards
Nick
-
Good discussion as usual.
The thing about the ELI forum that is particularly good is that while we all have our own opinions which may differ slightly at times,
a great deal of proof and references are commonly provided to back up opinions and arguments.
While I don't think that there has been very much "trolling" on the ELI forum (by Getty or otherwise), there have been a handful that cropped up from time-to-time.
These people went away fairly quickly, as they couldn't back up their statements with anything of substance.
Indeed, anytime that I read that something "always" happens, or "never" happens the other way, I'm thinking "troll".
For me, the greatest single concept that's come out of ELI and actual court cases is that even the legal community has gone from, "no matter what, you've infringed",
to "better check out the whole story carefully".
Additionally, we've seen that even average people can and will fight to the bitter end and win (Righthaven).
While the contributors here don't get "paid" in the traditional sense, I must say that I've enjoyed how butthurt these stock image companies and photogs are.
I mean, don't cry me a river, just register your images and stop scamming people.
Here's what my facial expression has been during my entire foray with this:
(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1244/reactionragefacejoyhand.jpg)
S.G.
-
Information is the key word. I have seen a couple of lawyers. The best lawyers are not worth a penny if they do not have the right information. This forum gives you tons of information which you can use yourself or give it to your lawyer which will help him to defend you properly. But you always have to do your share as well
Start with the basics and do not anticipate that G.I. is doing a proper job. They are just greedy.
-
First of all - whoops!!
I made a mistake on the video I posted earlier and had to take it down and edit then repost! The link is now
http://youtu.be/Yp_EmTqVkSA
I have already imbedded the new video on the website copyrightinfringement.org.ukso all is ok!
Secondly, thanks to Soylentgreen for your comments. I'm glad that you reminded me that troll is the word - I had forgotten.
Thirdly to Khan - I appreciate your comments and agree that a lot of solicitors are not that good but I would say and you can listen to the video that in the UK Liz Ward is at the forefront of her field with regard to Intellectual Property Rights and particularly the situation in the UK with Getty.
It is probably not relevant but after I first met her I was so impressed that I introduced her to a friend of mine who was suffering with an ex-employer in an unrelated field. To say that she is a 'tough cookie' is a bit of an understatement and the ex-employers case was thrown out with costs awarded against them!
This may sound weird but on one level I would like Getty to take me to court because I feel confident that they would never get the outrageous amounts of money they are demanding!
-
Hello Nick,
As I said in my post, my comments were meant to be constructive in nature. For years, we waited patiently for help for the Canadian and UK community hoping that someone would step up. We made some early attempts to help but ultimately gave up because it seemed no one was interested in the "thankless" job. Certainly, neither Oscar or I felt qualified to help the UK audience. There were enough cultural differences that we, as Americans, would lack credibility in any statements we make regarding the situation outside of the U.S. And so, we have stayed largely silent on international issues.
However, as you pointed out, we do get a fair amount of international visitors and there are various threads that were created by prior visitors.
I respect that you were a Getty Images victim and commend you for taking the initiative to do what you have done thus far. As I said, it is far more than what your UK counterparts are doing. I would be the first to tell you that I questioned whether I wanted to keep the ELI project alive especially the last 2 years. Not so much now because I have a lot more clarity. But from late 2009 to - late 2011, I can share that I seriously entertained the thought of closing down ELI and just letting people fend for themselves. I was getting worn down by all the help requests. However, Oscar encouraged me to keep it going. It was only around Nov-Dec. 2011 that I got clarity around the ELI project. All the crazy time and late nights I was putting in to manage and grow the whole ELI network had to stop (or greatly reduced) or there had to be more money coming in (to offset the insane hours I was putting in) than the small amount of Paypal contributions coming in. So I understand the money issue as it relates to the ongoing work to help others. I also understand that the lawyers/solicitors have to be paid some nominal amount for their involvement. I don't claim to understand the intricacies of your template letter system, the 2-year support, and the "no win, no fee" provision but I would love to hear more of how it all works.
But feel free to expand on it here if you like. You have a large and interested audience here. :-) It sounds like an interesting approach and a different perspective which we welcome.
Regarding your comments about other discussion forums, I can see your perspective with the various forums in the UK especially the FSB forums. The problem with the FSB forums is that it appears to be a small business forum which caters to a very wide audience of which the Getty issue is one of many being discussed. While there is a moderator there, he does not have a vested interest nor the subject matter expertise to jump into steer, guide, or moderate the conversation. Further, it appears his role is to "balance" both sides of the conversation. And because you have different factions warring in the discussion, it becomes this ugly, runaway train.
Here on the ELI Forums, we are clearly focused on the extortion letter scheme and helping letter recipient victims. That has been a big part of our mission. We do not prohibit photographers, stock photo agencies, or lawyers from the "other side" from posting or participating in the discussions but I think it is self-evident that our forums would be a "hostile" and "disagreeable" audience to get involved in. It certainly doesn't help when all the moderators and members of the defense team are mostly on one side of the issue and not the other. I believe all of this has acted as deterrents to their participation.
I have participated in online discussion forums before, as well as started and run them, before the ELI Project ever began. I will tell anyone that in the early stages of forming an online community, it can be a thankless, time-consuming job. What I do know is that a discussion forum doesn't just grow by itself by throwing it out in the open. It requires nurturing and participation until it starts having a life of its own. Even when it has a life of its own, the moderation style and guidelines have a strong influence on who it attracts, who posts, and how people post/respond. Good posts with a high signal-to-noise ratio are rewarded. Baiters, troublemakers, trolls that don't contribute to the overall conversation are highly discouraged and even put down. But don't confuse legitimate difference of opinions/perspectives vs. people who do a hit-and-run number simply saying outrageous things without substantiation. These get weeded out quickly. I am happy to say we continue to maintain a reasonably high signal-to-noise ratio here. Certainly, he have our share of snarky posts, humor posts, and side comments. But for the most part, I am happy to say most people stay on track without too much intervention.
That is why some of the other forums look chaotic, unfocused, and simply a bloody mess. In any case, you are welcome to share what you are doing. I do agree with you that what you offer is worth sharing. If I didn't, I wouldn't have drawn attention to this thread by commenting on it or engaging you in this open discussion. We are happy to have your solicitor come on these forums and expand upon what she is doing with her program. My advice is don't pitch us. This audience is very savvy to such things. Just openly and honestly educate and inform us, the referrals will take care of itself.
Right now, from what I can see, there needs to be more "openness", clarity, and explanation of what the various letters are for and the specific topics they deal with and how your entire program works. And if there are specific legal talking points, it would be nice to know those. You don't actually have to put up the actual letters to do this. It sounds like I am asking for trade secrets but I will tell you that people are much more trusting when they know what they are getting. We also happen to practice what we preach too. You may lose a sale or two for do-it-yourself types but you will have advocates that will sing your praises for being open. We get a crazy amount of incoming links from all kinds of websites I never knew existed. It really is an honor when people do that for your website without being asked to.
A few days ago, I released an extensive outline of my upcoming special report. It was meant to be informative and to solicit feedback of topics I might have missed. And yet, inadvertently it became a marketing piece because I have already gotten several positive reactions of how expansive and detailed that outline was. I didn't get the feedback I was looking for but I did get MORE interest in people wanting to get a copy. LOL.
Anyhow, we will certainly pay attention to your website and monitor it and your offerings to the U.K. audience. Legitimate tools to help extortion letter victims are badly needed there. Thanks for sharing your story and engaging us. We are sponges here so our ears are open to any behind-the-scenes story you want to share. :-)
Hi Matthew
I apologise for saying we are doing the same thing as you. I was so keen to get the video information out there that my post was a bit short and perhaps misleading.
What I would say is that we are 'fighting' getty and their obnoxious letters in the UK. I myself am a 'victim' and when I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk and eventually met them it was the first time that I felt that there was somebody there to help!
I offered to help them with both website and video work so that the message could be spread. I take no payment for this but obviously the solicitor and company need some finance to keep the whole project going.
We are in the process of redoing the website and the offer involved but I would stress that Liz will be defending participants on a no win no fee basis should it come to that so there is perhaps more to the offer than at first appears. Also the template letters will continue to be supplied for the two year period. We are also offering an enhanced service where we will do the letters from the company as opposed to supplying them to the participants.
I don't believe that yet another forum would be that helpful as a, you have an excellent forum on this site and there are many more in the UK. What tends to happen is that after a while the whole thing starts going round in circles and then forum members start abusing each other. The FSB (Federation of Small Businesses UK) forum is a case in point. Then you get the Getty 'moles' attacking. One on the FSB forum who appeared to be a Getty mole called themselves 'Bambi' which was quite amusing.
Anyway, I apologise again for appearing to offer what you do but personally speaking, although the cost may be higher here than the service you are offering I still feel it is worth offering.
Best Regards
Nick
-
@Matt - I think you did not get the feedback you were looking for because you covered every topic under the sun in your table of contents, I think I can speak for most if not all ELI members / users, that this report will be spot on, offering answers to most questions in every facet in a succinct well written manner.
-
Hi Matthew
We are currently rewriting some of the information on the website which, hopefully will be up in the next few days. I will also be away on business so I will not be able to reply very quickly to any questions but I think it would be a great idea if Liz was to write a piece which I will ask her to do for the following reasons;
1, I am not a solicitor / lawyer and am not in a position to give advice.
2, I think that Liz is very cautious in what she says (She is a solicitor after all!) and she is concerned that Getty don't pick up too much of the strategy in terms of what we are trying to achieve and how we go about trying to beat them.
I can say that the defence is not a million miles away from what you do in the US and one of the advantages (I Believe) under UK law is that the courts will apply what they consider to be just damages and it is highly unlikely that the thousands and thousands mentioned by 'trolls' and others would be applied.
One of the issues that really bothers me and did back in 2009 when my client first received the dreaded letter was the number of people on the web who were advocating totally ignoring the Getty letter. I think that the courts will always look down on someone who has never responded to the letter. My original letter was cobbled together from what I had seen on the web and a bit of UK law. This worked until July last year when I received a new demand from a UK solicitor who was acting on Getty's behalf. This was when I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk
It seems that Getty have approached a number of solicitors in the UK, probably on some kind of commission basis, to attack locally. These solicitors seem to be free to adapt their approach to suit their own interpretation of the situation and can vary a bit in method and wordage.
Anyway, when I return from my trip I will have a chat with Liz and see if I can ask her for some comments.
Thank you very much for your understanding.
-
Hello Nick,
I would say that you don't have to be in a position to give advice. But perhaps, you will be in a position to give an "informed opinion" and let others decide if your opinion if of value. I think, over time, your opinion will become more valued because of your ongoing involvement.
Regarding caution from Liz, I understand this attitude from lawyers/solicitors in general. I would say that there is a balance in "giving everything away" vs. informing others. The fact of the matter is, as Getty Images gets more of those template letters as responses, they will gain insight and become wiser to them. There is nothing that can be done about that. They will naturally craft an inevitable counter-response. The only way to start combating that is to have a UK mindshare and the open exchange of ideas and insights. If not, there is too much burden placed on your or the solicitor. We try to assist Oscar by escalating new issues and news to him. NO lawyer can see and know everything, especially cutting edge cases. The ELI community feeds him information. He, in turn, feeds us his legal opinions back. It is a nice symbiotic relationship.
I would also say that exclusively making the fight a legal matter takes the power away from an average citizen and plays into their hands. Certainly, being in the dark legally is foolish but entirely relying on legal arguments or the legal system plays too much into their game for my taste. That is why I stared the ELI forums to begin with and harnessed the power of publicity, search engines, blogs, social media, social publishing, video marketing, and brand creation. The infrastructure is in place for any letter recipient to get their message out and to fight back. Some have used our resources, others stay in hiding which is their perogative.
Having the best legal argument will not be sufficient defense against ongoing harassment or the possibility of a lawsuit. Those recipients who have not been sufficiently informed/trained to alternatives outside of the legal and court system could find themselves ill-prepared. There are actions and strategies that non-solicitors can execute that no solicitor could ever endorse. I categorize those as "back pocket" tactics used when traditional arguments and civility fails.
One thing you and I agree upon is the danger of the wholesale notion of simply ignoring the letter and hope it goes away. I saw this line of discussion frequently in the FSB forums. The trouble with that is (as you pointed out) that it leaves you in a very unpleasant and unattractive position if you "get found". It doesn't paint you in a very good light. For many, it is very difficult to stay hidden so long. Even so, that strategy makes it look you committed some kind of severe crime.
I am certainly no expert in UK laws but I have to believe there are provisions for self-representation. Perhaps there are books on the subject? I also have to believe there are areas of vulnerability with UK solicitors such as U.S. lawyers do with the lawyer-rating websites, online reputations, BBB, and state bar complaints. U.S. lawyers can be greatly hurt professionally and reputationally if need be. If I was ever burned or attacked by a lawyer and wanted payback, I know what I would have to do. It is sort of like having your own nuclear bomb. You never want to have to use it because it hurts all parties. But if some lawyer would not back off of me and were going to take me down, I may as well set off the bomb and cause as much collateral damage as possible and them down with me. It is a powerful "back pocket" tool/tactic for those situations where legal arguments itself will not prevail.
I am guessing that solicitors in the U.K. are very cautious and do not want to fall into public or agency scrutiny either. I believe UK as a culture is a bit more conservative than Americans. That conservativeness, in my view, can be used against offending, unscrupulous, and heavy-handed solicitors.
The extortion letters we have shared and revealed in the U.S. may not get the lawyers disbarred or reprimanded but they are VERY embarrassing and do not paint the issuing lawyer in a good light. It is helpful that they display so prominently in the search engines. It has bothered them so much, we have gotten veiled threats and DMCA takedown notices only to have them put up again by a counter-notification letter.
Certainly, I could have hired a lawyer to combat all this but then ELI could not exist because the legal fees would be too much to bear. And so on many matters, I have learned to self-represent.
Your template letter program will be a valuable tool for UK letter recipients but I predict that there will be some degree of ongoing support since you say that various solicitors have their own customized letters. That is why education in the relevant issues is paramount otherwise new and unexpected extortion letters will throw people into a tizzy if they don't conform to a preset structure.
Lawyers have a tendency to want to do everything in person. While it is nice to provide personal service, it scales terribly and there is no leverage. It can only escalate your fees and help fewer people. If you are serious about really helping the UK community, you will likely have to spearhead those efforts. Even in the U.S. there are relatively few lawyers that understand leverage and scalability. Most only understand the billable hour.
Anyhow, I understand that your project is secondary to your full-time endeavor. However, if you keep us (or at least me) in the loop of what you are doing, I am willing to extend ELI support to your efforts. But I don't publicly endorse anything that I don't fully understand.
1, I am not a solicitor / lawyer and am not in a position to give advice.
2, I think that Liz is very cautious in what she says (She is a solicitor after all!) and she is concerned that Getty don't pick up too much of the strategy in terms of what we are trying to achieve and how we go about trying to beat them.
I can say that the defence is not a million miles away from what you do in the US and one of the advantages (I Believe) under UK law is that the courts will apply what they consider to be just damages and it is highly unlikely that the thousands and thousands mentioned by 'trolls' and others would be applied.
One of the issues that really bothers me and did back in 2009 when my client first received the dreaded letter was the number of people on the web who were advocating totally ignoring the Getty letter. I think that the courts will always look down on someone who has never responded to the letter. My original letter was cobbled together from what I had seen on the web and a bit of UK law. This worked until July last year when I received a new demand from a UK solicitor who was acting on Getty's behalf. This was when I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk
It seems that Getty have approached a number of solicitors in the UK, probably on some kind of commission basis, to attack locally. These solicitors seem to be free to adapt their approach to suit their own interpretation of the situation and can vary a bit in method and wordage.
Anyway, when I return from my trip I will have a chat with Liz and see if I can ask her for some comments.
Thank you very much for your understanding.
-
Hi Matthew
You do make some compelling points - so this is how I see it;
1, Whilst we produce template letters - they are all personalised to the specific circumstances e.g. in my case I am the website designer and I was very keen to relieve the clients of the Getty stress and so was able to use some legal terminology to ensure that Getty came after me. It was interesting that the UK based solicitors who came after me did not appear to have any copies of previous correspondence that I had with Getty direct. As many people have surmised I believe it to be a 'numbers' game of speculative invoicing. All the correspondence form them was poorly structured and packaged.
2, This does not mean that you are safe if you ignore. As previously mentioned the British courts would probably take a dim view of people who ignore due legal process. There was one 'case' in the North of England where I believe that although the accused took the images down they ignored the correspondence. They 'settled' on the court steps so that the case was never tested in court. Even if you respond aggressively, as I did, there is no guarantee that there will be a final end to it as I found out two years after I thought it was all over. However, I don't think that the courts in the UK will appreciate a 2 year gap for no reason plus ignoring the original correspondence.
3, Evidential proof provided by Getty. We all know that one of the key areas of defence (In both the UK and US) is the demand for proof of ownership by Getty that the images have been properly registered. Currently, they do not seem to be in a position to provide this but they are not stupid and it may well be that all this time they have been busy properly registering these images.
4, There is an argument that you should be taken to the small claims court which has a maximum limit of £5,000. However, due to the nature of the claim it is much more likely that any test cases would be heard in a much higher court.
5, There is a general assumption - with which I agree to some extent - which is that Getty will never take anybody to court as the resulting decision will immediately set a precedent. I think that there is a lot of truth in this as Getty have so much to lose should any decision go against them.
6, So, the basic elements of defence are;
a, Taking the images down.
b, Admitting the offence but offering a much more reasonable amount per image.
c, asking for proof of ownership of the images
There is the usual legal framework around this but in essence this is what is covered. Copyrightinfringement.org.uk have ways of of making these letters more effective and will cover your correspondence for up to 2 years.
I want to talk about the no win no fee but need to confirm wording with Liz the solicitor.
I know that many people are shocked, distraught and incredibly upset when the letters are received and, even if the images were originally purchased correctly Getty don't care unless you can provide proof. They don't care anyway and tracing the origin of these letters is incredibly difficult. Getty have acquired a huge number of photo libraries in the last few years - why?
The obvious answer is to use with their picscout software to find innocent users of these images and then claim back large amounts.
Where I take slight issue with you Matthew is in the case of self-representation. I am sure that you are excellent at this but most people would not survive in a courtroom atmosphere in the UK. I can be pretty aggressive myself but recognise that you want the right person attacking with knowledge.
I agree that many solicitors don't have either the knowledge and/or the 'fire' to do this but I think it is important to try and find one.
It is interesting regarding the reputation of solicitors. In the UK we have the SRA the solicitors Regulatory Authority and in theory you could complain to them if you felt that a solicitor was behaving unethically. I think that would be a big job.
There are ombudsmen and the like but frankly they have not proven useful in most cases as this is such a specific allegation and a complicated area - copyright law and the web.
I must go now but will happily respond to any queries!
-
In my previous post I made a mistake it should have read "tracing the origin of these images" - not letters!
Sorry.
-
Good discussion, I hope the UK version of the letter program works to the benefit of the UK recipients!
One item that does not sit well with me is:
"b, Admitting the offence but offering a much more reasonable amount per image."
I don't think one should ever give this to them, it is an automatic win for them, here in the states it is up to them to prove these allegations..
-
Hi Buddhapi
This maybe terminology but in the UK ignorance of the law is no excuse and I think that in some cases, like mine where I right-clicked on small google image icons I had no idea that I was not allowed to use the images. They were of Australia and an image of the world as this was a travel agents site so they were small images for illustrative purposes.
Anyway, I can't and won't deny that I used them so the only questions are;
1, Did I get any financial reward = no!
2, Would I be prepared to pay a reasonable financial penalty - I found very similar images on istockphoto and others for less than £10 each - yes, I would. I would even have considered paying a fine of say £100 per image - I would never expect to pay nothing for a mistake, however genuine, that I made. As a matter of fact I only received a total of £500 for the whole website - which was done for a friend of a friend.
However, I would pay nothing to someone who can't prove that they have rights to charge for using an image and likewise I will not pay huge amounts to someone who is using the whole situation as a ploy to make money!
I understand your reticence and in many cases people did think that they did have the right to use an image but unfortunately can't prove this anymore because they don't have receipts and/or the image was on a template or the website designer doesn't care etc
In other words there are a huge variety of reasons why people are being approached by Getty and these have to be pursued individually. I can only speak from a personal perspective but I am not scared of Getty and am happy to stand before a magistrate/jury and put my case.
My view is that in an English court they will have to prove the value of the images and support their case for damages as they will have to prove that I sued these images for financial gain - which I did not.
This does mean that the letters to getty have to be carefully worded and which, despite my aggressive stance, I am happy to have a lot of legal support behind me.
-
I tend to stick with buddhapi. Admitting something to someone who can’t support his allegations properly or is not willing support his allegations is no good idea. Just think who they are: They are not the state attorney or the judge. They are just people you do not know personally and who you despise because of their conduct and attitude. Look at all the cases against Getty Images they do not admit anything (never) :-X.
-
It's one thing to admit the image was used, they have a screen capture showing this, it's another thing to openly admit where said image came from, there are some good threads here, with letters admitting to using the image, but not admitting any wrongdoing at the same time.
-
That is what I wanted to say : Do not admit any wrong doing ;)
-
Just a few comments.
While Getty may be actively registering some of its images, I think that there's a roadblock to this process in many cases (besides the financials and time involved).
Getty doesn't want to pay the artists any more than it absolutely has to.
If an artist is approached about transferring "exclusive rights" upon Getty, the artist will definitely want quite a bit more compensation for that privilege. That's the hurdle.
Getty recently tested the court system. In "Getty vs Advernet" in the US, Getty lost even though the defendant didn't show up for court.
That's as weak as it gets. That's how bad things are for stock photo industry.
Some have reiterated here that "admitting the offence" is dangerous. I tend to agree.
In most cases, it's best not to ignore the letters, etc. However, going completely in the opposite direction and giving your adversary everything they need to fleece you is ill advised.
One may remove the offending image as a precaution, and may even offer a settlement without admitting any "guilt".
Sure, the concept of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is fairly universal.
This sort of thinking harkens back to the old concept of "no matter what, you've infringed", which I mentioned in a previous post in this thread.
If you think this way, you really need professional legal advice, because in most cases, no infringement has been made against the actual owner of the image (assuming that there is one).
One should quietly recognize the fact that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", while saying as little as possible in order to mitigate any damages.
Let the likes of Getty prove their case, don't do their work for them. Being too cooperative may get a "thanks for your honesty" response, but it could also cost you in a big way.
It's always bothered me when people want to be too cooperative with companies like Getty.
They're not your friends. They don't want a "fair price" from you; they want as much as they can possibly get. By assisting them, you'll pay much more (possibly even have to hire a lawyer).
They won't provide any proof that might assist you with your side of the argument.
I want to wrap up by saying that trying to keep a sense of "goodwill" with your adversary has some advantages.
I do, however, feel that it's a bit overrated, as it doesn't change the material facts of an alleged case of infringement, and it can play into the hands of the stock image company/photographer.
S.G.
-
I'm with buddhapi as well. You can't admit an offence until you know that you have committed one. You may well have copied images without checking but you don't know if this was an offence until such time as Getty provide the relevent proof. So your 3 points need to be in the order a), c), b)
-
Just for to show goodwil 8):
Sufi Proverb:
Pick up a bee from kindness, and lern the limitations of kindness.
Tacitus:
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit, because gratidude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.
-
Just got in and saw the responses.
I must check my postings a little more carefully prior to posting - the points were not necessarily in any particular order!
In letters that have been sent by me and others It has been stated that Getty must provide proof of ownership or the rights to sell the image. This is not the full legal blurb obviously.
However, it is true to say that I have put in writing that should they provide this evidence then I will pay and made an open offer to this extent based on the general cost of similar images available for stock libraries.
This is an appropriate tactic under UK Law!
Sooner or later Getty will start providing this evidence and then where will you be?
You can deny everything until the cows come home but you really have to think beyond that point.
Once you are in a courtroom having said, up until that point, that they have evidence which they now produce you can complain bitterly but you have not addressed the point about damages and the real costs/value of the photographs.
I don't know about the US but in the UK courts tend towards looking at the credibility of the prosecution and the accused. This can play a major part in determining damages and costs.
If a case is presented in the right way right from the beginning then the chances of success are much higher.
For people who have not addressed the letters properly or ignored them completely then the chances are that Getty/Solicitor will be awarded much more money than would otherwise be the case. By accepting that you don't know the origin of the images and are willing to pay something if the owner provides proof of ownership it makes you look much more honest and credible.
This is my own point of view but the legal tactics employed by copyrightinfringement.org.uk are not dissimilar. They are however properly worded!
-
"Sooner or later Getty will start providing this evidence"
You also have to remember that from what we understand the vast majority of Getty's images are NOT registered, hence they cannot provide this evidence.. Go look at the Advernet case, where the defendant didn't even show up in court, Getty still lost on several points... one big on e being:
"Wojtczak testified that the Getty Images Contributor Agreement did “not have signatures. It is a digitally accepted agreement. The contributor signed via our online contributor contract portal.” The following ensued:
THE COURT: And where, if anywhere, does a representative form Getty execute, sign the document, digitally or otherwise?
THE WITNESS: You know, I'm not entirely familiar with where in the process that happens"
so not only are most images not registered, they evidently don't even have contracts signed by both party's to enforce anything!
A contract MUST be signed by both parties, so if the photogrpaher, "digitally signs" upon sign-up / registration, Getty must also sign something as well, or the contract is null and void
-
Speaking about the judge:
Look at the Advernet case. That is the company you are dealing with (it is not the BBC). They have a bad track record not you. They want your money. Do not be worried about the judge. Gather enough evidence which show why you (and everybody else should too) distrust Getty regarding their allegations. You do not have to believe somebody who has a track record of lying.
-
For what it's worth, Oscar frequently uses what they call an "affirmative defense" for his clients. I used an affirmative defense (through my own actions) in my case. Most people who respond to extortion letters (through their actions) use an affirmative defense.
From Wikipedia:
"in an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense. [2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability"
Just because you admit to infringement does not suddenly mean, you owe $150,000 and legal fees as the extortion lawyers might have you believe. You admit to one point and you move on.
Before I make my next statement, let me preface this by saying I have been to court several times and testified UNDER OATH in different cases. Let me tell you that if I was standing before a judge UNDER OATH, I am NOT going to stand there and fight the claim that the image was on my website when the screen shot makes it clear otherwise. The reason why is because judges and juries are human beings. They won't be as sympathetic to the person who is burning up the court's time over little matters such as proving your identity, your website, who did it, etc. If you fight these small points, it could be viewed as stone-walling which would paint you in a negative light once they get to the damages part.
It's difficult to credibly and simultaneously plead innocent infringement because your website developer made a mistake while you are standing there making the opposing side prove the screen shot may not be valid one at all. You also cannot "credibly" claim copyright registration issues, market value, and all the other talking points that have been brought up over the years on these forums without "giving to the other side" that the image in question was on your website to begin with. It makes no sense, defies common sense, and lacks credibility.
I very much understand the notion of "making them fight every step of the way and not give them anything." Believe me, I do. But as a practical matter, you may hurt your case more than help it if you don't view it in the larger context. There comes a point where it defies common sense. You simply anger everyone (including the judge and jury) by burning up everyone's time over a small point. If you hired a lawyer, do you really want to spend an expensive hour of his time trying to disprove the image was on your website at all when the screen shot has been provided? I suppose if you have a strong case where the screen shot was blurred and unclear, you can make a case for it. But most screen shots I have seen, it would be difficult to do so. Remember, if you are a defendant, there is a good chance you will have to testify under oath.
Last year I received a notice in the mail to pay $4 for running a toll in Florida. However, the problem was I was nowhere near Florida at the time the night image was captured of my supposed license plate. I looked at the image very hard, blew it up, and everything I could to see it. I looked at the rear fender and the trunk surrounding the license plate and compared it to the rear view of my own car. They did not match. I called the agency and told them I was not in Florida at the time the image was captured, the image was unclear, and the rear view didn't match my car. The woman admitted the image seemed unclear and it was dark. She consulted with a co-worker and concluded that they agreed with me. They sent the toll notice to the wrong owner of the registration plate. I could have paid the $4 to make it go away but it really bugged me to do that since I knew it was not my car. There was an error in the system and I knew it. I stood up for myself and said it wasn't me. I was NOT exercising an affirmative defense. It wasn't me! I was rightfully denying the entire event.
So, there is a place for entire denial. However, is someone really going to, under oath, say "no, that screenshot is not my website"? I would say that most people won't and then you move to the mitigating circumstances, the affirmative defense, the circumstances surrounding the incident (innocent infringement), valid copyright registration, length of infringement, market value, actual damages, etc.
I would say that for most people, it will be difficult to deny to anyone (a judge for that matter) that the screen shot was NOT your website. You can fight that fight if you want but, in my view, that is a losing fight wasting time taking your credibility away.
Credibility absolutely matters in a courtroom. If you are in denial about EVERYTHING, without substantial evidence to the contrary, you lose credibility. Providing an affirmative defense is what Oscar often does for his clients to minimize the hit to the legal fees. He says, "Ok, my client admits infringed on these 2 images. Can we please move the argument forward to the damages portion?" I subscribe to an affirmative defense approach and that is mostly what I advise. Most people, including newbies, by their own actions use affirmative defenses (even though they are not familiar with the term).
An affirmative defense does not automatically mean they get any kind of meaningful damages. I know some of you will still disagree no matter what and that is your choice. You believe that they should work for every little piece but I would question how much practical experience you have in a courtroom under oath testifying for yourself or pay legal fees when the clock is running. I believe you have to pick and choose your battles here.
The moral of my story is, for most people, I recommend an affirmative defense. It will paint you in a more credible and sympathetic light.
-
Hi Matthew
I just finished writing a long response and then your new one popped up before posting. I had actually written something with the same basic principle as you. However, you made the case in a more effective way.
I totally agree denial is not the way to go if you want to appear credible!
-
"Sooner or later Getty will start providing this evidence and then where will you be?
You can deny everything until the cows come home but you really have to think beyond that point."
One needn't speculate and gamble on what evidence they (Getty) may or may not have.
Because, they'd have to submit their evidence before a court foray. Such evidence can be examined well before a court date.
They cannot just arrive on court day with "surprise" evidence.
If they cannot provide compelling evidence, then it's worth fighting them; in fact they might even back off before court.
But, if they have in fact registered the image(s) in question, and the one cannot "win", then a reasonable settlement could be made.
So, let's just cool it with the made-up bullshit.
S.G.
-
Dear Matthew
Just to understand you correctly: Do you suggest that if you can get the pictures elsewhere (and you have the proof) to go for the affirmative defense. I think then they have no case even if you got the picture from the internet.
In my case I have the proof that I can buy the photo directly from the photographer (and I bought it afterwards just because to proof I can buy it somewhere else). Why not asking Getty to show their exclusive contract?
In my response I did not say anything about an infringement and did not admit to anything. I just asked for proof since I have got other evidence.
Sorry to insist. Thank you very much for your help
Khan
P.S.
-
Khan!! See this is the thing right here in a nutshell!! Getty is trying to tell you they own the image, and you owe them money, but you just bought the same exact image from the artist himself. I highly doubt Getty has an exclusive license for this image, and they also have no way to prove where it came from or where it was purchased..in oither words if they were to go to court, they would have no case...which is part of the reason they file very few lawsuits..they know they have nothing to go on and are hoping the scare tactics work..
-
Hi Soylent Green
In one of my first posts on this site I said that I wouldn't have a forum on the UK site because things start going round in circles and posters start abusing each other.
I think that you have just proved my point!
I have a point of view which maybe correct or incorrect. The same applies to you. It is not made up and whilst what you say about evidence being available pre-trial is absolutely correct I think we do need to speculate about what Getty might do and try and defend against it. Its called good planning.
By the way I love the photo of you in your hat - very cute!
-
Very well said.
Yeah, we've really gone back and forth on the forum a ways back about Getty having "exclusive agreements", "registrations" and "standing".
There wasn't much ever produced to that effect, and the absence of evidence was used by trolls to argue that Getty had to be paid, because they had some "ace" up their sleeve.
Turns out that it was a bluff a whole time. Oscar did mention something in the past about the "Stone Collection" being registered.
But I just feel like the ship has long ago sailed on the whole "Getty has strong legal standing", and "they don't have to tell you anything" train of thought.
The danger of paying off people in case they "have something but won't tell us" has the effect that anyone could cook up a threatening letter, send it off,
and tell us to "pound salt" if we ask any questions. Then we pay it out of fear. Get ready for an epidemic of threatening letters if that's the case.
So, folks have to put up some resistance and be patient. Because companies such as Getty have to show their their hand sooner or later.
Heck, we could probably check it out on our own if we wanted to.
S.G.
-
Hi Soylent Green
In one of my first posts on this site I said that I wouldn't have a forum on the UK site because things start going round in circles and posters start abusing each other.
I think that you have just proved my point!
I have a point of view which maybe correct or incorrect. The same applies to you. It is not made up and whilst what you say about evidence being available pre-trial is absolutely correct I think we do need to speculate about what Getty might do and try and defend against it. Its called good planning.
By the way I love the photo of you in your hat - very cute!
Personally, I'm all for "good planning" however, I feel that a GOOD plan is to get your ducks in a row and do your homework. I feel a good plan is to never hand over information which may incriminate you down the road to your accusers. There is a HUGE difference between "denial" and "omission" with regard to response letters.
In doing homework, you will have a better idea of where you stand which will better prepare you in the unlikey event that your case goes to court. In doing homework, You will know when it is in your best interest to make an actual offer. In doing homework, you will know all about why your case is unlikely to go to court. In doing homework, you should be able to find out just how many actual U.K. Getty cases have gone to court.
-
I agree with this sentiment and everyone needs to calm down. If not, then I start editing and/or deleting messages. (See Nick? That is how it's done to get everyone civil again. If things don't get civil quickly then messages start disappearing.)
For the record, I welcome Nick to the conversation. He is entitled to have his opinion. We don't have to agree 100% to get along. It would be nice to have a consensus but there are some things we will have to disagree on. I personally think there are cultural differences that might influence how to approach a similar situation in the UK. I don't even feel comfortable discussing how Canadians should approach it even though they are U.S. neighbors. I just stick to what I feel confident with, U.S. matters.
Let me say that I have exchanged emails with Nick behind the scenes and I believe he is trying to do good. We are exploring possibilities. He is certainly volunteering his time and even stepped out using his full name. His one of only a handful people in the world that would dare sign his name to his opinion. For that, he gets my respect.
I think Nick coming over introducing himself has been great. It is really the second time where an effort has been made to cross the Atlantic divide. The last time this happened was when Oscar and I tried in 2008-2009 when we participated in the FSB forums. I was known as user: us-crusader at that time.
Ultimately, every letter recipient has to make their own decisions. The one thing I will not necessarily engage in (at this time) are matters in Europe. I simply don't know enough to make an informed opinion. I have opinions but I would not consider them informed yet.
In one of my first posts on this site I said that I wouldn't have a forum on the UK site because things start going round in circles and posters start abusing each other.
I think that you have just proved my point!
I have a point of view which maybe correct or incorrect. The same applies to you. It is not made up and whilst what you say about evidence being available pre-trial is absolutely correct I think we do need to speculate about what Getty might do and try and defend against it. Its called good planning.
By the way I love the photo of you in your hat - very cute!
-
"I ain't even mad". (^_^)!!
S.G.
-
Khan,
The major sentiment I wanted to directly acknowledge is the extreme idea of "making them work all the way" and "denying everything". However, that doesn't mean you lay down and sign an open confession revealing everything you have either. That is plain crazy.
I used a very basic example on the screen shoot they provide. That is the first issue to deal with, outside of all the other talking points like proof of good copyright registration. For me, if the screen shot image is pretty clear of my web page (as most are that I have seen), I have the choice to "give" that to the opposing side or not. I know some people think that admitting to it could be a "smoking gun". I don't. I would only fight that front if the images looked crappy, altered, or believe there was some hanky-panky involved.
Remember, with all this talk of fighting back, how many are truly going to self-represent? How many would hire a lawyer? How many would take a default judgment? I think the majority of people would NOT self-represent. I think there are more people than you might realize take a default judgment for the reasons they cannot afford a lawyer to see this thing through or they don't feel confident enough to self-represent.
I know many want to restrict this conversation to the legal arguments but there is simply more to it than that. In court, judges can have bad days. They have different personalities. There are all kinds of things that can unexpectedly happen in court. Some can work in your favor, some can work against you. I am very mindful of the human element.
I used to be a big believer in arguing ONLY on the facts and the legal argument. Not so much anymore when I realized that courts and judges are not immune to human feelings, personal bias, and failings. If you don't believe that exists, go look to the Righthaven lawsuits. If people think the Righthaven lawsuits were won solely on sheer merits of the objective legal arguments, then it show they are not seeing a bigger picture. All the hatred, animosity, and the blatant extortion tactics, cause people to FIND the legal arguments to justify it.
All I am saying is that taking an Affirmative Defense position is a valid position. It can be as simple as saying, "Yes, that is my screen shot BUT...."(The"yes" part is the "affirmative" part. the "BUT: is the defense part. Hence, it is called "affirmative defense". Nothing more, nothing less.
From a legal fee point of view, it will save a TON of money in legal fees by including a couple of "YES" along the way. But if money and time is no object, then by all means fight every step of the way. For me, there is a delicate balance and strategy of winning.
For some, "winning" means pay zippo. For others, it means paying only a reasonable amount, not the extortionate amount. For some, it means absolution through a court ruling. I am a practical guy. There are varying degrees of winning for me.
What I just said probably doesn't directly answer your question because I am trying to explain the concept and merits of Affirmative Defense.
I don't know everyone's individual cases so I am not going to make a sweeping statement what EVERYONE should do in ALL situations. I only have guidelines. But certainly, there are guidelines of what to ask for which has been listed and discussed many times and then some. The discovery stage of a lawsuit is where you can ask for anything you feel you need to defend your case.
In reading what you wrote as a response that you admit to nothing and only asked for information, I can understand that approach. I am fine with it. It is more congruent and effective if it reflects your true personality. You don't have to copy any one approach to be effective. Everyone knows their situation the best. For me in my situation, I simply offered up an apology for the accidental infringement and why it happened. I simply didn't see it as a smoking gun simply because I claimed innocent infringement and felt like I had a lot to back that up. As it happens to be the case, I would have gladly settled if a reasonable amount ($200 ball-parkish) was offered but it wasn't. The $500 was their offer and I found that unacceptable.
I do believe there is room for variations of approaches to successfully fight back.
Dear Matthew
Just to understand you correctly: Do you suggest that if you can get the pictures elsewhere (and you have the proof) to go for the affirmative defense. I think then they have no case even if you got the picture from the internet.
In my case I have the proof that I can buy the photo directly from the photographer (and I bought it afterwards just because to proof I can buy it somewhere else). Why not asking Getty to show their exclusive contract?
In my response I did not say anything about an infringement and did not admit to anything. I just asked for proof since I have got other evidence.
Sorry to insist. Thank you very much for your help
Khan
P.S.
-
First, welcome to the forum Nick. I think it's great to have someone from the other side of the pond that is doing something similar to what's being done at ELI. I just now got caught up on the thread.
I just want to respond to the heart of the issue which involves tweaking #2 on your letter and admitting anything having to do with how and where you obtained this image. Although I agree 100% with Matt that in front of a judge it would be imperative to be honest, I see no advantage to spelling this out for your adversary.
That's an important word. Adversary. These people aren't your buddies. They are not your business associates. In fact they have proven time and time again that they have NO interest in converting you to a customer. The moment they decided to calculate a rather large price tag and wrap it up in a threat of legal action, they became your adversary. Their is absolutely no advantage to be had in trying to generate goodwill with them. Really, from the moment you receive a letter your job is to make things as challenging as possible for them.
Admitting you took the image from whatever source does not do this. In fact it does the opposite of this.
In my opinion you need to run parallel lines of defense in dealing with GI / MF / HAN. You need to make it abundantly clear that you are going to make this as difficult and as time consuming and as painful for them as you possibly can. You have to make it clear that you are willing to take it to the mat if need be. But on the other hand, you need to be in a position that should this go in front of a judge, you can make the case that you tried very hard to make sure they owned the image, that they had the right to threaten you and then, if that were the case, come up with a fair settlement.
Again, there is a time and place for everything. But any admission of culpability or mistake seems like it should be waaaay down the road.
-
I have to agree with your post McFilms.
I'm not sure what the productive purpose "admitting guilt" has, or automatically assuming that Getty has some sort of "legal standing" without checking into it.
It's probably faster to just write them a cheque.
S.G.
-
Dear Matthew
Thank you very much for your answer. I think I understand what you want to say. The human element is often unpredictable and being authentic is essential.
Thank you very much
Khan
-
I disagree with Matthew about admitting guilt if a screenshot is provided by picscout. The date of the infringement is also important. In the Advernet case, all 35 images were lacking the date of infringement, and picscout did not provide that. In the past, Picscout was also SLOPPY about it. (I am sure they will fix this now)
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/challenging-picscout!-challenging-picscout!/
-
Rock--
I don't think the Advernet case involved any dispute over whether the images were displayed. I think the Matt's recommendations mesh well with advernet. In that case, the images were displayed. There was no dispute over whether they were displayed. The dispute was over whether the plaintiff had copyright's in place and whether they had exclusive licenses.
I tend to agree with Matt that if the images were displayed, Getty has an image showing they displayed, you need to recognize that in court someone is going to ask you flat out if the images were displayed. If you don't plan to perjure yourself (and risk jail by doing so), your defense is going to have to be based on the other factors. So it's wiser better to admit the images were displayed and then focus your discussion on the other factors.
This isn't the same as saying you need to volunteer any information in your initial letters to Getty. But if the image was displayed and you know it was displayed, you'd darn well better plan on a defense that concedes they were displayed.
-
Advernet was also about establishing the date of infringement. The judge challenged Picscout. THE JUDGE CHALLENGED THE WITNESS.
The date of uploading the file from picscout is NOT the date of infringement; if you can not establish the date, it can be more than 3 years, then you are not guilty, this is what the judge established. Picscout were SLOPPY about that.
NEVER LIE, and at the same time do not admit guilt.
-
Excuse me, I did not say to "admit guilt". Please do not misquote me. Affirmative defense does not mean "admitting guilt". If that is how people take it after everything I wrote, then it will take a much better man than me to explain the finer distinctions. Might I suggest people do some Google research on the phrase "affirmative defense".
Might I also suggest everyone on this forum read the defendant's answer to the Getty Images vs. Advernet complaint written by none other than our own Oscar Michelen who clearly listed SIX affirmative defenses.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81920716/Getty-Images-vs-Advernet-Answer
They were so succinct and well-written, I can reprint those here.
1. While the allegation of unauthorized use is denied, any unauthorized use was inadvertent and innocent and did not constitute willful infringement.
2. Some of the plaintiff's claims are barred from the applicable statute of limitation.
3. While the allegation of unauthorized use is denied, any unauthorized use was de minimus and should not result in a damages award.
4. While the allegation of unauthorized use is denied, any unauthorized use occurred prior to any registration of the images so that plaintiff many only seek damages.
5. The images may have been available through means other than plaintiff's website.
6. The plaintiff's claims for relief was barred under the doctrine of laches.
Essentially, the defendant did not deny use of the 35 images on the website in question. What was denied that the use was "unauthorized". I know Oscar is only one lawyer amongst thousands. Some of you might say that Oscar should NOT have even admitted to use at all! I am very certain that Oscar thought of this but felt that it was NOT the correct course of action. He advised (and the defendant agreed) to admit to use of the images but simultaneously making affirmative defense challenges.
I would like to point out that on page 37 in the Memorandum and Order, even absent the presence of the defendant and defendant's attorney, the court, in particular cited affirmative defense #2, was "potentially meritorious". It is a specific and positive acknowledgment of one of the affirmative defenses.
So, people can feel free to disagree. I not only draw my own conclusions from this specific case but in my own real-life court experiences that you can still very much "win" with affirmative defenses. I still contend that in many (not all) circumstances and situations NOT using an affirmative defense and simply DENYING everything can ultimately hurt you, your case, and your credibility.
I disagree with Matthew about admitting guilt if a screenshot is provided by picscout. The date of the infringement is also important. In the Advernet case, all 35 images were lacking the date of infringement, and picscout did not provide that. In the past, Picscout was also SLOPPY about it. (I am sure they will fix this now)
-
My appologies, well written, Thank you
-
Hi Guys
Been away on business and so not had a chance to log in but just had a quick look.
A couple of points;
1, Admitting that you used the images on your site is not the same thing as pleading guilty.
2, Making an open offer to GI subject to them proving they have the right to ask for money is not pleading guilty. In the UK if they do not respond to your open offer it will be relayed in court and can be used against them!
Since I last logged there has been a new development in the UK. A new court division called the Patents County Court has seeming been agreed. Starting from October 2012 this will streamline the the cases involving copyright infringement and prove a lot less costly for Getty and the others to take people to court. Incidentally, I am not telling you anything that Getty do not know. Some of their UK solicitors are already threatening to use this.
Obviously, people can make up their own minds but it does mean that people who ignore the letter will be at much greater risk.
I understand that many of you do not agree with me about the whole admission of images thing but I think that in some ways it is a question of semantics i.e. They usually have evidence of the images on your site but as we know they have to prove they have the rights etc. The inadvertent use of copyright images is the key in a UK court. In my view and from my experience it is wise not to deny the obvious!
I will post more about this new court soon when I have details.
Before someone jumps in to say Getty will still be frightened of losing and setting precedent my understanding is that due to the low cost nature of the process and the numbers of people who are ignoring the letters this could still be a problem.
In the Uk courts they will still look at the facts of each individual case and a total lack of action will hurt the defence.
This is my opinion!
-
This is the reason why I don't dare start talking too much about UK matters. I may have opinions but I freely admit that my opinions outside my stated areas of expertise are UNINFORMED opinions.
Not being tied in or living in the UK, it is very difficult to get a pulse on what is going on there. The Patents County Court sounds conceptually similar to the idea of a small claims copyright court I have heard kicked around here in the U.S. That can be both good and bad.
I, for one, intend on being a sponge and plan on doing a lot of listening and not make any rash assumptions that the UK system will operate or evolve similarly to U.S. developments.
So keep the insights and reports coming is what I say....
Feel free to start another UK thread, if necessary, to accommodate new UK-related discussions.
Since I last logged there has been a new development in the UK. A new court division called the Patents County Court has seeming been agreed. Starting from October 2012 this will streamline the the cases involving copyright infringement and prove a lot less costly for Getty and the others to take people to court. Incidentally, I am not telling you anything that Getty do not know. Some of their UK solicitors are already threatening to use this.
I understand that many of you do not agree with me about the whole admission of images thing but I think that in some ways it is a question of semantics i.e. They usually have evidence of the images on your site but as we know they have to prove they have the rights etc. The inadvertent use of copyright images is the key in a UK court. In my view and from my experience it is wise not to deny the obvious!
Before someone jumps in to say Getty will still be frightened of losing and setting precedent my understanding is that due to the low cost nature of the process and the numbers of people who are ignoring the letters this could still be a problem.
In the Uk courts they will still look at the facts of each individual case and a total lack of action will hurt the defence.
-
I do not know if my information is correct:
It appears that their is a limit of £ 500,-- (excl. Interest etc). If you look at the settlement demand notes most of them will exceed this limit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patents_County_Court
I do not know if it makes sense for Getty to go to court for this small amount of money.
-
My understanding is that the changes to the UK court system aren't intended to make it "easier" to sue people.
The changes are intended to streamline the system to save time and money, which benefits both the plaintiff and defendant.
But, if I'm mistaken, kindly clarify this.
I feel as if there's a bit of scare-mongering going on here. I know that people are entitled to their opinions...
However, making it seem as if Getty has it's house in order and are going to sue a lot of people is misleading given historical evidence.
Unless somebody has something to gain financially by scaring people.
S.G.
-
Well, Oscar and I have been accused in the past of being too cavalier and not taking the extortion letters seriously enough when we tell people that the likelihood of someone getting sued over a few images is very slim.
But yes, I probably will sell more reports and get more ELI Contributions while Oscar will have more people enroll in his Letter Program if we changed our positions and started telling people that the likelihood of lawsuits being filed were going up.
What is a guy supposed to do to get some respect around here..... :-) We get pounded on either way.
Unless somebody has something to gain financially by scaring people.
-
Matt, I wasn't referring to you and Oscar. I should have been more clear. I'm referring to the UK guy (Nick).
You've given a lot of your time for free, and so has Oscar for a very long time now.
Therefore, I feel that charging for "value added" services is fine (especially when such a service doesn't cost much more than a consultation with a lawyer).
Additionally, there's nothing wrong with fundraising to support the ELI effort. Furthermore, I feel that your approach has been balanced.
I just feel that we've established what Getty "has", and I also surmise that "Advernet" was the "big one".
I have no reason to believe that Getty "held back" on that case just so they could lose.
As such, I don't think that it's productive for the UK guy to come on here and try to make Getty into some sort of juggernaut.
If Getty can't do it who can?
I get the impression that this UK guy wants to increase sales of letters through fear.
S.G.
-
Hi Guys
I do not think that Getty is some kind of unassailable giant.
Maybe in some eyes you think I am scaremongering - I am very concerned because I don't think you can assume that things will stay the same for ever and maybe I should have got all the details first but even Khans link puts the damages limit at £500,000 not £500. I don't really know yet but I will be finding out!
Lets make my position very clear.
Do I think that Getty are a threat - yes.
Do I think that people should prepare properly and answer the letters - yes.
I don't receive any payment from copyrightinfringement.org.uk or Liz Ward the solicitor. I am not here to scaremonger but I am concerned that if you don't respond to the letters then legally you could be in deep trouble eventually.
This is a personal decision that individuals need to make and I am not in the business of wasting my time. I have responded personally and will use copyrightinfringement because I want the best possible preparation in case I am attacked. If nothing happens fine - thats great but doing nothing does not suit me and whatever some of you may think I know that nothing is guaranteed in life so my advice would be to at least respond to Getty or the others and make an open offer to settle IF they can provide proof that they have the right to charge you.
Some of you seem happy that you have established that Getty are a bunch of no-hopers and will never succeed. Maybe you are right - I am not prepared to take that chance because they can't stay dumb forever.
I am in the firing line myself and I will always try and do what is best for me. I also care that companies like Getty are out there trying to put down the small people and extort money from them. I HATE this but I am not going to make it easier for them by muttering and doing nothing.
Like I keep saying - this is my opinion - like it or not and I opened this post to try and let people know that there was something else that they could do as an option. Yes, it costs a bit of money but frankly, I was ecstatic when I found someone with legal knowledge to help and advise me.
As far as Liz Ward is concerned - yes she is a solicitor and business woman and like all of that breed she wants to make money. I don't have a problem with this if she saves me thousands for a fairly minimal amount.
We all make our own decisions!
-
I know you didn't mean Oscar and I, so no offense was taken. But your comment reminded me of the criticisms of us from other people and I thought I would share that little story.
Regarding Nick, I am in communication with him through private email and I ask everyone to ease up on Nick right now and not make quick judgments. I will be scheduling a phone conversation with him in the near future so we can get to know each other better.
Disagreements are ok. Nick might be new to the ELI community but he is the only one from the UK that has stepped up in any kind of capacity. And he appears to have kept up with what is going on in the UK side for the last few years. I am slowly learning about about the program they put together.
Matt, I wasn't referring to you and Oscar. I should have been more clear. I'm referring to the UK guy (Nick).
You've given a lot of your time for free, and so has Oscar for a very long time now.
Therefore, I feel that charging for "value added" services is fine (especially when such a service doesn't cost much more than a consultation with a lawyer).
Additionally, there's nothing wrong with fundraising to support the ELI effort. Furthermore, I feel that your approach has been balanced.
-
As I am UK based I've been following this thread with interest. I've looked at www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk and I did feel that the website was trying to guide me towards one outcome ("SEEK OUT A SPECIALIST solicitor. This is a complex area of law and not something many lawyers are familiar with. We recommend Liz Ward"). A solictor's letter may well be the best option for some people and it's one that I seriously considered. But as I did more research I found that I felt a lot more confident about dealing with things personally. As for www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk, I think offerering a solictors letter as an option rather than a recommendation would go down better. I would suggest recommending doing some research into the topic before doing anything else. Maybe add a link back to ELI and any other useful sources.
I don't have any issues with Nick's posts here. I've found them helpful. In particular I like the suggestion of offering a sum in settlement on the condition that Getty supply proof of copyright etc. I was going to offer a sum regardless but I think I prefer this option.
I have made an appointment with my Member of Parliament to discuss the Getty scheme. May not do any good but can't do any harm. I'll also be sending copies of all documentation to "Watchdog" (a consumer advice program in the UK) as well as the Trading Standards office if they continue to harass me.
-
Good discussion here; and yes we'll ease up a bit on Nick. In fact, I agree with the points that he made in his last posting.
Indeed, if people need professional help, so be it.
"Suing" has always been easy. You just pay the nominal fee, write your complaint, and you're in business.
It costs just over $300 dollars in the US, and only $50 in Canada.
"Winning" a lawsuit is the hard part. You must have everything in order, hire an expert, and have some luck on your side.
The "letters" effectively stop the harassment if you're being "trolled". But, if somebody wants to sue you, they can just do it anyway.
A large part of what has made people pay up (in my opinion) was the looming question of what companies like Getty had up their sleeve.
Recently, they've failed in an embarrassing way. But, yes, they may get their act together in the future, or come up with new strategies.
However, we needn't worry or speculate about what tools they have or don't have.
Because we can find out, and then make logical decisions accordingly.
If somebody wants to "release the krakken" so to speak, I'd love to hear about it on the forum!
S.G.
-
Both Nick and I recognize that there are many visitors from outside the U.S. not sufficiently helped. The UK audience is one of those large audiences. I am especially concerned about the letter recipients in Canada and the U.K. not being served in any meaningful way. Because the leadership of ELI and most of the expertise we have are nearly all U.S. based.
I am going out of my way to communicate with Nick so we can compare notes and I can have a better understanding of his intentions and his plans.
For the record, according to Nick, the copyrightinfringement.org.uk website is not even owned by him and he is entirely a volunteer who (like me) years ago just contributes his time when he can referring people to his solicitor. Incidentally, he is also a extortion letter victim like the rest of us which makes him extra motivated as the rest of us are to keep discussing the issue.
I know he really dislikes the forum behavior on the UK forums when people discuss the Getty matter. I have seen some of the ugliness he is concerned about especially on the FSB forums a few years back. By and large, we don't have that nonsense here on ELI (although there are times when some of us including myself have been guilty of taking a stronger and passionate tone than necessary).
I don't want to get ahead of myself or reveal my hand just yet. But if I had my way and my gut read on Nick and his motivations are positively confirmed, we could see and hear more from Nick on ELI to help fill the UK void.
Bottom line, there is a lot to gain for the UK audience if Nick and I can have a meeting of the minds and better understand each other. Debating on the forums has been good so far. However, now that I have heard all sides, I am interested in going beyond the debate to doing something bigger and meaningful.
Stay tuned. I hope to have more updates sometime next week.
As I am UK based I've been following this thread with interest. I've looked at www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk and I did feel that the website was trying to guide me towards one outcome ("SEEK OUT A SPECIALIST solicitor. This is a complex area of law and not something many lawyers are familiar with. We recommend Liz Ward"). A solictor's letter may well be the best option for some people and it's one that I seriously considered. But as I did more research I found that I felt a lot more confident about dealing with things personally. As for www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk, I think offerering a solictors letter as an option rather than a recommendation would go down better. I would suggest recommending doing some research into the topic before doing anything else. Maybe add a link back to ELI and any other useful sources.
I don't have any issues with Nick's posts here. I've found them helpful. In particular I like the suggestion of offering a sum in settlement on the condition that Getty supply proof of copyright etc. I was going to offer a sum regardless but I think I prefer this option.
I have made an appointment with my Member of Parliament to discuss the Getty scheme. May not do any good but can't do any harm. I'll also be sending copies of all documentation to "Watchdog" (a consumer advice program in the UK) as well as the Trading Standards office if they continue to harass me.
-
Like I said, please feel free to "release the krakken".
Looking forward...
S.G.
-
For the record, according to Nick, the copyrightinfringement.org.uk website is not even owned by him and he is entirely a volunteer who (like me) years ago just contributes his time when he can referring people to his solicitor.
This prompted a quick check on Whois which shows that copyrightinfringement.org.uk is owned by Virtuoso Legal, Liz Ward's law firm. Not really surprising then that the website comes accross as not much more than an advert for Virtuoso Legal. I'm not claiming anything untoward is going on - in Nick's second post he almost goes as far as saying they are the same thing. However, in her video Liz says that copyrightinfringement.org.uk are "an association of individuals who club together and use their buying power to hire her services". I think in the interests of openness, Nick needs to explain just who comprises copyrightinfringement.org.uk and what their relationship with Virtuoso Legal is.
Nick also states that Liz would defend you on a no win no fee basis. I would like to ask exactly what constitutes a "win". In a court case the only thing in dispute would be the size of the damages. So would a win be any reduction in damages or perhaps zero damages. In the event of a "win", how would Liz calculate her fees. Oscar has quoted us an hourly rate so it would be good if Liz could do likewise.
-
Good questions by Nodge.
Nick was saying "we" and "us" at first, but I see that he's backed off that a bit.
I found a posting wherein Nick said that he worked on Liz Ward's website.
I'm not sure if he volunteered, traded, or bartered, though.
"This time when I scoured the web I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk and contacted them as a solicitor was involved. I then went to meet them and got involved with the fight by working on their website and we have now produced a short video by the solicitor Liz Ward who is a specialist in the field."
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm
Sounds to me as if he's been criticized on the UK forum previously.
But, Matt's offering him some "safe haven" here so to speak... so we'll see how all this affects ELI going forward.
At this point, I'm convinced that Nick is Liz Ward's "marketing guy".
Paid, or unpaid, it doesn't really matter.
S.G.
-
I found a posting wherein Nick said that he worked on Liz Ward's website.
I'm not sure if he volunteered, traded, or bartered, though.
Lol, I wondered that. If it was me I would think a bit of battering was well in order.
At this point, I'm convinced that Nick is Liz Ward's "marketing guy".
Paid, or unpaid, it doesn't really matter.
S.G.
I think that's probably an overstatement but I agree it doesn't really matter. What's important is that they offer a quality, value for money service.
-
From my limited experience, it isn't hard to get criticized on the FSB forums (UK forum). Heck, I frequently get criticized for one reason or another in some aspect of my various business activities. It is what it is when you push the envelope like I do.
Nick is being given "safe haven" so I can find out more. I don't expect that Nick's involvement will change much of anything we already have in place. If anything, he would add a component and dimension we don't already have. Essentially, filling in a vacuum.
It's no secret I am the "marketing guy" for Oscar when it comes to people needing legal help for extortion letters. I voluntarily did that from very early on. But it's not like he took out an ad for the yellow pages here. I like Oscar and trust him. We work well together and make a good team. It's easy for me to "market" Oscar for so many reasons. The fact that he trusts me with his name and online reputation is flattering. Let's face it, ELI got to where it's at today by my adopting some marketing principles. So, it's no crime to market for someone else. The true issue is WHY?
I predict the answers and more are forthcoming when the time is right.
I found a posting wherein Nick said that he worked on Liz Ward's website.
I'm not sure if he volunteered, traded, or bartered, though.
"This time when I scoured the web I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk and contacted them as a solicitor was involved. I then went to meet them and got involved with the fight by working on their website and we have now produced a short video by the solicitor Liz Ward who is a specialist in the field."
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm
Sounds to me as if he's been criticized on the UK forum previously.
But, Matt's offering him some "safe haven" here so to speak... so we'll see how all this affects ELI going forward.
At this point, I'm convinced that Nick is Liz Ward's "marketing guy".
Paid, or unpaid, it doesn't really matter.
-
Hi Guys
I am away on family business at the moment but thought I should try and cap the conspiracy theories at once!
The reason for change from we and us to me is because Matthew asked me for MY informed opinion - which is what you've been getting - for better or worse!
I have never hidden the fact that copyrightinfringement.org.uk is owned by Liz Ward. After I found and met them I offered myself to help the fight - NO MONEY!!!
It is operated by Paul Traynor who works for himself - read into that what you will but I found him very helpful and he often hasn't charged people at all!
When I found them and met up I offered to do anything to help and subsequently re-designed the website and made the video.
There is nothing either secret or underhand about any of this. It maybe that I need to start my own website which will have some basic information - and no forum!!
I would refer people to this one or something.
What I have been trying to get across to people and obviously failed - my bad - as you would say is this;
1, Copyrightinfringement.org.uk is not a huge profit making organisation. Liz Ward came up with the idea and is a specialist in her field. She is responsible for producing the template letters and supports the work with follow up letters when necessary. This can save an individual hundreds of pounds or more because just signing up with any solicitor in the uk will probably cost at least £300 because of regulations plus they may not have expertise in this area. It could end up costing thousands with no result in which case you might as well send Getty a cheque now.
2, This is a 2 year deal and encapsulates follow up letters and representation in court on a no win no fee basis. Normally, the losing side pays the costs! Ok this is not a guarantee but what is?
In about a week or less the website will have new copy and I will post a more comprehensive post on here. I am just a bit tied up for the next few days.
I like a good conspiracy theory myself but hey give me a break! Liz Ward is a Solicitor subject to the SRA Solicitors Regulatory Authority in the UK - she's hardly the mafia!
Like I keep saying I love having informed and specialist legal advice behind my defence. Others can do what they like.
-
i had a meeting with our MP yesterday about the getty extortion letters - she was appalled that large companies using expensive lawyers bullying small businesses with extortionate demands for money - using copyright laws not for what they were originally intended - which is to protect the originator and not to be used to keep a company that is in administration from going under by menacing small businesses to pay large sums of money to them.
She wants everybody receiving these letters to contact their MP to make everyone aware that these laws are being abused.
-
i had a meeting with our MP yesterday about the getty extortion letters - she was appalled that large companies using expensive lawyers bullying small businesses with extortionate demands for money - using copyright laws not for what they were originally intended - which is to protect the originator and not to be used to keep a company that is in administration from going under by menacing small businesses to pay large sums of money to them.
She wants everybody receiving these letters to contact their MP to make everyone aware that these laws are being abused.
Hi Steve,
I saw your post on the UK Business Forums. I have a meeting with my MP on Friday. Could you let me know the name of your MP and the constituency? Maybe mine might want to contact yours to discuss the issue.