Getty letter about image included with commercial web design software

[Aleksandor51]

Good information, DavidVGoliath.  Looks like I really need to find out who all the players are and hope this doesn't get any more complicated.  That may be the proverbial needle in a haystack, but it's worth a try.

[Aleksandor51]

An update.  I received an answer from NetObjects and they are requesting a copy of the Getty letter as well as some other information about the copy of their software I used.  I have a feeling this is far from the first time they have run into this situation.  As I stated in an earlier post, I am not positive the image in question came from their software or was downloaded from their website. But it is logical NetObjects wants to be certain since they stated they make sure all images they make available to their customers are legal.

[Lettered]

looks like this has been an issue before with this software:

http://forums.netobjects.com/showthread.php?6333-Netobjects-Fusion-Copyright-Infringement-warning-!!

Web.com Group, Inc. has strict standards when it comes to image usage and we
 understand the importance of copyright enforcement. During the past few
 years, several purchasers of our NetObjects Fusion software have received
 demand letters from Getty Images related to images contained within the
 software. The letter basically states that the customer is using an
 exclusive image of Getty without the appropriate license from Getty. All of
 the images were obtained by Web.com with licenses from the image holders.
 Web.com has worked with Getty (and continues to work with Getty) to verify
 that any image in question is appropriately licensed or to remove offending
 material. Anyone that receives a demand letter from Getty should forward a
 copy to [email protected].

[Aleksandor51]

Thanks for the information and link Lettered.  The person who started the thread in the Net Objects forum used the exact same image that I used.  The response I received from Net Objects was also almost the same as what he received.  My question now is how to best proceed.  Do I go ahead and send Net Objects the information they request?  I assume they know about this forum, but do I mention I am a participant or not say anything?  I have not heard anything else from Getty, but am keeping Oscar as an option since I really do not want to deal with them myself.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

definately send them the info, you don't need to mention this forum, probably doesn't matter.. As for Getty I would reiterate to them that the image in question came within a template of a software package. The distributor of said software package is looking into the issue, and they are not to contact you again regarding this matter and any further contact should be addressed directly to net fusion...

[Aleksandor51]

I sent everything NetObjects requested to them, along with the link Lettered provided to help refresh any memories.  Interesting this came up three years ago over the same image, so of course how the NetObjects legal department responds may be significant. 

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

When you reply to Getty, I would also make it clear that you will begin tracking your time and will invoice for your time when it is discovered that you had every right to use the image.

[Aleksandor51]

I'm still waiting on NetObjects to get back to me with their opinion on ownership and legal use of the image in question.  I have not heard anything else from Getty, (and hope I didn't just jinx myself and there will be a letter waiting for me when I get home from work).  I also want to hold off contacting Getty until I get an answer from NetObjects.  I want to have some definitive answers in hand first.

[Aleksandor51]

Here's an update.  I finally heard back from Net Objects.  They had referred the matter to web.com, who owned the Net Objects at the time the version of NetObjects Fusion I use came out.  They said,

"Your request has been forwarded to web.com and is being handled by their support staff.
In case you receive any further notifications from the image company, please direct these directly to web.com : [email protected], attn: Legal Department"

[Mulligan]

That looks like you're home free. Congratulations!

[Oscar Michelen]

Your or your website designer's change of the image would still be copyright infringement as the right to make derivative works belongs to the copyright holder. I would not stress out very much about the issue as Getty is highly unlikely to target you for lawsuit over this one image. You will hopefully never have to test whether its a fair use or a transformative design.

[Aleksandor51]

A couple things.  First the changes to the images Getty is claiming were done by whomever sold the modified image to NetObjects through web.com. I will let web.com's legal department figure that out since they are the ones who included the modified image with their software in the first place.  Hopefully they are as fed up with Getty as everyone else.

Second issue is I just received the second letter from Getty.  That was a little surprising considering I was under the impression they usually wait several months or longer after sending out the first.  I will forward it to web.com as they asked and take it from there.  Oscar, I will contact you directly if Getty doesn't give up.  My sincere thanks to everyone here for your excellent advice and efforts to fight these scumbags.

[Oscar Michelen]

OK keep me posted

[Aleksandor51]

I just received the first McCormack letter, (and felt like I had to wash my hands after just touching it), wanting payment now for $3402.66.  Getty originally wanted $2543.88 for only two images, which, as I have pointed out before were combined into one and substantially modified by someone else before they were included in Net Fusion Objects.  I forwarded the latest letter to the legal department of Web.com as well as support for Net Fusion Objects.  What is annoying is I have not received any response from NFO since July, and still not a peep out of web.com.  I'll keep after both since there have been issues with this exact same image before and one would think by now there has been some type of resolution.