I guess I screwed up

[GI Stress]

I started a blog.  My goal was to get into companies and do wellness lectures.  I wrote a blog post on stress and headaches. I google imaged "stress" and found a dog with an ice pack on his head.  I used it in my headache blog. 

I made about 3 posts on that blog and completely forgot about it.  I think the only thing that ever visited my site was the Getty robot.  I got my letter and immediately contacted the guy who set up my blog and took the whole site down.  It's gone.  There never was a company, just a health blog.

I got my third letter today and found this site.  I've watched 2 videos, and am starting to do my homework.  I was ignorant, but wrong.  I would have thought that not only getting rid of the picture, but the entire site would have been adequate. 

Thank you for this resource.  I'll continue to do my homework and figure out the best course of action.

[lucia]

Have you done a google search on the photo? I looked for stressed dogs and found one that is listed at both IStockPhotos and Shutterstock

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-37896235/stock-photo-sick-dog-sideways-on-white-background.html

I think they are not the same company and if this sort of thing applies in your case but it's worth finding all the companies that offer your image and at what prices. (It looks like the image I found is available quite cheaply at shutterstock.com and the license permits web display-- though I find their text a bit confusing.  As I don't want those photos I'm not going to delve into that too deeply. But here is a table:
http://www.shutterstock.com/license_comparison.mhtml?hsb=1 )

[GI Stress]

Thank Lucia. If one were to google image: dog with headache, it's the first image that comes up.  It's a bulldog with an ice pack on his head.

[lucia]

It's linked all over:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=under+the+weather&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSYxphCxCo1NgEGgIIAgwLELCMpwgaOgo4CAESEoQF_1ASDBYIFgQX9BPME6wTxBBog9Y5WVWmAlYXYGXWnZPCHtOmIav2P07mLyDp232emc5oMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgSQcI3kDA&biw=1184&bih=866
I think that failure to protect copyright is something Oscar has mentioned as mattering-- though that may be at the point where they are assertaining damages.
I'm not going to click through everything to find every place that might sell those-- but that's something you might want to do. If you find it sold lots of places, that's useful.

Have you made a checklist of things you are going to ask for? These should include at least:
Proof of copyright registration.
Explanation of dollar amount in request for settlement.
Proof whoever is contacting you has an exclusive license.

And so on?

[GI Stress]

Thank you Lucia.  I am in the process of doing my homework.  I'm watching videos and reading posts. I appreciate what you've done for me.  I'm taking notes of what to put in the response. 

SL

[GI Stress]

"I'm not going to click through everything to find every place that might sell those-- but that's something you might want to do. If you find it sold lots of places, that's useful."

I'm not sure what you mean by that (above).  I'm willing to do whatever you're telling me to do, but not sure what it is you're telling me to do

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

@Scott, use Lucia's link in the above post, and click thru the results, making note of every instance where the same image is for sale..if it were me I would be grabbing screen captures, as well as the URL's

[SoylentGreen]

A good method to find places where an image occurs on the Web is to use Google Image Search.
Go to Google, click on "images", next click on the little blue camera icon next to the search box, then click "upload image".
Upload the image that the alleged infringement is about.
Now, click "search".  Google will show a listing of oher places where the image can be found.

I think that Lucia is saying that you should check to see if other (unrelated) companies are selling the same image.
If this is the case, that could indicate that Getty doesn't have exclusive rights to the image.

In any case, if it's Getty that's bothering you over 1 image, it's probably not very serious.

S.G.

[GI Stress]

Thank you.  I will do that.  I haven't clicked on many of them, but those I have so fare are people like myself who just wanted a cute picture to put in their blog.  I haven't seen a place where the image is for sale. I'll look more though.

[lucia]

In addition to screen captures, when possible, use webcitation.org to get third party evidence of what exists.  I learned of this about a month after my first letter to getty.  http://www.webcitation.org/archive

webcitation basically provides you a screen capture, but it's by a third party which can be useful if anyone suggest you are a photo-shop wizard who made all these things up! But the tool is blocked from many sites.  So, what you do is request webcitation archives the page, then take a screen capture. File both away.

[lucia]

Scott--
Also, since you said blog: many bloggers only hotlink out of convenience.  Also, because Getty sends letter to hotlinkers (like me) we know that at least as far back as Nov. they either weren't checking the html to see who hosted the image. So:
1) If you still can, figure out if you hosted the image or if you only hotlinked.
2) If you hotlinked, breath a sigh of relief and look for posts discussing Perfect 10-- because the 9th circuit in the US ruled that hotlinking was not copying or displaying under the US copyright law. (Whether the Supreme Court would rule the same we do not know, but the 9th circuit is one level below that. ) But if you can, get proof you hotlinked. Identify the site you hotlinked from. Keep that info available and pause before writing up your defense. (It's nice to decide on things with a clear mind.)
3) If you hosted the image on your server, do not volunteer that information because Getty may not have any proof you hosted.   Do not volunteer it here; do not volunteer it in a letter to Getty.  If they don't have the evidence, let them guess. If and when you do write Getty, ask them to show you html underlying the page with the screen shot.  The html would be required to prove your display involved hosting the image-- not hotlinking.  They may not have it. In that case, they can't know for sure whether you hosted until discovery-- because you aren't going to tell them. right?

[SoylentGreen]

The "Hotlinking" issue long predates Lucia's demand letter.
Getty has been sending letters alleging infringement over hotlinked content including ad banners for ages.
Also, Getty has been made aware of the issue long ago; it's not that they don't check the HTML.  They just don't care, and they want your money.
They threaten people over a long period of time so they they'll get worn down and pay regardless.

Everybody needs to understand that the main issue with Getty is that they aggressively demand money over cases that they know aren't really infringements.
We ARE talking about a company that IS technically savvy and has legal counsel at hand.  They know about this stuff.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

I would be inclined to believe this line of thinking.  The hot-linking issue has been around a long time in the context of bandwidth-theft. I know I try to prevent others from hot-linking to any images I might have posted.  Not so much for copyright issues as much as I don't want anyone riding my bandwidth allocation however small it might be.

It is entirely reasonable that you are "guilty until proven innocent" or you create enough hassles for them to back off.  Let us make no mistake, the revenue generation is very important to them. They will go as far as they can without creating a big legal problem for themselves.  And I am forced to admit, they have done a good job thus far.

Too bad so many letter recipients are too dumb, lazy, or spineless to do anything meaningful about it and keep caving in.

The "Hotlinking" issue long predates Lucia's demand letter.
Getty has been sending letters alleging infringement over hotlinked comtent including ad banners for ages.
Also, Getty has been made aware of the issue long ago; it's not that they don't check the HTML.  They just don't care, and they want your money.
They threaten people over a long period of time so they they'll get worn down and pay regardless.

Everybody needs to understand that the main issue with Getty is that they aggressively demand money over cases that they know aren't really infringements.
We ARE talking about a company that IS technically savvy and has legal counsel at hand.  They know about this stuff.

S.G.

[GI Stress]

I am watching videos, reading posts, and doing my homework, but I am also more than happy to pay the $50 to talk with Matthew, and potentially $195 to Oscar if Matthew thinks I need to.

[SoylentGreen]

I think that the hotlinking issue (expecially as it relates to banners, etc) was first mentioned on the forum in July of last year.
There was a lot of discussion in August.

S.G.