Today I Received my "Letter"

[scrollgirl]

Today was the day. When my partner called me after picking up the mail, I knew something was upsetting him. He told me there was a letter addressed to the "Legal Department" of my small company from Getty Images. Being a designer of small woodworking (scroll sawing) projects and painting patterns, I wondered what they would want with me. I had never used images from Getty.

I do, however write a daily blog on my website. It talks of the daily process of running a small company and designing craft patterns. I talk about the drawing, computer skills, woodworking and painting skills and products, photography, marketing and all the other things that a small business owner experiences. I wanted my customers to see what it entailed on a daily basis. Oh - and cats. I love cats. Lots of my blogs had fun pictures of silly cats. 

In speaking with my partner, he sounded really concerned. As he read the threatening letter, he noted that Getty accused me of infringing on a picture of a cat in a gift box that I posted on one of my blogs. He gave me the number of the image in question and I had to do a Google search to find it.  After all, I have over 1100 blog posts over the past three years or so, and I didn't remember even seeing it. 

I found that I used it on Boxing day (the day after Christmas - a holiday here in Canada) and I looked for a reference as to where I obtained it.  I found that it was from Flickr, as I recalled. A "free use" page which invited users to download and use the image freely. I had seen no harm in that since I wasn't making money from my blog. After all - I wasn't in the business of selling cat food or pet supplies or anything else to do with cats. I just wanted a cute picture to close my blog post with. (Boxing Day-Cat in Box) Now they wanted over $900 from me for infringement. I felt physically ill.

My business is small and I am just getting on my feet. People don't buy patterns in this troubled economy, but we do OK - enough to hang on. I worry because even though I live here in Canada, I am from Chicago and my business is registered in the States. The letter came from Canada though so I am not sure if they did try to sue me which country they would try to sue me in.

I am happy that I found this forum and site because it has alleviated much of my initial panic.  I immediately took that picture down, as well as all the pictures that I didn't take myself from my site. I dumped over 1000 blog posts just to be sure. While I didn't believe that any of the images that I used violated copyrights, I had no confidence that any picture that I didn't take myself was one of "theirs" or put on a 'free site' just to trap people like me into using them. Better safe than sorry.

I want to thank all the people and volunteers for this site. I hope to receive help and perhaps one day help others get through this crap of a scam.  We have an appointment with a local lawyer tomorrow for a short consultation. I am not sure they will be much help though. I will let you know if you are interested.  I just hope it gets better.

Thanks for reading. Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

[lucy]

This points to something that I think people may not be aware of: that Getty is collecting Flickr images that have been up to now freely available and offering to sell them for the photographers. What was once fair game and ok to use on a blog post (with attribution) suddenly becomes Getty property - and you have no way of knowing of the change.

I used to put some Flickr images (all with attribution) on my blog, but now that I know Getty has inflitrated, I have taken them ALL down. NO EXCEPTIONS. Nobody needs that headache.

It's really too bad because some amateur photographers who were happy to share their work are now being used and manipulated, told they can "make money" off their stuff. It also undermines the legitimate prices paid to professionals. Who's going to make money here? I can tell you one thing, it's not the photographers.

Here's one recap of how awful this is for photographers:
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1686568/flickr-extends-deal-getty-images
NOTABLY missing in this article is the fact that by doing this deal, Getty is dramatically ramping up the number of images they can claim copyright violation on - and this is obviously the money maker in the scheme.

[scrollgirl]

Hi, Lucy:  The image in question is STILL up on Flickr under a member's name.  I now find out (from the letter) that the photograph was NOT the Flickr member's work, and it is in the Getty lineup.  There were no watermarks on it or any distinguishing factors that would lead me to believe that this picture wasn't that of the Flickr member who claimed it. On Flickr, there is no way to contact this member to even question it. I feel like I am rather screwed. I don't know what to say except when I used it, it was offered for free. It is still there on Flickr now. It definitely seems to be a trap of some sort. I feel duped. :/

[stinger]

Scrollgirl, you say you will be consulting with a local attorney.

Be sure you use an attorney who specializes in digital images and copyright law.  Too often, we find that local attorneys simply recommend settling because they do not understand all of the nuances of digital copyright law.

This plays right into the hands of the trolls.  Getty's price points are such that a local attorney might say that it would be cheaper to settle at say $900 than have them write two letters and make one phone call.  That's exactly the result Getty wants.  What they don't want is to face an attorney willing to stand up to them. 

If this doesn't make sense to you, read as much of this forum as you can before making your decision.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Welcome to the forums scrollgirl.

First off let me state that your situation is nowhere near as bad as Getty makes it sound. Getty almost never sues anyone over one image.

You had mentioned in your statement that the image he found on Flickr have no watermark for copyright notification. It is not required for watermarks or copyright information to accompany an image in copyright exists from the moment a photograph is taken. You should also be very wary of any site offering "Free" images as many of them will state in their terms of service they do not guarantee the images found on the site are free from copyright claim into use at your own risk.

You have basically three options on how to handle this. Your first option is to ignore the letter which someone this form advocate but I personally do not recommend.

Your second option is to fight this yourself. There is a three-year statute of limitations from the date on your first letter or Getty can no longer file a suit. There is no reason why you should not be able to fight this yourself provided you are willing to take the time to educate yourself and learn the process. I do not recommend contacting Getty in any form other than through the postal service and definitely not before you have educated yourself so you do not say anything in your letter that might hurt your case. All the information you should need can be located here on the forums and are available for free.

Your last option is to contact an attorney. The Stinger stated if you choose this option it would be wise to make sure the attorney you contact is EXPERIENCED in copyright/IP law. You may also be able to contact Oscar and use his defense letter program. Since you are in Canada his being able to help is limited to specific circumstances and you would need to contact his office to see if they apply to you.

Read up, educate yourself and ask questions. Also do not let the "respond by"deadline in the letter were you as this is an artificial deadline used by Getty to panic you into paying before you have a chance to educate yourself and researcher situation. If you feel you must need to reply to them before the deadline just send them letter letting them know you are investigating the claim and you will respond in a reasonable amount of time.

Please keep us posted as to what you decide to do and your progress.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm just going to throw this out there...IMHO you have a very good case for innocent infringement, this deal with getty/flickr is somewhat new, if you got the image from flickr with the understanding it was used under the creative commons license, and you did attribute the image, they really have no case..thats like me saying , sure you can use my image for free, then I decide to license that image to getty, who then comes after you.. whether that flickr user owned the image matters not IMO, you did your due diligence and used what you thought was a creative commons image...totally innocent infringment..

[scrollgirl]

Thank you very much for the replies. I also believe that the rules were changed AFTER I had downloaded the photo. In fact, it is STILL offered on FLICKR as a free download. You can even choose your file size. 

My lawyer advised me to ignore it. If I am contacted from them again, he will take action and provide a letter to them.  I will certainly keep you all posted here as I receive information.

I appreciate the comments and advice.  It very much relieved my anxiety.

Sheila

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Shelia,

Glad your mind is more at ease now. 

[perplexed]

Agree with your strategy, ScrollGirl

You're not alone. The whole thing made me sick to my stomach too. Stressed me out bad and I lost sleep over it. Then I handed it to God and stopped replying to them. I'm sure they'll send me another letter soon, but I won't take the bait. This is a phishing scheme. They are trolling for fools. Don't be one.

Blessings

[JLorimer]

That's a really different and refreshing perspective, perplexed.  I found myself asking for quite the miracle in this situation as well.  It's not a position you see represented too much.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

It probably goes without saying , scrollgirl, but you should screenshot the heck out of that page for your records. Also, if they come at you again I suggest you firmly state that the original copyright holder granted permission for the use of the image and any further contact on this issue resulting in you having to further document this for them will result in an invoice for your time.

I really think that if people start invoicing Getty for their time, and then pestering them with phone calls to speak to accounting and letting them know that your terms are 30 days from receipt, Getty will be much less aggressive and willy-nilly about who they go after.

If the copyright holder grants permission to use the image and a third-party causes you to waste time proving you didn't "infringe" on their stock image, you have the right to bill for your time while you 'splain it to them. An invoice for an hour and a half at $100 an hour is a great way to flip the script.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I love this idea Jerry and wouldn't it be great to sick NCS on Getty for non-payment! 

It probably goes without saying , scrollgirl, but you should screenshot the heck out of that page for your records. Also, if they come at you again I suggest you firmly state that the original copyright holder granted permission for the use of the image and any further contact on this issue resulting in you having to further document this for them will result in an invoice for your time.

I really think that if people start invoicing Getty for their time, and then pestering them with phone calls to speak to accounting and letting them know that your terms are 30 days from receipt, Getty will be much less aggressive and willy-nilly about who they go after.

If the copyright holder grants permission to use the image and a third-party causes you to waste time proving you didn't "infringe" on their stock image, you have the right to bill for your time while you 'splain it to them. An invoice for an hour and a half at $100 an hour is a great way to flip the script.

[Oscar Michelen]

Glad its working out Sheila and that the site helped. Please keep us posted.