Do I have to prove innocence? Interesting spot with Getty.

[Nutinsider]

Hi, my name is Craig.  I received one of those famous getty letters demanding 700-800 bucks for a photo I posted on a website.  The website was a pretend business that I set up for informational purposes only.  The website made no money, in fact I had to pay like 40 bucks to 1and1.com to get it set up.  The business was a hedge fund, and getty claims that the pretend fund I set up was real, I wasnt using the image for information purposes, and they want to get paid!

They recently responded to my email with "get a letter from the IRS saying that this hedge fund isn't real."

But, isn't the burden of proof on them to prove it is real?  In order to be a hedge fund you have to register with all sorts of regulatory agencies, and a bit of paper work is involved. (SEC and whatnot).

I'm curious because I really don't want to have to call the SEC, call the IRS, jump through all these hoops, simply in order to prove my innocence.  It just seems pretty silly all the way around, and I'm not sure where to go from here.

I read some material on this site, and the main thing I took away was that if you ignore them, and they go to collections, never admit its a debt.  I never admitted there was a debt, and simply told them they were wrong.  I also shut down the website immediately.

Any advice helps.

Thanks,
Craig

[SoylentGreen]

Matt will be quite interested to see the correspondence that Getty sent you...

It doesn't really matter whether you made money from your site or not.
Even if we make a website for "fun", we could be held liable for unauthorized use of copyrighted images.
Although, if something like this ever made to "court" and Getty won, your damages would be lessened if you didn't make much money on the use.
However, Getty normally doesn't sue over only one image.

At this stage, it's simply best to request that Getty send you documentation to prove that they are the owner of the image in question.
If they aren't the "legal owner" (it's not registered to the Getty at the copyright office, or they don't have an exclusive agreement with the artist), then they couldn't get much from you.

If they won't send you proof of ownership, then I wouldn't pay them.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

One of Getty's favorite tactics, is to put the burden of proof on the recipient. They forget that in the U.S. it's innocent until proven guilty.. You have to prove NOTHING to them, that is their job! Demand they send you "proof" they own  the image in question, Demand to see the copyright registration information, DEMAND to see a signed contract by both parties giving Getty rights to the image in question...
They won't.
Tell them with out these items, they have no claim, and a that a complaint to the Washington Attorney General, as well as you home state will be forthcoming..Then follow thru with this, there are a couple of good threads related to submitting complaints and it a topic which we hope to be discussing at lenght in the next couple of weeks.

I too would be interested in seeing this letter and Getty's response!

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I concur with Robert and SG that if no proof is provided then I would not pay them. I think we would all like to see this correspondence, if you can email it to Robert or Matthew they will redact all personal information from the letter.

[SoylentGreen]

I forgot to mention that Getty could check with the SEC themselves.
But, it wouldn't matter much, really.  It's mostly a question of what image was on the website and for how long.

What an interesting twist in Getty's tactics, though.
Will we see more "customized", but somewhat obtuse arguments from Getty in the future?

S.G.

[Nutinsider]

Hey guys, just to answer a question that ya'll asked.

The site was up and running for like 3 months.

Lets assume they prove the image is their image; they own the rights.  What next? Should I go thru the steps to then prove that my image was for informational purposes only and the site was in fact not advertising for an actual hedge fund?  I say this because in the letter I received it seemed the only reasons they are pissed is because they feel that the image was used in a for profit endeavor.

thanks for the help!

ps: I am in the process of writing a letter to ask them proof of image ownership.

[Nutinsider]

I concur with Robert and SG that if no proof is provided then I would not pay them. I think we would all like to see this correspondence, if you can email it to Robert or Matthew they will redact all personal information from the letter.

Hey Greg,

What correspondence would you like? beginning letter to current?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Trust us when we tell you, they won't prove they own the image, they have been asked too many times to count, they will only supply you with "proof" when it goes to court...only problem here is that it won't go to court...they have never filed suit over 1 image. ( I'm not saying they won't, they just haven't yet) They use this as another scare tactic to take your money.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'd like to see the letter in which thell request you get a letter from the IRS in regards to the fund and if it's real or not. They just don't seem to get it's not upon you to prove anything...bunch of ass-hats and morons..was the letter signed by anyone?? or just the generic "coptright Compliance Team" line of bull..they don't even have the nerve to put a signature on these crazy letters!

[SoylentGreen]

To answer the question "nutinsider" asked... you should always wear a condom, and not "nut inside her".
But seriously, whether or not you ran an actual hedge fund has no bearing on whether or not you "infringed on a copyright".
So, just forget about that part.

Listen to Buddhapi, though.  They never send anybody proof of their claims...  and they have very little hope in court.
If you infringed on a pile of images, and their paperwork was in order, things might be different.

S.G.

[lucia]

You can always repeat you are not a business and tell them that should the time come, you will be able to prove that in court.  Getty is making a claim; they aren't the judge.

In the meantime, ask them information about the copyright registration and evidence they have a license. They won't give you either, but it's to your benefit to have information about those things. So, meanwhile, try to find the copyright registration yourself.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

@Nutinsider

I'm sure the first letters you received are the standard Getty form letters, I would be very interested in seeing the letter where they are asking you to prove whether it is a hedge fund or not. Feel free to send the letter to either Matthew, Robert or myself and I assure you that all personal information will be removed. This sounds like something new and we are always interested in trying to keep on top of what Getty is doing so we can modify our attack as Getty modifies their demand letter strategies.

Again, you must decide what is best for you but if it were me, I would tell them I will not pay or negotiate until they provide all the proof that I have requested.

I concur with Robert and SG that if no proof is provided then I would not pay them. I think we would all like to see this correspondence, if you can email it to Robert or Matthew they will redact all personal information from the letter.

Hey Greg,

What correspondence would you like? beginning letter to current?

[Nutinsider]

Hey guys, thanks for the responses, here are some emails getty sent me, per your request.  The first email is the email they sent me after I asked for proof that the image is actually theirs..


"To clarify our position, Getty Images represents the photographer who owns the copyright in the imagery. This representation includes the privilege to license their intellectual property and the obligation to protect it from unauthorized use, known as copyright infringement. Rights Managed images, such as the one at issue, are exclusive to Getty Images and available for license only through our website.

The requested proof that we represent the copyright owner would be made apparent through discovery, should the matter reach the court. We have chosen to try to quickly close unauthorized use cases such as this by avoiding the burden and cost of litigation. As you know, registration are not required with respect to settlement, especially when the damages we seek are based on what Getty Images and its represented photographer have been injured as a result of Greenshire Capital, LLC’s unauthorized use and now seeks to be made whole. These damages are calculated by the lost licensing fees, including our costs of enforcement. Had Greenshire Capital, LLC not infringed on our represented photographer’s copyrights, we would not be attempting to recover these fees and the added efforts to pursue this unauthorized use matter.

You can confirm that this image is represented by Getty Images by going to www.gettyimages.com  and entering the image number 200534843-001, the image appears under the Photographers Choice brand. Getty Images is unable to provide further evidence at this time.
 
The terms of this settlement offer shall be kept confidential, except as may be required by law.  Getty Images expressly reserves all rights and remedies available under copyright law. Please let me know if you have further questions."


This is the letter I received from them after I asked them what steps do I need to take to prove to them that the website was purely for informational purposes (this is before I realized that the burden of proof should be on them since they are claiming it is a for profit endeavor)


"Dear Craig Davis,
 
In order to further review this matter, please forward your nonprofit determination letter from the IRS.  Once received, we will review accordingly.
 
Best regards,
 
xxxxxx"


As you can see, they have a person assigned to the case/claim, I made his/her name not readable because I didn't think it was right to air him out like that.  @Lucia, I like your idea.  I mean, I should have to prove to a judge my innocence, not them.  You are right, they are not a judge, just a company making a claim.  Thanks!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I would cease ALL email communication with them, DEMAND they send anything else via USPS...you're making it to easy on them, and don't be ashamed to throw Douglas Biekers' names out there, he's well known here as are some of the the kool-aid drinking @#$%tards that work for Getty Images..

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

going to there web-site and pulling up the picture means NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, we even seen at least one case, where the artist severed all ties with Getty, yet they still showed her image and send a demand letter..