Getty and Jupiter Images

[Edward278]

Has anyone run into this one:

Getty Images owns Jupiter Images, which owns ClipArt.com

I have three accounts with ClipArt.com (Jupiter Images) that I used years ago to buy rights to images. Their license says usage is "in perpetuity". (I have a print out of the agreement)

Then I get an "extortion letter" from Getty claiming that an image I got from ClipArt.com (Jupiter Images) -- in 1998 -- is in violation of copyright and they want $800!

I PAID for the "in perpetuity" license of the image.

When I went to ClipArt.com to find it, it is GONE!

That was 2 years ago.

TODAY, I get a letter from Attorney Timothy McCormack claiming $1,400 for "illegal use" of an image. No identification of which image. Instead it says in the letter that I have received a letter from Getty giving me the details. I have not received any such letter.

So I have no idea what the image is, or why it is "illegal use" when I paid for the "in perpetuity" license.

Now, I PAID ClipArt.com (Jupiter images) for ALL the pictures I have ever used (I have since removed them, of course and also blocked off WayBack Machine). ClipArt.com site does not keep good records of what I have downloaded, they show some but not all the images I received from my accounts.

Doesn't this amount to fraud of some kind?

They took my money, gave me a license "in perpetuity" and now claim I have violated their rights? It seems that they have violated my consumer rights in this case.

I have not responded to McCormack yet. I have a call into my lawyer for his advice.

Are they phishing, or changing the rules, and can they get away with this? I think I have both a consumer complaint and an harassment complaint against them for this.

Anybody else run up against this?

Thanks

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

If you bought a license that gave you those rights and have the print out then you should be fine.  Have you sent this to Getty in a letter explaining it?  If not I would send a letter to McCormack and CC Getty Images letting them know this and if the continue to send you letters you will file complaints against both of them with the Washington State Attorney Generals Office, the BBB, the FTC and your Congressman and Senator.  In addition I would also let Mr. McCormack know if you receive anymore letters after you explain this you will also file complaints with the Washington, Idaho and Oregon State Bar Associations (where he is licensed to practice law).

[Edward278]

Thanks Greg,

Does it matter that I don't have a specific listing of the image(s) being made available?

The way ClipArt.com worked (works? I don't use them anymore) was you bought a subscription (1 day, 1 week, 1 month, etc) and during that time, you could go through their catalog and download whatever you wanted for either private or commercial or educational use. They did this with photographic images, clip art, even sound effects and musical clips.

But they didn't provide any receipt per se for each download, it was basically, take what you find. Sometimes something I downloaded was in my account info/history, sometimes it was not.

What I am concerned about is 'bait and switch". That they made the images available one time, then moved them so they could claim a violation. I'd have no way to prove that of course, it's my word against theirs.

What bugs me is that going back to the site, I can't find many of the images I downloaded. But they were there, otherwise I could not have collected them.  I do have the account names I set up with ClicpArt.com on my printouts of the license.

I haven't sent the licenses to Getty or McCo0rmack but can do so. I'm concerned that they will say something like "Oh, we changed all that!"

Thanks

 

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Edward,

I can only go by what you have told me in from what you said at the time you purchased it you were basically granted unlimited use of the image. What is even better you say you have a copy of the agreement so it seems to me and Oscar can correct me if I am wrong that that contract should be binding since it predates anything Getty may have changed when they acquired the company. You should be grandfathered in on the images you purchased.

Contrary to what Getty will tell you it is ultimately up to them to prove you have infringed. Again, I would let them know that their harassment is not welcome. I would reply to Mr. McCormack and send a copy to Getty letting them know the images were purchased legally and you have the agreement and if they wish you to send it to them you would be willing to do so but will bill them for your time and inconvenience. I would make the bill is outrageous as Gettys invoice to you was. I would also let them know you consider the matter closed and if you receive any further communication other than to request and pay for the above-mentioned information you will file complaints with all the agencies I stated in my previous message.

I find it very interesting Getty requires you to provide proof you have purchased these images legally, which I do not find an unreasonable request yet when the roll is reversed and anyone request proof Getty has the exclusive rights they claim before continuing negotiations on a settlement the letter recipient is told that this information would only be provided during discovery, in other words when they sue.

If it comes to filing the complaint letters I would be sure to emphasize this fact.

Hope this helps and please keep us posted as to what you do and the results.

[Edward278]

Thanks Greg. I'll let you guys know what happens. It's awful having to go through this, and what bothers me is that I was their customer for such a long time! I had no idea they would pull this kind of thing.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Again, I would let them know that their harassment is not welcome. I would reply to Mr. McCormack and send a copy to Getty letting them know the images were purchased legally and you have the agreement and if they wish you to send it to them you would be willing to do so but will bill them for your time and inconvenience. I would make the bill is outrageous as Gettys invoice to you was. I would also let them know you consider the matter closed and if you receive any further communication other than to request and pay for the above-mentioned information you will file complaints with all the agencies I stated in my previous message.

This is what I was thinking. Be VERY clear that you will be billing for your time if they continue to pester you about any image. I would also be sure to mention that this is not the way a company should act if they wish to keep you as a customer.

The only thing I have to add is another #gettyflubs tag.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty Images and Seattle Copyright Cow Attorney Timothy B. McCormack are such assholes it's not even funny. They told me the same thing when I supplied them with a license, they basically said "anyone could create this license" "show us a receipt or pay us"..Asshats... Timothy B McCormack is nothing but a collection attorney, who makes his living from these letters..he's just a fly surviving off the pile of crap that is Getty Images.

[Couch_Potato]

Maybe I've misunderstood but the original post stated a letter was received from Getty two years ago, but then states no letter from Getty was received in reference to the McCormack letter?

Are they unrelated?

It also states the images were no longer on clipart.com when searched. Where are they now offered? The Getty letter usually offers a link to the site where they offer the image as 'proof' they own the image.

I think this kind of situation is probably more common than we hear. Perhaps cleared up before the letter recipient looks online for help. When Getty purchases a stock image site they would only have the records provided by that company. If they were a mess then Getty wouldn't know who had licensed what. This could probably easily be cleared up by writing to Getty, telling them you have a licence from clipart.com and that you therefore have no case to answer.

This highlights why the Getty letter is a big problem. It marks you as guilty before you have had the chance to explain yourself even when they know their records are a big mess.

[stinger]

Edward, although the circumstances of your case are different than many, you are not the first person on this forum who believes that it appears that Getty has changed their licensing models with respect to images over time.

If you look at their corporate history, the licensing models and web site from which they license are not that stable.  As a corporation, first they are public, then private (in some people's minds a move made to quell stockholder lawsuits), then public again.  Over the years certain images appear as free with tools software and screen savers, then suddenly become rights managed.  Getty itself restricts access to certain pages of their business website through certain years on archive.org.  This move alone can only make one ask, "What are they hiding?"

I agree wholeheartedly with Greg.  If you have the license, tell them you do and to stop wasting your time.  Tell them you will bill them for any more time wastes.  When they ask you to produce the license, you can ask them to first produce proof that the images are registered and that they hold the rights to pursue copyright on those images.

Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty.  They have provided you no proof of their standing, only claims.  Their business practice of "you are guilty until proven innocent" is atrocious.  Many of us agree that it is something they should have to pay dearly for some day.

If you do not want to fight them, Oscar's letter program will give you peace of mind for a much lower price than they will ever settle for, and get them out of your hair.

[Edward278]

The problems with the McCormack letter:

1) It does not specifically tell what image the complaint is about. It just gave me a case number and states that "Screenshots showing the imagery on your website were provided in Getty Images prior correspondence."

The only correspondence I received from Getty was two years ago, in which they showed a screenshot of an image I got from ClipArt.com in 1996. That's going back quite some time and several defunct computers. I don't use ClipArt.com that often (and not at all anymore), and it took me a while to remember I had gotten the image from their site (I could not remember their name!). Part of that reason was they used to be called: ArtToday.com.

If Getty has sent me other correspondence, I have not received it, so I can only assume it is from this earlier claim.

At that time, I called Getty and said I did not remember where I got the image (because I didn't at the time) but that I had removed the image in question as a sign of good faith and was told I would have to pay their demand of $875.00. I said my lawyer would contact them.

In the letter they did show my image and theirs. They did not provide a link to where their image is housed, just a catalog number. I looked in ClipArt.com and there was no longer such an image there, although there was one very similar to it. They move images around all the time on that site and it is a Getty owned site.

It probably doesn't matter, but the image in question at the time was a night scene of New York City. I had used it in my cat website as part of a parody series that I called "Catzilla" (inspired by the 1990's movie) and I had used Photoshop to add my "giant" cat into the picture. The image was (remember this is 1996) about 200 pixels wide.

I completely removed "Catzilla" and all the ClipArt.com images I had licensed from my website, computer and WayBack, and I searched for any references to it in Google later on to make sure it was gone. That was two years ago.

2) I had used the ClipArt.com website a long time ago to gather many images (about 20) for various projects on my website. They say in their license that it is permitted to use images and even alter them for commercial, private or educational use. They are very friendly about this, obviously.

I paid the subscription price each time. But, many of those images are no longer in their catalog. So this letter could be referring to any one of them. How am I to know? Shouldn't the attorney include a copy of the actual complaint before demanding payment?

3) McCormack is demanding $1,400.00 now, which is not what Getty demanded a few years ago. So, I have no clue what he is talking about, and I am afraid (yes, this is a terrifying situation -- they seem to design it to be) to call his office and ask for more information. I want the protection of a lawyer, preferably my own, who knows how to deal with people in this situation.

3) When I got the original Getty letter, I sent them an e-mail saying I had complied with their cease and desist and had removed their image from my site and the WayBack Machine archive. I got no response to that. In fact I took all the images I ever got from ClipArt.com (that I remembered getting) from my site and WayBack Machine.

At the time I kept records in e-mail of my dealings with ClipArt.com. But since the computer hard drive crashed, it took those e-mail records with it. I had backups of documents, but not e-mails.

I always figured that ClipArt.com would have records of my downloads. But when I finally got back to them, only some of the records were there. I can see how to Getty this would look like infringement except for one thing. In ClipArt.com, you can download an image in one of two ways. Once you have paid your subscription, all images are watermark free (otherwise, they are very clearly marked). I could either pick an image and download it to a cart, then download the cart (this was often slow because their site was slow) or I could view the image online on their site in my paid area and use the "right click" copy function. If I recall correctly, ClipArt.com allowed for both. Regardless, only after paying a subscription was the image displayed at various resolutions and without the watermark.

The image they found on my site obviously had no watermark on it.

I realize this is confusing, it is confusing to me. Sorry.

Obviously my lesson is simple:

No matter what, NEVER license an image for any reason. It's too risky.

I may ask Oscar for help and pay him to deal with this. I want to talk to my own lawyer first (nothing personal, Oscar).

Thanks to everyone for their advice and support.

[Couch_Potato]

It's been two years and they haven't taken you to court. I don't think I'd be all that worried.

Before you incur the expense of a lawyer why not just email Getty, offer them the 3 usernames you used on clipart.com and tell them you obtained the image from there in 1996 (or whatever year) and since they own the site they can confirm that.

If they still demand payment after you've proved you had the appropriate licence then involve a lawyer.

[Oscar Michelen]

Edward - talk to your own lawyer of course, but be aware that few people have the specific knowledge of these types of claims and most lawyers will charge you more that $195 just to look into the matter and give you guidance. I can't tell you how many people have come to the forum or contacted me or Matt Chan after their lawyer told them to pay up whatever Getty wanted. I agree with Greg and Jerry - a simple letter to Tim making out your claim of a license in perpetuity. While it would be better to have it tied directly to an image, at least its proof you  had a license from clip art. Getty can check whether that image was ever available on clip art. Either way, don;t fret, I see no reason why you will be sued over this use