I am getting slammed by photographers

[RyanHealy]

That is a crazy story, Robert. I can't believe they'd go after a customer/contributor for that type of accidental violation.

But it confirms my suspicion that Getty will come after you if you accidentally let the license on a RM image expire.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Unfortunately with Getty it is only about the money. We have seen this time and time again where people come on the forums proving that there infringement was completely innocent and nonwillful yet Getty could care less and continues to insist if not on full payment then they offer their so-called "reduced"amounts which are still unreasonable and completely out of line with the value of the images. The only thing you have to remember that this is a business model for Jonathan Klein and Getty images and it is just about the money plain and simple.

[stinger]

Brian, you are not kidding when you say:

"SXC offers free images, but now that Getty has purchased the company, I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to retroactively enforce copyright on all the images SXC has offered for free."

The way to protect yourself against this is to keep evidence that you were offered the images for free.  Keep copies of the web sites that were offering them.

Getty will remove old copies of web sites from places like archive.org to make it difficult for you to prove that you were given a valid license for free.  Get and keep that proof now if you want to keep using the images.  And if you decide to stop using the images, ask archive.org to remove the pages where you have used them because Getty seems to point picscout at archive.org to chase people, as well.

Respect copyrights, but do not respect copyright Trolls.

Live long and prosper!

[RyanHealy]

Good suggestion, Stinger.

By the way, thanks for the comment on my blog. It went to spam for some reason, but I just published it.

[stinger]

Happy to help.  I learned the hard way.

[Matthew Chan]

Our own Oscar Michelen jumped into the fray on Ryan Healy's blog. I would provide a link if I could to Oscar's specific comments. However, since there is no apparent way for me to link directly to Oscar's comments, I will copy and paste Oscar's comments here.  I am fairly certain that Oscar will be okay if I ENTIRELY copy and paste his comments here on the ELI Forums.

Don: You make many valid points about the worth of a digital image and the need for enforcement of infringement but fail to realize what I am talking about by referring to Getty’s tactics as extortionate. Making legal demands in a letter that you are not entitled to (statutory costs and legal fees for example) and calling folks “thieves” when they hired a third party web developer to create a site for them or when they even have a receipt from their developer for the purchase of the image is simply not fair. Getty’s heavy-handed tactics and those of their enforcers are well documented on the ELI site. As for the site – you ask “Have they ever had a victory?” and then say you could not find evidence of one. Well, we founded the site over four years ago. The site now receives about 11,000 unique visitors a month the vast majority of whom (99.9%) do not pay me to write them a letter. Why? Because the point of the site was never to make money but to educate the public about this issue. The site was the first one to take this issue head on , provide solutions and offer advice FOR FREE. We have helped people from all over the world learn about digital imagery and the rights of photographers and how to properly place images on one’s website. Of the 850 folks who have decide to use the letter program, none has ever been sued and Getty has stopped communicating with them. You can insult me all you like by calling my $195 letter a $4 letter, but take a look at my credentials and just like there are stock photos worth $6,000 and stock photos worth $6.00, a letter from me to Getty is lengthy and thorough and worth every bit of $195. I am personally responsible for the content of each and every letter and am proud that it has allowed many folks to rest easier after receiving Getty’s communications. If all of that isn’t enough to have you declare the ELI site an unqualified success, then look at the recent case I handled in California Masterfile v. Chaga International where I obtained an important decision from the Federal Court in California regarding the proper method of registering digital images. I would probably be able to show more examples of court victories except that Getty does not go to court over these cases, so them leaving my clients alone is going to have to do for a “win.” I encourage you to spend some time visiting the site before attacking it.

Another reply by Oscar:

Harry: Demand letters are usually not sent initially by Getty’s lawyers but by Getty itself – through a mechanized process that costs them next to nothing. So “attorney’s costs” are not the reasons for the high demand – looking to scare folks into paying more than the image is worth is the reason. But let me say that I have proposed on my blog, a system for registering photographs by individual photographers in groups that would allow those photographers to obtain copyright protection without having to register each individual photograph separately. As someone who represents photographers as well, it is difficult to enforce infringement for small thumbnail images with low value. You can;t go to small claims because all copyright claims must be brought in Federal court and small claims or even full State courts do not have any jurisdiction over copyright. So if that’s been done by anyone successfully, their adversary was ignorant of some basic law. But digital imagery is worth protecting and on my site we tell people all the time how to legally acquire imagery for their websites. We constantly tell them that even if their web developer got them their images the end user is also responsible and can be held liable. We have promoted proper use of digital images just as much as we have decried Getty’s methodology. With respect to your and Don’s issue that I have earned $160K in defending against Getty claims over 4 years – both of you have decided to ignore the hundreds if not thousands of hours over the 4 years of free advice, videos, free letters to non-profits, veteran groups, knitting bees, etc, blog posts, commentary, review of issues for folks, which when put into the calculation means I would have probably made more per hour managing a McDonalds over the same time period. “Stealing” implies intent but the vast majority of my clients employed and paid third parties to set up their sites and were not web or copyright law savvy. They made a mistake – they were willing to pay a fair amount for that mistake. Before signing on as a client of mine I have advised every single letter recipient I have represented to offer $200 to Getty for the image before paying me my letter fee. Believe me Getty paid $20 Million for PicScout because it is a huge moneymaker for them and they don’t need to address my clients because the folks I represent are less than 1% of the folks receiving letters. They are sending out countless letters per week.

On the issue of Masterfile v. Chaga do some research. My client had settled a claim over these same images for a substantial amount of money. Why? Because I recommended they settle as the images appeared to be registered with the Copyright Office and their developer used MF’s registered images improperly. MF later claimed they found the same images on deadlinked pages from the site. We argued that any claims over these images were settled and no additional new use was made of them. MF disagreed and filed suit. Copyright law and registration is very exact and must be followed to the letter. They didn’t do that I moved to dismiss and it was granted. But even if this “technical” argument did not win the day (and all law is technical so I don’t know why “technical” arguments have less value than non-technical ones”) we had many other substantive defenses to MF’s claims. But you asked me for a win and I gave you one. There are many others from all over the country. Copyright law is national so I don’t need to know each individual states law and I can therefore write on behalf of clients everywhere (just like when Getty’s uses lawyers they are based in Seattle but write letters all across the country). But if a case goes to litigation, I have the client retain local counsel who moves my admission into that State. I have done so in California, Georgia and Texas. So please don;t worry about my ethics and my clients. I am more open and above board than any other lawyer I know – look I volunteered how many letters I have written and here I am still having to defend myself against representing small business owners against a giant company on some blog I have no connection to, on a Sunday afternoon with the Yankees and Giants on TV. So that’s it. I have made my last comment on this issue. If you want to continue the discussion, come on over to the ELI forum and post there. We welcome all opinions and have frank and open dialogue on this topic all the time.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Very well put Oscar!  Thanks for sharing this Matthew.

[stinger]

Oscar, very good and generous of you to take the time to post this in defense of Ryan's blog.  Just another example of your going the extra mile for that which is right.

[RyanHealy]

Yes, BIG thanks to Oscar for commenting. I did not expect that at all, and was pleasantly surprised that he participated.

THANK YOU, Oscar. :-)

[Mulligan]

As always, great work, Oscar. Thank you!