information to send or not to send

[Robert Plant]

First, thank you for this site. It is very informative and kept us from making mistakes.

Several years ago we did graphics work for a friends business. In the course of that work, the web designer (freelance, fly by night business) sent us an archive of all of the graphics he did for the website. My friend's business does not thrive, closes up.

A couple of months ago I did a website for that friend (new business) and in seeking relevant pics to decorate with, used a couple of the pics sent by the previous web designer assuming they were all legit and purchased, as I would have done. Plus they had no watermarks so they had to be purchased, right? (sic)

Last week my friend got the letter from getty wanting a ridiculous sum in excess of $2,000 for those images.

After reading this forum and consulting a lawyer friend I would be inclined to ignore these roaches, but I feel responsible for using these pics in the first place. I would like to spare my friend going through the threat letters and NCS, etc... if possible.

So I'm considering writing and just stating they were purchased by a web designer to use on a website and tell them they are in error, question their right to charge for them in the first place, and perhaps offer $8 for what I'd pay for similar photos from bigstock.com.

I'm debating even giving them the name of the designer (who said he had an account with a company getty bought back then.)  Reason being, I don't know how he got them. *He* doesn't even remember. I don't think I'm really concerned about arguing innocence since as far as I'm aware the onus is on them to prove guilt, isn't it? What other industry chases you down 5 years later demanding a receipt?

It would be difficult to scrape up enough for Oscar's program, but does anyone know if that might be successful in my particular case, at least to cease the harassment?

I've been reading this site for hours (and have more to go) but any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[SoylentGreen]

Just a quick comment here.

Normally, Getty pursues "Rights-Managed" images.
That is, images whose purchase price is dependent upon the physical size, resolution, and where they are used.
Additionally, such images may be used for a pre-determined time limit as set out in the contract.

Even though person "A" may have bought the image in the past, it doesn't mean that person "B" may now use it for his/her purposes without a license.
The contact to use the image(s) has probably expired also.

Therefore, Getty is likely not to accept your explanation.
Your designer wouldn't be responsible, as you've stated that you used the images in error, and not him/her.
Getty usually pursues the "end-user", you see.
In any case, they just want to get paid.

Others will chime in shortly...

S.G.

[stinger]

You should look up the images on Getty's site to see if they are rights managed or "royalty free".  It is my experience that Getty pursues "royalty free" images as well.  And I use quotes on that term, because it may lead someone who is not in the industry to believe that the images are free.  They are not.  The licensing is just less restrictive.

I like your question though.  "What other industry chases you down 5 years later demanding a receipt?"

[Oscar Michelen]

Do not overly engage them in communication, they may come down a bit in price but they will not go away totally. Take a look at some of the forum posts that  deal with the topic generally and some of the videos to get yourself acclimated to the issue. Our letter defense program does mean that they will stop contacting you directly. 

[Robert Plant]

I don't trust mine or my friend's ability to respond to Getty appropriately. It is clear this company has no interest at all in whether or not you are guilty. They are just interested in getting money out of you.

I want to utilize that letter defense program but I have questions about it and do not know where to ask. I think I wrote the "scan your stuff and send it here" email address erroneously with questions. Oscar, I understand you have limited attention you can devote to this site so I'm happy if anyone knows the answers to these questions. If this is info better left off of public forums, please delete this straight away. I'll understand and watch for a PM.

If Getty start sending correspondence back requiring additional letters to be written, does that require additional costs? (ie: is it $195/response needed?)

I understand there are no magical "dispel Getty" bullets but of the hundreds of folks who have used the defense letter program is there a percentage of happy endings?

I read through the sticky post about the program, searched the forums for keywords and read those, and watched the video. I appreciate the positive endorsements but I don't have a detailed impression of what the program is (being an IT guy, my first thought was a software program that spit out a letter)  after reading, my impression is that one sends their extortion letter to the indicated email and we talk with someone regarding the pertinent details of our particular case, that law office submits a reply to Getty on our behalf and if we ever hear from Getty again it will probably be a ridiculous counter settlement offer any sane "non-sucker" would reject? Is that a realistic understanding?

 

[lucia]

Funny your saying "as an IT person".  Honestly, I don't think Oscar is really a bit "IT" sort. The letter mignt contain some sort of legal boilerplate, but really not so much.

I think the letter program goes like this:
1) You hire Oscar under letter program and then send all relevant information to Oscar's office.  An assistant might be the one things get sent to, but that person is in Oscars office.

2) Oscar might have some conversation with you to clarify whatever might need clarification.

3) Oscar reviews the facts of the case based on the information you provided him and then drawing on his expertise in copyright law and his knowledge of Getty's history and practices,  writes *a letter tailored to your specific circumstances*.

4) Because Oscar is representing you and contacted Getty on your behalf, Getty may no longer contact you. If they wish to negotiate further, they must contact *Oscar*. This is US law-- once you have an attorney involved Getty can't go around your attorney and contact you.  (For many people, this is one of the major benefits of the program.)

5) Often, Getty makes no further contact. At. All. Not even to Oscar. 

6) Sometimes Getty will make further contact- but they have to contact Oscar.  They know Oscar is familiar with the law, what typical judgments are and so know that some of the fear tactics aren't going to work.   I *think* the letter program covers a 2nd letter *if necessary*.  This 2nd letter almost never happens because Getty usually drops it the moment they know that they are dealing with Oscar instead of someone they can scare into sending $800-$1000.  Moreover, Getty knows that if they do ultimately file a case, and the court rules against them in a copyright case, the court can also award the defendant legal costs. So even though they like to try to strike fear in the hearts of letter recipients by telling you how much you could lose, they know losing a legal case could be very expensive for them too.

7) Any letter beyond 2 would be extra money for the letter program recipient.  If Getty actually files a lawsuit-- once again, that would be a cost.

Oscar or others can correct if I've mis-represented the letter program. But this has been my impression. It's designed to give Getty Letter recipients a good value without suggesting that Oscar would through himself in body and soul to the point of taking your case to the US Supreme Court at the price of writing a letter.

So: Hypothetically, if your case is such that Getty would find it worth while to pursue -- which they might if it turned out you happened to be someone who copied the full Getty portfolio and was offering illicit licenses for free or something like that-- then Oscars program is going to get you a letter and possibly some advice about your case.  But as a practical matter, for the typical letter recipient, Oscar writing a letter tailored to their case, Getty goes hunting for other game.  But no one can really promise this will happen.  After all: Getty still gets to decide what Getty is going to do, and they could suddenly behave differently. Not likely-- but not impossible either.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

and there you have it in a nutshell...."here endeth the lesson"

thanx for taking the time to respond to that Lucia!!

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

That was great and covered all the bases I think, thanks!

[cstockwell]

Great response to the question.  That should go into a sticky or the FAQs.  I did the letter program and I STILL had the same questions just asked...up until now that is.    

[stinger]

Well said both Lucia and Robert.

I know that when I got into this about a year ago, I too looked at the letter program and had a number of the same thoughts that Robert did (maybe because I am also in IT).  As a businessman, I knew that there was no way $195 guaranteed me that this was going to go away.  If Getty wanted to push, no respectable lawyer could put in the time dealing with that for $195.

• I remember thinking that this must be some kind of computer generated response.  After all, if the lawyer spends time on the phone talking to me about my particular situation, the $195 is used up.
• I remember thinking maybe this is how the lawyer gets his foot in the door for your business and then it ends up costing thousands.  In almost one year, I have seen no one complain about that happening.

After spending a good deal of time on this forum over a year, I began to understand why the letter program works.  I learned more about Getty and how they work, and trolls in general and how they work, and it made sense to me.  It also began to make sense to me why most of the forum regulars said positive things about the letter program.  I will admit, I was leery in the first few weeks.  You have to approach everything on the internet with a healthy skepticism, and I did.

I ended up defending myself.  If I had trusted the letter program then as much as I do now, I probably would have gone with that because I still have two years before my statute of limitations runs out.  The $195 would have been worth it just for peace of mind.

Bottom line:  I think Lucia's description does a really nice job of explaining the letter in the context of Getty and their pursuit of infringement.  I do remember seeing stuff that said the best reason to do the letter program was so Getty could no longer contact you.  That wasn't enough because I felt that ultimately, I was still responsible.  I think we should consider merging Lucia's contextual response into the forum threads describing the letter program.  It might make it easier for someone understand why the program works as well as it does.

[Oscar Michelen]

Lucia - you nailed it! I just want to add that in over 800 Getty cases, I have never had to charge beyond the letter program fee. This June it will be five years strong!

[Robert Plant]

Thank you for that post Oscar!

[ECA317]

I am confused based on Stinger's response.  I have already responded to Getty Images and have now received a letter from McCormack.  Does that mean I can no longer use Oscar's Defense Letter?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

You can still use Oscar's defense letter program. The letter would now be sent to Mr. McCormack's office informing him that he is representing you so any further communication would have to go to Oscar.

I believe what Stinger is saying is that if he knew then what he knows now he would have chosen Oscar's program rather than defending himself. Dealing with Getty and their minions can definitely be a drain and a time suck and it is not for everyone. I have also defended myself and seemed to have driven Getty back as I have not received a letter from them or anyone associated with them for almost a year now.

I hope this answers your question, please keep us posted as to your progress.

I am confused based on Stinger's response.  I have already responded to Getty Images and have now received a letter from McCormack.  Does that mean I can no longer use Oscar's Defense Letter?

[ECA317]

One more question...I have already prepared letters of complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau, Attorney General, and my congressman.  Should I let McCormack know I will follow through with these complaints or should I just file them ahead of my response.

The thing that is ridiculous is that all McCormack did was provide a Getty catalog number as proof.  He didn't even sign his letter.  It was just copy that was an obvious form letter.