Got My Letter

[bruce11]

Hello all, I got my first letter about 2 months ago demanding $1065 for a single image found on my webstore. The letter was just a really bad screen shot of the add. I got a second letter about 1 month ago saying I had until January 10th to respond and pay up or I will be contacted by an outside agent.

So here is my story on how this came about.....

I own and run a website that I list items for sale. I get all of my descriptions and images from the manufacturers website....See I do not manufacturer my own products, I am simply and authorized dealer for over 15 major night vision companies. I list their products and when a sale happens, the product is drop shipped directly from the manufacturer and/or supplier. The manufacturer provides me with all the info to put in the listings such as description of the item and of course the images of the product.

Well the image in question was got directly from the manufacturers website, as I figured they had the rights to it. When I got the letter I did email Getty Images and explained to them I got the image from the manufacturers website, gave them my sales reps email address and contact info, and told this is not my fault. They dont seem to care so I contacted my sales rep at the manufacture and sent him a scanned copy of the letter. He proceeded to tell me to dont worry he will take care of it. Oh and yes I did take the image down the same day I got the letter...

Upon getting the second letter I then again sent my sales rep the scanned letter. He got back to me and stated they had originally paid for that image and I had nothing to worry about. My sales rep even got conformation from the manufacturers president who relayed info for me in saying to just ignore them, that he has been dealing with them for over 20 years and just to ignore them and do not respond any further.

The image in question is #926824-001

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=creative&assetType=image&p=926824-001

Again, I dont get where they get off trying to collect money from me for an image that was obtained from my manufacturers website. What do you all think?

[stinger]

If you are hot-linking to the image on the manufacturer's web site, you have nothing to worry about.  The courts have deemed that legal because you are not serving the image.

If you are serving the image from your site, you might have to get into the license agreement the manufacturer has over the image.

Herein lies the problem.  Getty and McCormack IP Law are set up to collect money.  They don't really listen to the facts.  Just because the image is in their catalog does not prove that they hold the copyright to that image or the right to pursue it legally.  If you ask them for proof of their rights in the image, they will ignore the question and continue asking for money.  They have been know to cite case history, wrongly to further impel their targets to pay.

Your options for dealing with them are well laid out all over this site.  I suggest that if they frustrate your efforts to settle this, that you complain loudly to your congressmen, the Washington State Bar Association, the better business bureau, the Attorney General, and whoever else you find in power that may listen.  If enough of us rise up, this will end.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Stinger has pretty much summed it up.

Read up in the forums and educate yourself before you do anything else, especially if you intend to contact them again.  Ask questions about anything you do not understand. 

Your situation reminds me of another user "puzzleguy".  You may find his thread informative.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/a-puzzling-situation/

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Bruce11, Please continue to share your experience with your supplier. Ask them to consider purchasing their stock images from a more reputable company. Getty Images (which also owns iStockPhoto) has a history of making these type of mistakes. If the image was licensed for use as part of the marketing material for a product, then you should be able to display it in promoting said product.

These mistakes are so frequent I have begun to tag them with a #GettyFlubs hashtag. If you search it you will find dozens of threads.

They also hire second-rate collection attorneys that focus more on squeezing out a settlement then on listening to the issue and properly representing Getty Images. The only way their behavior is going to change is if people stop buying from them.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I have first hand knowledge of something similar Getty responce will be the following..or something similar.

The manufacture licensed the image, but that does not give the manufacture the right to "share" the image, the license is non-transferable.. Bottom line is the manufacture should take care of this, and like Jerry stated they should consider doing business with a reputable image house, or better yet, create their own images.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

See this type of claim from them makes no sense. If you license an image in conjunction with a product, you should be able to continue to use it to promote that product.

I work in television and we use quite a bit of Getty Images. (For now. Trust me, I'm working on changing that.) But if this is Getty's policy, it makes it impossible to use their photography. When we license an image for a show, say it is going to be on a fake billboard, if a frame from the show contains that shot with the billboard, Getty can sue anybody using it. We cannot use that shot in a press kit, or in marketing materials. Heck, the production company cannot even sell the show to an ancillary market (like a DVD distributor or syndication) without them re-licensing the image.

If this is truly their policy, I need to take it up with the networks' legal department. Bruce, please keep me informed of what happens in your specific case. I guess you'll just take their advice and let it lie. But if you are contacted again, please reply to this thread and/or personal message me.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Jerry, I agree it makes no sense. I know I am preaching to the choir here but very little of what Getty Images and McCormack IP law does makes sense.  Just like when they send out demand letters over public domain images, when they take pictures belonging to Mr. Morel of the tragic Haitian earthquake and then license them as their own with no credit or compensation and just like countless other examples here on the forums. 

In my opinion this is just a business model for Getty Images, preying on the uninformed and after reading his Laugh-adavit and amicus brief about the only thing Mr. McCormack can do.

See this type of claim from them makes no sense. If you license an image in conjunction with a product, you should be able to continue to use it to promote that product.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Jerry,

This was a great idea you had about tagging the Getty screw ups for future reference, what would you think about adding a tag now to mark McCormack IP Law's screw ups, exaggerations and lies?

See this type of claim from them makes no sense. If you license an image in conjunction with a product, you should be able to continue to use it to promote that product.

I work in television and we use quite a bit of Getty Images. (For now. Trust me, I'm working on changing that.) But if this is Getty's policy, it makes it impossible to use their photography. When we license an image for a show, say it is going to be on a fake billboard, if a frame from the show contains that shot with the billboard, Getty can sue anybody using it. We cannot use that shot in a press kit, or in marketing materials. Heck, the production company cannot even sell the show to an ancillary market (like a DVD distributor or syndication) without them re-licensing the image.

If this is truly their policy, I need to take it up with the networks' legal department. Bruce, please keep me informed of what happens in your specific case. I guess you'll just take their advice and let it lie. But if you are contacted again, please reply to this thread and/or personal message me.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This was a great idea you had about tagging the Getty screw ups for future reference, what would you think about adding a tag now to mark McCormack IP Law's screw ups, exaggerations and lies?


haha thats funny, would take a year of sundays to do that!!

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Greg, that is a great idea. We should do it. What's a good tag? (I know there will be a lot of "colorful" suggestions.)

Robert: The journey of a thousand examples start with the first hashtag.

[bruce11]

See this type of claim from them makes no sense. If you license an image in conjunction with a product, you should be able to continue to use it to promote that product.

I work in television and we use quite a bit of Getty Images. (For now. Trust me, I'm working on changing that.) But if this is Getty's policy, it makes it impossible to use their photography. When we license an image for a show, say it is going to be on a fake billboard, if a frame from the show contains that shot with the billboard, Getty can sue anybody using it. We cannot use that shot in a press kit, or in marketing materials. Heck, the production company cannot even sell the show to an ancillary market (like a DVD distributor or syndication) without them re-licensing the image.

If this is truly their policy, I need to take it up with the networks' legal department. Bruce, please keep me informed of what happens in your specific case. I guess you'll just take their advice and let it lie. But if you are contacted again, please reply to this thread and/or personal message me.

Hello Jerry and others, thanks so much for your input and info regarding my situation. I will for sure keep you all updated on what happens with this. For now I will just let this ride out and see what takes place. I am not going to respond to them any further.

[stinger]

I agree with Robert that it would take too long to tag McCormack's screw ups.  What I've done instead is tag everything that Tim McCormack or McCormack IP Law has done correctly.  You can find these things by simple searching on #YouWouldHaveToBeAFrigginIdiotToThinkThatTimmyMcCormackOrMcCormackIPLawHasEverDoneAnythingRight

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

#McCormackbutthurt comes to mind

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

What about #BusinessAsUsual   

Greg, that is a great idea. We should do it. What's a good tag? (I know there will be a lot of "colorful" suggestions.)

Robert: The journey of a thousand examples start with the first hashtag.