Recieved Letter from getty

[mliggett]

So I have had my website up for a while. Getty sent a Unauthorized Use Notification to me stating that one image on my site is part of their catalog.

I have removed the image.

The image in question was similar to a host of images on the web (search "hand shake" + jpg)

This image was no better or worse than any image that cam back from that search. However, there is no image of notification, or watermark or anything that would suggest the image was licensed.

I have tried to ensure to a high degree that images used on my site were in the public domain and free to use.

Getty is looking to me for $800+ immediately and of course remove the image.

I was planning on contacting Getty and offer them a settlement of $200.

I was considering asking them for MD5 hashes and actual date the image was added to their catalog. The MD5 hash is to validate their ownership of the image. The date the image was added to their collection is to understand better if the image I used was ever in the public domain to begin with. 

Any suggestions?

[stinger]

Although I do not think they would accept the $200 offer, I would recommend against making it.  If you feel compelled to offer something, offer what a comparable photo would cost if you licensed it today.

If you think it would be worth $200, to get this off your plate, I would consider Oscar's letter program.  Although it settles nothing with Getty, you will not hear from them again.

Why I say this:

• From monitoring this and a number of other copyright troll sites for the last year and a half, it is clear to me that Getty isn't interested in clearing up a legal wrong-doing.  They are in the business of sending these scary letters FOR PROFIT.
  
• They have never filed a case over one image.
• They seem to seed the market with their photos with no copyright notices.  That make it easy to mistake their images for public domain, so they can later come after you for big bucks using the courts to promote fear and intimidation.
• Previous cases have shown that Getty really does not have their legal act together.  Many of their photos are not registered and others are improperly registered.  Their legal paperwork with photographers is also questionable.

 

If you really have a need to part with $200, I would recommend sending a portion of that to ELI for helping you find your way through this mess.  But definitely, read through the Getty posts and find your voice in telling them to go pound sand.

[mliggett]

I have read many posts on the forum and have watched the videos. I have had the image removed and cleared from google and web-archive.org.

I probably should write back to Getty to state my position and all. I am just looking at $200 to be a fair amount. The image is of a generic handshake, market value of it is seriously less (.20/yr up to .70/yr)

I will read more and see what tips from successful letters and positions I can gather.

Any links to threads on here would be good. Lots to look at and go through.

[stinger]

Read Gregg's "An experiment against Getty"

I know it is long, but I think it will give you a flavor of who they are.  They don't care about fair.  They are in this for the money - pure and simple.

[Canada Bob]

Also, should you include an offer in your response remember to make that offer contingent on them supplying proof of registration, etc.

[mliggett]

Has anyone tried to do this over the phone? I am sure it is a waste of time, but did not know if anyone has heard of or successfully negotiated from this stand point.

I am reading the Experiment with Getty post.

[stinger]

They are going to keep making runs at you to get your money.  This is not about fairness.  It is not about the law.  They use those concepts to try and get more of your money.

If copyright trolls were serious about protecting their intellectual property rights, they would use watermarks and copyright notices everywhere.  They make it very easy for the average person to mistakenly grab one of their shots and then they try to make it difficult not to pay them extortionate sums.

Negotiating via email only speeds the process.  That means they have more opportunities to hammer away at you.  Negotiating by phone speeds the process even more.  Do NOT play the game to their advantage.  Use the U.S. Postal service to slow things down.  The statute of limitations on copyright claims is three years from the time they first discover the mis-use.  Give them as few chances to hammer away at you during those three years as possible.

In short, refuse to speak to them by phone.  Keep everything on the record.  Use snail mail when you cannot find any slower methods. of communication.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

don't call them, don't make it easy on them in anyway..

your statement "I have tried to ensure to a high degree that images used on my site were in the public domain and free to use." concerns me.. there are very few images in the public domain worth using...most of these would come from government sites or be very old.. I hope you are not confusing "public domain" with "royalty free"...2 completely different beasts, not to mention that "royalty free" does not mean "FREE"..

FYI, it's not required that images have a copyright notice, or watermark or anything, always assume that if you did create the image, someone else did and it's copyrighted.. copyright exists the moment of creation.

[SoylentGreen]

I recommend that people buy their images.
Royalty-free images are inexpensive, and the selection is very, very good these days.
The piece of mind is worth it.  They only cost 50 cents to about two dollars for web use.

Some images that are advertized as "free" have been planted by copyright trolls.
People use them freely, and then the trolls catch you and charge 1500 to 14,000 dollars per "infringement".

Avoid Getty images "iStock" photos, and Masterfile's "Crestock".  Those are troll companies.
Even if you've bought from them, if there's any future disagreement, they'll drive you nuts.

S.G.

[lucia]

Has anyone tried to do this over the phone? I am sure it is a waste of time, but did not know if anyone has heard of or successfully negotiated from this stand point.

I am reading the Experiment with Getty post.

Do not discuss over the phone. You will be at a serious disadvantage.

You want to carefully craft a letter. Make sure you
1) Do not admit fault. Don't volunteer details of how the image might have come to be on the server. Heck don't admit it's on the server. (If it's not on the server, don't offer any money... we'll tell you what to say.)
2) If you are going to offer something (which is fine) use language that says something to the effect that your offer does not represent an admission of fault but that you merely wish to put the dispute behind you. (Some of the people more familiar with legal language will know how this is often stated.)   Make sure you make the offer contingent on (a) proof of registration showing who owns the copyright for that specific image, (b) proof they have an exclusive license with the actual copyright holder in place. Ask for the paper work on both.
3) Make sure any final agreement does not have a confidentiality agreement.   You will want to discuss the matter.
4) Make sure any final agreement ends right to any further claim and that Getty will also pay any judgement in the event they screwed up and it turns out the real copyright holder still files a suit.

[Oscar Michelen]

Do not try to get them to submit all the proof you desire, they will never do so nor will they likely accept $200 though it is smart of you to offer that.I would not engage them very much more than you already have.  Please let me know if you want us to intercede with a letter 

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I recommend that people buy their images.
Royalty-free images are inexpensive, and the selection is very, very good these days.
The piece of mind is worth it.  They only cost 50 cents to about two dollars for web use.

Yes, I have heard people advocate for shooting your own pictures. But let's face it, in the original person's example, a handshake, it would take 3 people and at least 10 minutes to shoot anything worth using. I presume a half-hour of time is worth more than $3.

I still advocate for sourcing some images on sites that provide public domain stock images (like http://www.sxc.hu or http://www.morguefile.com) with the caveat that you document (with a screenshot) your source. I still trot out my list of Public Domain Stock sites(http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/) from time to time.

But I admit that some public domain stock can be less than perfect:
http://www.morguefile.com/archive/#/?q=handshake

I find myself using microstock more and more. For a few bucks (or even a dollar) you can get some pretty decent photography:
https://www.pond5.com/photos-illustrations/1/handshake.html#2

One more thing, if you decide to purchase microstock, I realize iStockPhoto advertizes a lot. However you might be interested to know they are owned by Getty Images. So purchases from them helps enrich that organization. Why feed the trolls?

On two different occasions I have confirmed that Pond5.com is not owned by any outside company and to my knowledge they do not participate in image trolling. I advocate for them a lot (and wish I was getting a referral fee, but I don't.)

[SoylentGreen]

Jerry makes some good points.

Pond5's good!!
I like Fotolia's royalty-free offerings, also.  I'm not affiliated with them or anything, though.

S.G.

[Lettered]

Just to play devils advocate:  You aren't completely safe buying images from anyone.  If you read the contracts on those sites you have to agree to in order to purchase, I think you'll find that they don't take any responsibility for any copyright violation issues that might arise.  What's to keep a copyright troll from seeding on these sites?  What's to keep a thief from selling someone elses images on these sites?  Is anyone in the entire process verifying ownership? Is it feasible or even possible to verify ownership?  Too many questions for me.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Getty even offers an insurance policy of sorts for the images you get from them in case someone comes after you.  It's in their online brochure "Be Sure Of It"

Just to play devils advocate:  You aren't completely safe buying images from anyone.  If you read the contracts on those sites you have to agree to in order to purchase, I think you'll find that they don't take any responsibility for any copyright violation issues that might arise.  What's to keep a copyright troll from seeding on these sites?  What's to keep a thief from selling someone elses images on these sites?  Is anyone in the entire process verifying ownership? Is it feasible or even possible to verify ownership?  Too many questions for me.