What evidence do Getty hold on their cases?

[cptKernow]

Just wondering what evidence Getty hold and use in their infringement cases?

I know they send out a screenshot and URL but for my particular case that doesn't really prove anything. Does anyone know what kind of technical info they hold?

Thanks,
Chris

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

most likely, they don't have anything, you are correct that a screen shot and a url don't show much. They woud have to have the underlying code to see where the image is actually hosted.. Probably explains why they rarely file suit too.

[cptKernow]

They woud have to have the underlying code to see where the image is actually hosted

Even this doesn't prove where the image is hosted. I was running a site where the URLs of remote images were disguised for (possibly misguided) SEO purposes. It is very easily done and the code looks exactly as if the image is on the local server.

I can easily provide a proof of concept of this all of which makes it pretty hard to imagine what Getty could keep on record to prove an image wasn't simply hotlinked from a remote site - which apparently is not considered infringement, at least in Europe.

If Getty want their $1000 out of me they are going to need expert witnesses and be willing to overturn existing case law - probably not a good return on their investment...

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

this actually hurts their cases even more, they would look like total idiots if they were to sue only to have someone come in and show the court, how one can disguise the image path.. I guess they could also maybe get a print out of the file directory/folder itself, but thats highly unlikely they would be that smart.

[cptKernow]

I replied to the collections agency today who immediately fired back an email saying:

before pursuing a company for copyright infringement, we carry out a legal review of each case. We are confident that your company has infringed on my clients copyright, and have more than sufficient evidence to support our claim in the same.

and

For your information the images were hosted on your website at the following links, and not on thos of xxxxxxxxxxx.com, as you claim;

They then list two URLs: one is the webpage - so definitely doesn't disprove the hotlink.
The second is the URL of the image (actually a thumbnail, not the one they are claiming for).

Now,  as a techie I can easily prove that the URL in the browser does not necessarily reflect the location of the file. It is done using a reverse proxy and there are SEO articles on why it might be a good idea to use this.
Given the EU ruling that hotlinking is not infringement I think this evidence proves nothing.

So, it is very possible that by ****ing with me Getty have potentially given a whole lot of other people (guilty or not) a get out of jail free card.
Feel free to send donations 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It's fairly easy to beat back a collection agency ( at least here in the US)..simply tell them this is a claim and not a debt, until said "claim" is settled, they have no right to pursue you..Then report them to the proper agency.