Trunk Archive Letter (Getty?)

[lamgev]

I apologize if this is the wrong forum, but I did a search for 'Trunk Archive' and could find nothing. 

I've already had one settlement (settled for $300) - with Getty - so I'm 'somewhat' familiar with the process. . .only this time the bill is $12,800 for about 15 instances on my wife's blog. The legal address of the letter is the same as Getty, but it's from "Trunk Archive" which means its a separate entity, or somebody they purchased?

Regardless, the letter/link is below - my wife's blog has never generated a penny, but she does run a small interior design firm that generates very little revenue, and it's irrelevant to the images - she's a kids room & nursery designer, these images are all high-end fashion. I also notice that the dates of the screencaptures in their letter are from July, 2014 - why would they have waited so long to notify us of this claim? Perhaps more importantly, my wife has completely overhauled her site to focus on the nursery design business and these posts are no longer even part of her blog. Is the fact that the site was taken down prior to notification a way to avoid these fees? Thank you for the help/insight, here is the letter and please let me know what else I can provide to learn more about fighting this letter:

License Compliance Services on behalf of © Trunk Archive.

605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
United States

03-Mar-2015

Case Number: xxxxxxxx

Dear xxxxxxx,

It has come to our attention that an image or image(s) represented by Trunk Archive is (are) being used online by your company. Trunk Archive does not have a license agreement on file for this particular use.  It would be greatly appreciated if you could let us know how the image(s) were sourced.

To view the image(s) and how it (they) are used please go to: https://LCS.trunkarchive.com(redacted)

If you do have a valid license agreement, please send us a copy of the license agreement within 5 business days at [email protected] or call us at +1 855 387 8725, and we will update our records accordingly.

 If you do not have a valid license, please go to https://LCS.trunkarchive.com in order to settle this matter.
 

Thank you very much for your cooperation, and please feel free to contact us with any question, or if you think you have received this letter by mistake.

 

Sincerely,


License Compliance Services on behalf of © Trunk Archive.
[email protected]

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This letter is from Picscout ( Getty Owned) hence the same address Trunk Archive is the company that claims to own the rights to the images at issue.

Couple of nuggets:

1. whether or not the site generrated any income matters not to the trolls, they want your money
2. The dates from the screenshots means nothing either, except as a good date to start the 3 year statute of limitations, they were most likely back-logged..After all picscount send out god know how many letters.
3. if the images were still on the server, regardless of an overhaul, the trolls still see this as an infringement, be sure to not only delete the images from the pages, but remove them from the server as well, or the next letter may claim that the images are still being used.
4. the fact that the images were taken down won't have any effect on if you are liable for the infringement.
5, At the end of the day this is your typical demand letter, you'll have to decide how to handle it from here, pay them,  ( I wouldn't), negotiate a lower amount ( I wouldn't ), ignore it completely ( I probably wouldn't given the number of images/amount), hire a friend of a friends lawyer who knows nothing about copyright ( I wouldn't), consider Using Oscar's letter program ( I probably would opt for this option).

You might also want to search PACER to see if "Trunk Archive" has ever filed any lawsuits (doubtful).
Trunk Archive is out of New York :

http://www.trunkarchive.com/
https://www.facebook.com/TrunkArchive
https://www.linkedin.com/company/trunk-archive

seems they deal with high end photogrphers and high end stock imagery: http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2008/11/24/trunk-archive-ultra-high-end-stock/

Matthew Moneypenny owns the firm and several other stock agencies: http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/tag/matthew-moneypenny

given what I just learned about trunk archive I would lean more heavily in getting Oscar on board in some way

[stinger]

I find it very interesting that nobody signed the letter.  Is that correct?  If so, I believe that is the result of Robert's campaign to publicly list trolls over the last 3 years.  They just don't like having to wear the troll badge.  Many resign, causing expense and consternation to the troll companies.

I also find it interesting that Getty's name does not appear on the letter, since it seems to eminate from their address.  Again, I think Getty is trying to improve their image by keeping their name out of things.

Robert's suggestions are very good.  Let me suggest that you spend as much time as possible getting educated, before you do anything.  Those that don't, tend to sometimes do more harm to their situation, than good (even though they mean well).

As long as you are taking down the images, be sure to have them removed on the wayback machine (internet archive) as well.  Having done so, might open up a few more lines of defense if this should ever come to a trial.  Most of the time, they don't sue, but you would behoove yourself to prepare as if you expect them to.

Good luck to you.  I hope my experiences over the last three years can be of help to you. 

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Welcome to the forum, I agree with Robert that on this one you may wish to use Oscar.  Please keep us posted.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

We've seen a a bunch of these lately from different agencies, Picscout uses the same address as Getty, Getty stopped having any signatures a while back, yes probably because I like to throw them under the bus. I also think the letters that picsout spits out are all automatically generated, the only difference being the agency name. I might have to sign up for a picscout account to see the inner workings.

from picscout:

The PicScout Platform is the industry leader in commercial image identification technology. Our registry houses 200 million premium images from more than 200 content providers. Content providers can upload premium images to the PicScout Platform to ensure they are accessible and protected by the PicScout-powered tools.

PicScout Licensing, Metadata and Compliance services are all integrated with the PicScout API.

Note: once content has been submitted to the PicScout Platform, content providers will have the ability to opt-in to activating their content within the PicScout Licensing, Metadata and Compliance services.

and this from : http://www.picscout.com/solutions/ete/

Now this technology has been combined with global License Compliance specialists in the PicScout EtE Service. When you subscribe to this service, PicScout not only will identify where your images are being used, but also enlist the skills of its global License Compliance team to ensure any unlicensed images are removed and your lost revenue recovered.

[lamgev]

First of all, thank you to ALL responders - it is very much appreciated, and I realize this is going to be an arduous, frustrating process.

I am looking into the 30 minute call with Matthew, as well as doing my Oscar's Letters research tonight. Here is an update: WE RECEIVED ANOTHER LETTER TODAY from the same address, company named OTTO. Luckily (I suppose) everything is already removed/private, but here is the verbiage:

License Compliance Services, OTTO.
605 Fifth Avenue South Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104, United States
Email: [email protected] ,Telephone: +1 855 387 8725.

 

04-Mar-2015
Case Ref:xxxxxxx

Dear  xxxxx,
It has come to the attention of OTTO that imagery represented by OTTO is or has been used online by your company. According to our records there is no valid license issued to your company for the use of the image(s).

To view the image(s) in question together with the usage(s) found on your company’s website, go to: https://LCS.ottoarchive.com

Using imagery of OTTO without a valid license is considered copyright infringement (Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code) entitling OTTO to seek compensation for infringing uses.

TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER  - (Case Ref:xxxx)

You are requested to take action within 10 business days of the date of this email, as follows:

If your company has a valid license/authorization for the use of the imagery, please email the license purchase/authorization information to [email protected].

If your company does not have a valid license for the use of the imagery:

A $8580.00 settlement payment should be remitted (see payment options below).
We are willing to offer you, ex gratia, a 20% discount off the abovementioned settlement payment amount, provided that you submit payment within 10 business days from the date of this email. Failure to do so will result in the settlement amount being returned to its original amount upon the expiration of the aforesaid time period.

Cease using the imagery immediately
 IMPORTANT NOTES

Ceasing use of the imagery does not release your company of its responsibility to pay for the imagery already used. As the unauthorized use has already occurred, payment for that benefit is necessary.

You may have been unaware that this imagery was subject to license. However, copyright infringement can occur regardless of knowledge or intent. While being unaware of license requirements is unfortunate, it does not change liability.
 
REMITTANCE PAYMENT OPTIONS

Online payment: You can remit your payment online at: https://LCS.ottoarchive.com

Check payment: You can remit payment by check to:
License Compliance Services, Picscout Inc.
605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98104, United States
        Please include Reference Number   with check payment.

Alternatively, you may contact us at +1 855 387 8725.
 

OTTO is committed to protect the interests, intellectual property and livelihoods of its contributors.

We believe that prompt cooperation will benefit all concerned parties. If you would like to continue to use the imagery in question, or if you believe you have mistakenly received this letter, please contact us by email at [email protected], or call +1 855 387 8725 and we will assist you.

This letter is without prejudice to OTTO’s rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.

 Sincerely,

License Compliance Services, OTTO.
[email protected]

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Picscout strikes again, I would be in your best interest to either take the site offline completely, or go through and delete all images from the server..wouldn't surprise if you got more letters from agencies using picscout.

[stinger]

So now, they are operating under different company names, out of the same address, with no signatures.  But, I'm pretty sure it's still all driven by Getty.

Personally, I would ignore any letter I got from a company that I have never heard of that is not signed by any individual.  Were I in your shoes, I would still look into what I could do to protect myself.

By using various company names, they are likely requiring you to get two different letters from Oscar.  Good for them, because it raises the cost of not complying with them.  But it also raises their cost of pursuing you.  They might have to file two suits.  I wonder how Oscar will pursue this.

Is this bad for them economically, because it would require them to file two lawsuits against you, or could they somehow combine them if they really have a case and want to start getting litigious?

Would they want to file the lawsuits under these new company names because they don't yet have the trolling reputation that a company like Getty or Picscout has?  Do they think this might make it easier to get a win passed a judge?

By using various company names, they are also spreading any complaints filed against them across lots of companies so that it does not look like one company is doing a lot of bad stuff.  This makes it more difficult to play the SEO card against them, because we are playing it against lots of entities with no real marketing presence.

Does using various company names also make it more difficult for victims to find their way to ELI?

These Getty guys aren't stupid.  They are proving that they are in it for the long haul.  And it looks, from your letters, like they are going back to asking for inordinately large sums of money again.

I think LE has diverted ELI's attention long enough.  This is going to require some re-strategizing.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

@ Stinger, I think you are confused, so I'll try to clear things up.

Getty Images owns Picscout, they operate out of the same office, hence the same address, when a photogrpaher signs up for picscout, picscout sends out a letter on behalf of the artist/agency, they (picscout)  "claim" to assist in recovery from the use of unlicensed works. So yes Getty is driving, as they own picscout, but Picscout not getty would make the profit from any money's coming in, as they take a percentage ( I think ) and there is also a cost involved in becoming a picscout "customer".. Getty Image themselves still have their very own "compliance team". So in essence they are 2 entities.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

here's a short and concise article of how the system works.

http://photography.about.com/od/copyrightinformation/gr/PicScout.htm

[lamgev]

that 'how-to' re: picscout is pretty informative, Robert. Thank you.

[stinger]

Robert, I understand how the corporate structure works, but it is my belief that there is only one Copyright Compliance team working out of that address, probably for both companies.  They are kind of one in the same anyway.

We haven't seen a lot of Getty letters recently.  Perhaps it is my suspicious nature.  We have seen Getty's tactics change over time.  Now suddenly, multiple companies are sending letters from the same address where the Getty letters emanated from?

I could be wrong, but I believe this is a conscience strategy to minimize ELI's effectiveness and to minimize any damage to Getty's name from both a marketing perspective and a legal perspective.  You have to admit, the fact that they don't sign their letters is likely a behavior learned from Getty's experience with one Robert Krausankas.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

they could very well be using the same "compliance team", why hire 2 groups of douche-bags, when you can have just one...also worth mentioning is that your BFF Seattle Attorney and DoucheBag Timothy McCormack is also associted with picscout ( or at least he was at one point):

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/mccormack-letter-forum/timothy-b-mccormack-attorney-proffered-legal-provider-to-pic-scout/

Also the list of companies/agencies using picscout is fairly long as this post shows:

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/picscout-trolls/

Keep in minfd this is an old post and the list has most likely grown quite a bit since I first exposed these fucktards..

I'm assuming it is okay to use the words DOUCHEBAG & SEATTLE ATTORNEY TIMOTHY B MCCORMACK together in a sentence?

[stinger]

I believe that when you use those words together, in a sentence, you are using a grammatical form referred to as UNDERSTATEMENT.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

IT is my strong belief that Getty's Copyright Compliance team is now Pic-Scout Compliance Team.  Getty's does appear to have slowed down dramatically and now they are using Pic-Scout and the established compliance team to make the offer to Pic-Scout subscribers that you give us your database to upload to Pic-Scout and we will do the work send the letters make the collections and take our cut, all you have to do is wait for the check.

As to the signature thing I think there are two reasons for them not signing the letters.  First, the exposure of Robert and his list of Copyright Trolls as well as my complaint letter campaign where it was suggested that the compliance personal should be included along with the corporation they work for in the complaint.  I started noticing the letters no longer being signed after this started.

Second, since in my opinion it is the copyright compliance team handling all the PS complaints it may look strange if the OP received his first letter from Trunk signed by known Getty pen-pal Douglas Bieker then his second letter from Otto came signed by Douglas Bieker as well.

To the OP, I would take Roberts advice and remove all pictures you do not own or have purchased rights to.  If they are in a "Private" directory I would make sure it is password protected or you may find it is not private to Pic-Scout,  We have received letter from people who have had placer images on test pages in private directories and were shocked to get "The Letter".  Read up and educate yourself after removing all images and keep us posted.