We are the latest victim of the Getty Image extortion scam

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Sandy443,

I would approach it more like this, this is one of the letters I sent to Getty.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914489/1-3-Letter-to-Getty-04-25-12-Redacted?in_collection=3777294

Can I say in general terms the image was unmarked from the third party source it came from and I had no idea it was copyrighted.  (Lame)

Then put the burden on them to prove to me, how they calculated demand amount, to produce the proof of registration?

If I used the image on a business website regardless even though it was not for promotional purposes or advertising....it's still a business and there is no way to separate any image's purpose inside the business website? 

So are you saying there are no defenses that will result in paying nothing.  I'll have to pay something but it may be very little if the copyright is not registered?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Sandy443,

I would approach it more like this, this is one of the letters I sent to Getty.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914489/1-3-Letter-to-Getty-04-25-12-Redacted?in_collection=3777294

Can I say in general terms the image was unmarked from the third party source it came from and I had no idea it was copyrighted.  (Lame)

Then put the burden on them to prove to me, how they calculated demand amount, to produce the proof of registration?

If I used the image on a business website regardless even though it was not for promotional purposes or advertising....it's still a business and there is no way to separate any image's purpose inside the business website? 

So are you saying there are no defenses that will result in paying nothing.  I'll have to pay something but it may be very little if the copyright is not registered?

Thankx Greg, I had a feeling you'd jump in..Sandy has to know also that if she copies your letter, Getty will know this, each case is a bit different, I think it's important to see how others have dealt with this, and take bits and pieces to meet the recipients needs...Getty probably has your letter tacked to a board in the lunch room, for all to see!

[Sandy443]

OK got it.  The picture is getting clearer.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Thanks Robert, Iwas in a rush trying to pull some stuff together and did not make the disclaimer. I would not reccomend coping it, I listed it as an approach so Sandy can see the tone and how to put them on the defensive.

Thanks again!

Sandy443,

I would approach it more like this, this is one of the letters I sent to Getty.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914489/1-3-Letter-to-Getty-04-25-12-Redacted?in_collection=3777294

Can I say in general terms the image was unmarked from the third party source it came from and I had no idea it was copyrighted.  (Lame)

Then put the burden on them to prove to me, how they calculated demand amount, to produce the proof of registration?

If I used the image on a business website regardless even though it was not for promotional purposes or advertising....it's still a business and there is no way to separate any image's purpose inside the business website? 

So are you saying there are no defenses that will result in paying nothing.  I'll have to pay something but it may be very little if the copyright is not registered?

Thankx Greg, I had a feeling you'd jump in..Sandy has to know also that if she copies your letter, Getty will know this, each case is a bit different, I think it's important to see how others have dealt with this, and take bits and pieces to meet the recipients needs...Getty probably has your letter tacked to a board in the lunch room, for all to see!

[lucia]

Sandy,
Troy's 2nd letter is a good one in your circumstances. (Had you hotlinked, I'd show you my letter. )

Now, let me explain my questions to you in context of what he requested from Getty. First: It is my view that before writing the letter it's worth having an *idea* what the answers are likely to be. Nevertheless, you still ask them. Now look at what Troy asked for:

I need

1)to see verification that the image was filed with the U.S. Copyright Office
2) Verification that the copyright is either for the individual image or a group of images.
3) I need a copy of the signed contract, assignment or other documentation between Getty Imagesand the artist transferring copyright and giving you exclusive rights to the image as you havestated in your letter.
4) Sales history and records of this image and prices received for the image

Let's look at each thing:
1)to see verification that the image was filed with the U.S. Copyright Office

Notice that *I* looked at the US copyright office for you. I  had difficulty finding anything with this photographer's name. At. All.  Of course, my ability might be imperfect, but this already suggests that there is a pretty good chance the image has not been properly registered. I can't guarantee it. You might want to get another friend to search the copyright office. But... I didn't find it.

2) Verification that the copyright is either for the individual image or a group of images.

Notice I speculated on this the "group" issue.  I didn't find individual or group images.  Even group images need to list the photographers name. So I *think* that should have come up if it was registered in a group. But-- I could be wrong.

3) I need a copy of the signed contract, assignment or other documentation between Getty Images and the artist transferring copyright and giving you exclusive rights to the image as you have stated in your letter.

I didn't discuss this yet. But it's worth requesting. Getty will likely refuse. But the fact is, it's a valid to request they prove they have standing to represent the photographer.  They have, in the past operated with some "online" contracts that did not have proper signatures. So they may  not have standing to sue. If so... while the copyright holder could sue you, Getty has no standing. (That doesn't mean they can't be stoooopid enough to sue. But they would lose. And in copyright, if they lose, you can make them pay your legal fees. So, this discourages then from the stupidest of suits-- especially when the issue involves only 1 image.)


4) Sales history and records of this image and prices received for the image

If the image is not properly registered, the copyright holder or the appropriate designated party can still sue-- and win. But they have to prove the value of that image based on actual sales. Notice I commented that that picture is hardly that photographers best work?  Looking at it, do you think anyone would pay much for that picture? I bet there have been no sales -- zero. This isn't exactly one of the "getty images" of a celebrity star (e.g. Angelina Jolie) or a particularly dramatic shot of something that happened at the Super Bowl etc. If you'd used one of those, Getty could probably show plenty of actual sales (and it would likely be individually registered.)  But... that's not what we have here. Right?

So: based on looking at the sales record, this looks (to me) like one of the getty letters where
a) The image *likely* has no copyright registration or a flawed one.
b) The image *likely* has little commercial value.

In this context, it's worth finding the price of "similar" images of ladders and seeing what other places charge.  Write a letter similar to Troys (but not identical) and send that off.  Tell them the image is removed *as a courtesy*. Do not say anything about your business.  You can mention that your site has very little traffic. (This matters if later some fair use issue comes up.)  Avoid explaining you found the thing on Google.

The point is not to beg for their mercy. They are not a jury. They are not a judge.  You are negotiating.  And reality, it appears your position appears relatively strong in the sense that if they did sue they quite likely wouldn't recover. But if you copied it can be useful to *offer something*--- as Troy did.  But make any offer contingent on them providing you proof the image is registered individually and they have a contract with the copyright holder. After all: Why should you pay someone who does not have a right to collect any fee?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

very well put Lucia, and very good advice as well... we know that "Getty" doesn't register most of "their" images, we also know that Getty does not require nor ask it's contributors to register images, and further more I believe we know that Getty does not even ask their contributors if their images are registered..most photographers don't register all of their images, because they are to cheap and lazy..however there are some that register every image, whether it's garbage or not..This photog does not seem to be one of those, or Lucia would have found something with his name. Also a quick PACER search for "Peter Cade" yields no results, so he has not filed any lawsuits himself..

[SoylentGreen]

It might be helpful in many cases if we had a "guide" or "faq" that explained the process of dealing with trolls.
The issues are largely the same in most cases, especially when dealing with Getty.
It seems a bit time-consuming to explain Getty's non-registrations, bulk registrations and court failures over and over.
My concern is that the regulars here are going to get burned out explaining the same concepts again and again.

Perhaps, we could make a faq or guide to help the victim, then any further issues or unusual tidbits could be dealt with on a more personal nature.

There's no intent on my part to put down the current process in any way.  It's great.
But, I'm worried that fatigue will set in soon.

In any case, I'm quite impressed by the incredible tenacity of the regulars.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I burnt out about 2 years ago...if folks would just take some time to read thru the forums, they would have all of the answers they need to make an educated decision, unfortunately if they can't do that, I doubt they would read the faqs anyway.. spending some time getting educated is a small price to pay considering the alternative..but yeah we're a bit tenacious to say the least..

[SoylentGreen]

If anything I think that the regulars have actually gained momentum... I'm glad that they're on the side of ELI.

I'm going to write something up.  I would strongly suggest that the regulars keep the document on-hand.
When the usual query about Getty comes up, I'd strongly suggest pasting it in for the victim to read.
If the victim still has questions that have been answered in the document, kindly cut and paste that section.
Again, any unusual or special situations can be handled more personally.

I saw how much Lucia wrote up.  It's quite a generous effort!!
But, I really think that we need to spare people from writing up the same info repeatedly.
This is not intended to take away from a welcoming atmosphere, or the helpful nature of the Forum that we've enjoyed.

I'll work on this... but I do have this tongue-in-cheek version for the Forum:

This virus warning is genuine.

There is a new virus going around, called "Getty Images Demand Letter".
If you receive any sort of "Demand Letter" at all, whether via email, fax or simply handed to you by your mailman...DO NOT OPEN IT.

This has been circulating around the world for years and those who have been tempted to open a "Demand Letter" or even look at a "Demand Letter" have found that their brain ceases to function properly and their wallet is emptied.

If you do encounter a "Getty Images Demand Letter" via email or are faced with any "Demand Letter / Voluntary Invoice" at all, then to purge the virus, send an email to Getty Images with the words "I've had enough of your crap... I'm off to the pub." The "Getty Images Demand Letter" should automatically be forgotten by your brain.
If you receive a "Getty Images Demand Letter" in paper-document form, simply lift the document and drag the "Demand Letter" to your garbage can.
Put on your hat and coat and skip to the nearest bar with two friends and order three pints of beer (or a snort of good scotch). After repeating this action 14 times, you will find that "Getty Images" will no longer be of any relevance to you and that "Scooby Doo" was the greatest cartoon ever.

S.G.

[lucia]

It might be helpful in many cases if we had a "guide" or "faq" that explained the process of dealing with trolls.

One difficulty is that it would end up long. For example: First step should always be: figure out if you hotlinked. If your site is in the US and you hotlinked, use lucia's letter.  If you didn't hotlink, move on to Greg's. But you still need to learn other stuff-- because -- at least hypothetically-- someone might have copied an image that is actually valuable and was individually registered and isn't plastered all over every free wall paper site from here to Timbucktu.  And notice we have one case that's a photograph of a book cover? And another was a claim because a portion of the image supposedly matched clouds in another image? 

How do you make a faq?  Plus-- also hypothetically-- things could change. Getty might start getting their photographers to register and so on.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Let's also not forget that Getty also admits in their PDF brochure called "Be Sure of It" they make the following statement:

Image GuaranteeTM
Not every image comes with amodel or property release.
Sometimes, with certain non-released imagery or
footage, it’s simply not possible to find or identify a rights
holder, if one even exists. So clearance just isn’t an option.
Normally, that would leave you legally unprotected – and
put your ideal image out of reach. But it doesn’t have to
be that way. Based on our research,we’re often able
to give you an image guarantee. Getty Images Image
Guarantee services provides you with an extra layer of
protection by indemnifying you against any model or
property claims. For a fee based on your expected usage,
Getty Images covers you completely in the event a third party
comes forward to make a claim.

Our Image Guarantee service not only protects you from
liability, it dramatically expands your creative palette by
broadening the range of imagery you can put to use for a
whole host of commercial and promotional campaigns.

I have talked about this brochure in my experiment against Getty thread but the way I read this section is they are saying that they don't know anything at all about some of the images they have so there trying to sell you an insurance policy on the image in case the actual artists comes after you.

This whole page of the brochure strikes me odd, as it appears to me not only is Getty infringing by displaying thumbnails of these images on their website but offering to sell these images in my opinion seems an awful lot like willful infringement.

very well put Lucia, and very good advice as well... we know that "Getty" doesn't register most of "their" images, we also know that Getty does not require nor ask it's contributors to register images, and further more I believe we know that Getty does not even ask their contributors if their images are registered..most photographers don't register all of their images, because they are to cheap and lazy..however there are some that register every image, whether it's garbage or not..This photog does not seem to be one of those, or Lucia would have found something with his name. Also a quick PACER search for "Peter Cade" yields no results, so he has not filed any lawsuits himself..

Since Getty made this brochure a downloadable PDF I have it saved in my files should this issue ever come up and mysteriously the wording get changed or the brochure just disappear.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I personally think a very general FAQ would be helpful, if nothing else to help relieve the recipients of that initial paralyzing fear...couple that FAQ with a list of "must read threads", and I think we would have a semi -good solution to the issue of constantly repeating ourselves...admittedly there are some days I feel like a Minah bird. It's the questions like " i Got a letter what should I do?" that send me over the edge..there is 5 years of information here and ALL of it is free.. In Lucia initial post she made some good recommendations as far as what to include in the letter, yet Sandy generated a letter completely the opposite of these.. I'm not throwing Sandy under the bus here, as I think she is/was suffering with the fear that getty instills...

[lucia]

At least she didn't send the letter!

The sad fact is that most letter recipients inclination is to do what you would do in "normal" life when you might have accidentally done something that might be wrong /obnoxious / etc. but has caused no real tangible damage to anyone. That is: Admit and apologize.  In real life, this is often what "works" for many reasons among them that the other person says: Ok.  That's fine it's over now. 

The problem is that Getty is generating these letters to make money.

Anyway, many of us would have rewritten our first letter which quite often we wrote too soon and admitted too much. I -- for example-- regret telling them the site I was hotlinking from. I wish I had merely said I hotlinked and kept the proof of hotlinking in my own files. I knew I had that proof. Having that would have been sufficient to show I did not violate copyright had they sued me. I didn't really need to prove my case to them to the extent that I did and I wish I had not volunteered that URL. (If they already knew it-- fine. But I suspect they did not. )

Many of us are pleased with our second letter.

[SoylentGreen]

I don't feel that a "FAQ" or general "Guide" would stop anyone from discussing, and adding to a conversation.
In fact, I'm sure that most victims want a more personal approach.
That's fine, as long as people don't get burned out writing up 5000 word essays explaining the situation.

Dealing with Getty is very straight-forward.

1) Don't admit anything, and don't talk to Getty or its reps on the telephone.
2) Remove the image immediately.
3) Make a reasonable offer of 50 -200 dollars.
4) If they accept it, you're done.  If not, ask for proof that they own the sole copyrights to the image, and demand proof.
5) They won't send you that, so you're done.  If they forward a "bulk registration", that's no good either.  You're done.
6) Expect them to bug you every so often, but they can't do much if they don't own the copyrights.

Of course, it would be fleshed out a bit more than this... but you get the idea.

It really doesn't matter where the image actually came from.
It doesn't really matter if it's hotlinked, they'll bug you regardless, but still can't do anything without the copyrights.

If Getty starts to get registrations for its catalog of images, we can report on that, and adjust as required.

Again, a guide isn't intended to stop discussion, it just keeps us consistent, and saves time for other things.
We should also keep in mind that many points are of little concern unless a victim is actually heading to court... BUT...



S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I don't feel a FAQ or guide would harm discussions at all, and anything we can do to not have to make the same post over and over again is a good thing...I see it on other forums all of the time, same questions , different topics, people are just plain old lazy for the most part and it's easier to just type..."got a letter now what" and let someone else type the 5000 word reply...or do any meaningful research first...and even if if it did curb the discussion I'll always be here to stir the pot as it were!!