What if Getty cannot find your real name or address?

[PeteGas]

If your name and info is not on the site and the domain has a privacy mask for WhoIs... what do they do then, if they only have your email?

Are emails worthless in these circumstances?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

pretty much useless.. Emails are "not fficial" in any way, they have no way if the recipient got the email, or who the recipient is.. They could get domain ownership info fairly simply if they chose to, but i doubt they would go through that trouble over a single image.

[PeteGas]

pretty much useless.. Emails are "not fficial" in any way, they have no way if the recipient got the email, or who the recipient is.. They could get domain ownership info fairly simply if they chose to, but i doubt they would go through that trouble over a single image.

Incidentally, if you had a 'cluster' of images, would the 'claim' be for example $10,000 for 10 images?  Or perhaps 10 separate letters of $1,000?  Am I right in understanding that they deliberately keep the amount below a certain threshold, to make settlements more appealing?  But what if they found a whole forest of copyright images?

What is the largest single claim or combined demand you've seen against someone?

[stinger]

I think they were in the $40-50K region with my firm.  That was quite a few years ago.  There were lots of images (40-50, I think).  Getty never did anything.  McCormack IP Law, saying they represent Getty, came at us a couple of times.  That ended when we pushed back hard.

I would have admitted using the images and I don't think they could have won, if I could have found a way to prove what happened.  My story is on this forum somewhere.  Have a look, if your interested.  I did learn a lot through the experience and did my best to share it with other readers of this forum.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It's in your best interest to remove any images you don't hold a license to, or have created yourself..Getty could send further letters, and getty is not the only copyright-troll out there, the list is endless, and not worth the risk.

[PeteGas]

It's in your best interest to remove any images you don't hold a license to, or have created yourself..Getty could send further letters, and getty is not the only copyright-troll out there, the list is endless, and not worth the risk.

I've purged any liable images.  But my concern is retroactive presentation of time stamps.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

screen shots / time stamps don't always equate to infringement..who's to say the images in question weren't linked from outside sources.. They would need to prove their case.

[PeteGas]

screen shots / time stamps don't always equate to infringement..who's to say the images in question weren't linked from outside sources.. They would need to prove their case.

What about a direct JPEG URL from months or even years ago, that has long since been 404'd?  Is it possible to present a 'time stamp' of that?

[kingkendall]

I watched a video by a IP lawyer that strongly argued that a screen shot of a website in and of itrself does not constittute conclusive proof of copyright infridgement.  A 6 year old could photoshop the samne thing in 2 minutes.  Howvewr, copyright trolls still use it to scare the bejesus out of uninformed people for quick cash with threat of a lawsuit. 

[PeteGas]

So if an image/s is already gone from the server by the time they're coming after you, it's too late?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

So if an image/s is already gone from the server by the time they're coming after you, it's too late?

no it's not to late..what you're missing here are several parts, so relax and learn..
1. they don't know your name or anything..they would have to subpeona a court to get the whois info.
2. they would most likely need to file suit to get the above accomplished, which would cost 495.00 in filing fees.
3. they would need to prove their case that you "copied" the image in question.. a screen shot does not prove infringement..

while copyright trolls may be idiots, they aren't always that dumb, they could file, they could loose, which costs them money...they could file, they could win, you could be broke, they collect nothing..it costs them money..they could file and win and a judge could determine it was "innocent infrngement" and award as little as 200.00...again it costs them money.. they go after low hanging fruit, and those that are likely to cave..don't be that fruit... don't worry about other images that "may" be suspect, it's  a waste of mental energy, deal with it IF it comes.

[PeteGas]

At this point I think my only recourse is to shut the site down, an entertainment/criticism site that has been online for five years.  Today I notice that Getty is selling stock movie images on their site for huge prices. 

Given that my site has thousands of images, including perhaps hundreds that have been vaccumed up and co-licensed by these cockroaches, I'm now figuring that in the unlikely even that they were to come after me, they'd come after me in a big way.  I'd never realized that these people had at least 'partially' acquired promotional material from tentpole blockbusters. 

It's a commercial site by the way, so fair dealing/fair use does not technically cover me.  So it's a gamble and considering it's practically only a side hobby/beer money project, not worthwhile one from the looks of things.

If you have any further thoughts on that, I'd appreciate it.

An additional question; if Getty holds a license to imagery, but not exclusively, in the UK, can they sue the 'infringer'?

[kingkendall]

@PeteGas

Although it's a pain you could consider deleting the images or the posts you consider at risk and continue with the site. 

[PeteGas]

@PeteGas

Although it's a pain you could consider deleting the images or the posts you consider at risk and continue with the site.

Unfortunately, the site is heavily reliant on imagery.  And most of the images are ambiguous.  The site has established relations with PR companies who represent major studios.  They will send out imagery that is cast-iron safe, for use with express permission.  But these account for maybe 30%.  The rest is comprised of promotional imagery, but wasn't sent directly... and now Getty appears to be co-licensing a lot of it more and more.

Worse, and to answer the question in the OP after some research, you cannot be hidden from WHOIS.  At least not with DomainsByProxy.  DBP will roll over on an extortion letter, right away.  They will give them your street address and full name.  They are supposedly a songbird 'privacy' service.

[Matthew Chan]

Domain "privacy" only exists at the first level. People who are determined to find out a website owner will have several means at their disposal.

If you are covering movies, entertainment, and the like, a lot of care and discretion has to be used in image use. Generally speaking, most movie studios and the like want websites to cover them but people get into trouble when they don't make careful distinction what is "approved" and what is not.

There are general rules to "safely" use such images but way too much to get into here. People get into trouble using images that stray into paparazzi photos, not movie posters and the like.

If you don't have the confidence or have the inclination to learn to defend such uses, it is probably best to just let the website go. It