Who really owns the claimed image?

[313speed]

..

[Ethan Seven]

Agence France Presse is one of the largest news agencies in the world.

Hgbee & Associates is a well established law firm who files lots of copyright lawsuits.   

So, I would not expect either would engage in shenanigans, like trying to enforce rights they do not possess or claim to represent parties they do not represent. 

If Agence France Presse is who is doing the enforcement, instead of Getty, you should make sure the release agreement indemnifies you against any copyright claim arising out of the past use of that image.

As far as the POA, it seems like a non-issue, unless you really have a basis to believe that Higbee & Associates is not representing the client.    If Higbee is signing the release agreement, maybe then you ask for a POA that meets legal requirements.   But again, these are not fly-by-night players.

[Ethan Seven]

The only advice I give is to get an attorney who understands your situation, especially if you have a profitable business to protect.   Your time, sanity, focus and assets are at risk. 

If it were me, assuming I used the image and did not have a license, I would cry hardship and make a modest offer.  Maybe they take it and I get this behind me for cheap.  If they don’t take it, at least I won’t look bad in front of the judge if they file a lawsuit because at least I made an effort to resolve the claim.  The less attractive option for me is to not give it another thought and move on in hopes they do not sue, I like piece of mind.

I do not know many lawyers who send things certified anymore, especially in the age of email, when it is easy to verify if an email was received and opened.  Likewise with the POA, it is not even needed unless they are signing the release on  behalf of the client. 

Best of luck to you.

[Matthew Chan]

Ethan,

What happened in this thread?  Did the person who started this thread orphan out your responses?  That is rude because it leaves the rest of us stranded. They got their answer and suddenly no one knows what they asked?

Might I suggest that with newbies who have no posting track record, we "regulars" quote the underlying post as part of the response so that if they decide to pull this stunt, we still have  a copy of what was being responded to.

No one likes orphaned threads because the naked responses lack context.

[313speed]

Sorry Matthew tried to send a PM to explain but I couldn't.

Short answer is that I reached out to Getty to clarify who owns the rights here in the U.S. for a photo a demand letter is requesting. I used an email that has this screen name in it. I didn't want Getty to forward any info along. That and I'd be fairly certain Higbee monitors this site.

That being said, if Getty has exclusive U.S. rights to manage an AFP license, can AFP go outside of their partnership agreement for collections? The Getty EULA states that "You may not assert any right to revenue from a collecting society in respect of photocopying, digital copying or other secondary uses of the licensed content". I would assume Getty would want to have their hand in the pot for any image it licenses based on this language. Getty's email response to me inferred that they were in control of the image rights.

Of course, I'm also curious as to how AFP would verify if their partner licensed an image. Can PicRights/Higbee even access Getty records? Based on my experience with large corporations acquiring ones I've worked for, I'd be surprised to see Getty and AFP so transparent with each other. I'll keep reviewing the site here and let you know how things turn up.

[Ethan Seven]

Ethan,

What happened in this thread?  Did the person who started this thread orphan out your responses?  That is rude because it leaves the rest of us stranded. They got their answer and suddenly no one knows what they asked?

Might I suggest that with newbies who have no posting track record, we "regulars" quote the underlying post as part of the response so that if they decide to pull this stunt, we still have  a copy of what was being responded to.

No one likes orphaned threads because the naked responses lack context.

I had never seen that happen before, but I see the problem.  Excellent idea.  I will give it a try

[Ethan Seven]

Short answer is that I reached out to Getty to clarify who owns the rights here in the U.S. for a photo a demand letter is requesting. I used an email that has this screen name in it. I didn't want Getty to forward any info along. That and I'd be fairly certain Higbee monitors this site.

That being said, if Getty has exclusive U.S. rights to manage an AFP license, can AFP go outside of their partnership agreement for collections? The Getty EULA states that "You may not assert any right to revenue from a collecting society in respect of photocopying, digital copying or other secondary uses of the licensed content". I would assume Getty would want to have their hand in the pot for any image it licenses based on this language. Getty's email response to me inferred that they were in control of the image rights.

Of course, I'm also curious as to how AFP would verify if their partner licensed an image. Can PicRights/Higbee even access Getty records? Based on my experience with large corporations acquiring ones I've worked for, I'd be surprised to see Getty and AFP so transparent with each other. I'll keep reviewing the site here and let you know how things turn up.

Acoording to Wikipedia, AFP is the third largest news agency in the world.  My guess is that Getty is well aware of what they are doing and that there is coordination between them with regards to checking for or verifying license history.   Though, I am not sure why it is relevant to anyone who does not have a license.   You previously said you do not have money or assets.   AFP and Higbee won’t sue you if you convince them you are not worth suing. 

[313speed]

Short answer is that I reached out to Getty to clarify who owns the rights here in the U.S. for a photo a demand letter is requesting. I used an email that has this screen name in it. I didn't want Getty to forward any info along. That and I'd be fairly certain Higbee monitors this site.

That being said, if Getty has exclusive U.S. rights to manage an AFP license, can AFP go outside of their partnership agreement for collections? The Getty EULA states that "You may not assert any right to revenue from a collecting society in respect of photocopying, digital copying or other secondary uses of the licensed content". I would assume Getty would want to have their hand in the pot for any image it licenses based on this language. Getty's email response to me inferred that they were in control of the image rights.

Of course, I'm also curious as to how AFP would verify if their partner licensed an image. Can PicRights/Higbee even access Getty records? Based on my experience with large corporations acquiring ones I've worked for, I'd be surprised to see Getty and AFP so transparent with each other. I'll keep reviewing the site here and let you know how things turn up.

Acoording to Wikipedia, AFP is the third largest news agency in the world.  My guess is that Getty is well aware of what they are doing and that there is coordination between them with regards to checking for or verifying license history.   Though, I am not sure why it is relevant to anyone who does not have a license.   You previously said you do not have money or assets.   AFP and Higbee won’t sue you if you convince them you are not worth suing.

I would assume that it would be relevant to a class of people if Higbee was simply sending out demand letters without proof. Getty may be aware, but that would imply there is some sort of agreement between AFP and Getty for collections. Here's the problem with that though... Getty got out of doing stuff like this after it got a lot of bad press. Why then would they open themselves back up to this? Also, if Getty is responsible for licensing, why would they sidestep the collections process?

Higbee provides far more information than it realizes about their business model. The company has structured itself in a way that does the bare minumum of work in order to generate revenue. I would hazard a guess that he company is relying on Picrights to verify claims so that it can be held harmless if it came out that they were not verifying ownership prior to making a demand.

[Matthew Chan]

Forgive my confusion, how is Getty connected in this conversation? I haven't done in-depth research by I assume that AFP images are owned by the AFP. If AFP allows Getty to sell and license the AFP photos, that doesn't mean that AFP cannot independently pursue other actions to enforce purported infringements that might be found.

In this particular context, Getty doesn't seem to be a relevant issue here.... aside from the fact that they severely tarnished their names with their aggressive decade-long campaign to go after everyone big and small (thereby leading to inadvertent creation and formation of ELI, their primary online adversary to their extortion letter program).

Again, I could be confused but I am not understanding what Getty is supposedly doing in relation to the alleged AFP images infringements.

I would assume that it would be relevant to a class of people if Higbee was simply sending out demand letters without proof. Getty may be aware, but that would imply there is some sort of agreement between AFP and Getty for collections. Here's the problem with that though... Getty got out of doing stuff like this after it got a lot of bad press. Why then would they open themselves back up to this? Also, if Getty is responsible for licensing, why would they sidestep the collections process?