25 cents per pixel - for using thumb nail of a site I designed

[wwc96]

I hope you find this post as outrageous as I do...

I am a web developer, 16 years in business, and always careful to inform clients about their image responsibilities.  I built a site a few years ago, and the client chose the photos for me to insert.  One of those photos was apparently a getty image of shish-ka-bobs cooking on a grill.

I create a thumb-nail snap shot of all sites periodically for my web site portfolio. those images are about 150px wide and the thumb-nail of the site in question included a TINY, BLURRY version of the image at no larger than 80x60px.   The image was barely distinguishable.  In fact, I am absolutely amazed at how their software program even found this image. 

The image is surely not promoting my business in any way. I never intended to use it to help my business or any other.  It is surely not doing any damage and there would be no reason for me to steal or use this image for any reason, aside from showing someone else's site that happens to display that image of course.

More importantly, the very concept of being punished for such a thing brings up an interesting question.  What should web developers do when trying to show thumb-nails of their web sites with photos on them? 

It seems to me, that according to Getty, I needed to pay THEM for the right to display their tiny image on my site for any client that actually has the image on their site.

Now honestly I doubt my client bought that photo. if so it was surely something random found through some web search as the image itself is WAY overpriced.  Of course that client dropped off the face of the earth a while back, so I can't verify one way or another whether they had the rights. But that fact should not come into play here in any way.

So I got my Getty image letter in August and responded by trying to reason with to the guy listed as the contact.  He was polite enough, but unwilling to tell me why such a small image warranted such a cost, and unwilling to provide any proof to their claims about this image of food on a grill.  However, after tons of complaining, my fee was reduced from $800 to $400.  Still that is a lot of money for a small company on the edge in this economy.

ELI taught me to be strong though. I even had the pep talk with our hero Matthew Chan.   He mentioned that I should post this outrageous news and that my situation was very much unwarranted.  So I chose to break contact with Getty and hope they would come to reason.

Then just today I got my demand letter from Getty's attorney, Timothy McCormack, making lots of threats and now demanding $1286.  what is that per pixel?  80x60 = 4800 pixels for $1200 that is about 25 cents a pixel!

So next step ... use those handy links provided to file a complaint. I can do anything else though.  I don't have any money!

Anyone got 25 cents?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

They are not going to sue you over one image.  A complaint letter campain should make them go away, it did for me. Copies of all of my letters that can be used for guides may be found here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

Don't copy them or Getty will know.  Relax, they are just trying to panic you into paying.

[Mulligan]

WWC96, my experience with that copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his paralegal "Mistress of Misrepresentation" Ashanti A. Taylor is that they are total gas bags. Knowing what I know now from my experience with these two clowns, I'd write one letter saying that without proof of their right to legally demand money, as far as I'm concerned the matter is closed and that I'll consider any future demands without the requested proof harassment that will be reported to the bar associations and Washington State Attorney Generals office.

They'll come back, most likely, with another letter or two but eventually they'll say they're going to recommend litigation to Getty Images and that will be that with McCormack's side of this extrajudicial payment extraction scheme. Just stick to your guns. No proof, there's no reason to communicate with them more than once.

My experience with McCormack and Ms. Taylor can be found at

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/mccormack-office-is-in-potential-trouble-again-over-%27last-chance%27-letter/msg10159/#msg10159

That entire thread is well worth reading for help on dealing with McCormack's illiterate threats full of misrepresentations and shady lawyer shenanigans.

[wwc96]

Thanks to all!  Your advice and support is very helpful out here in this lonely e-world us web-heads live in.

By the way, did I mention that I am an actually Getty customer.  That's right, I have bought images from there and referred clients there for some rather expensive items.  They knew this too, and it basically didn't phase them. 

That's the funny thing here.  I am in a position to refer lots of clients their way, or now more specifically some other way.  So this move has cost them thousands of dollars of actual legitimate business long term.  Do you think anyone has crunched the math on those figures and determined it is better to scam then to earn? What an ugly practice this is.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I don't think you did mention that but no, it doesn't phase them. There was a letter recipient not too terribly long ago you had a Getty image on his website and was out of the country and his license lapsed for something like three days while he was away and Getty sent him a letter so this is nothing new for Getty.

Thanks to all!  Your advice and support is very helpful out here in this lonely e-world us web-heads live in.

By the way, did I mention that I am an actually Getty customer.  That's right, I have bought images from there and referred clients there for some rather expensive items.  They knew this too, and it basically didn't phase them. 

That's the funny thing here.  I am in a position to refer lots of clients their way, or now more specifically some other way.  So this move has cost them thousands of dollars of actual legitimate business long term.  Do you think anyone has crunched the math on those figures and determined it is better to scam then to earn? What an ugly practice this is.