Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What evidence do Getty hold on their cases?

« on: October 20, 2015, 07:03:22 AM »

I replied to the collections agency today who immediately fired back an email saying:

before pursuing a company for copyright infringement, we carry out a legal review of each case. We are confident that your company has infringed on my clients copyright, and have more than sufficient evidence to support our claim in the same.

and

For your information the images were hosted on your website at the following links, and not on thos of xxxxxxxxxxx.com, as you claim;

They then list two URLs: one is the webpage - so definitely doesn't disprove the hotlink.
The second is the URL of the image (actually a thumbnail, not the one they are claiming for).

Now,  as a techie I can easily prove that the URL in the browser does not necessarily reflect the location of the file. It is done using a reverse proxy and there are SEO articles on why it might be a good idea to use this.
Given the EU ruling that hotlinking is not infringement I think this evidence proves nothing.

So, it is very possible that by ****ing with me Getty have potentially given a whole lot of other people (guilty or not) a get out of jail free card.
Feel free to send donations 

2

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Screen Shot

« on: October 19, 2015, 04:49:28 AM »

Just came across this whilst browsing.
Just to correct the above, in English law hosting isn't necessary. Merely transmitting an image to a monitor is 'infringement by communicating to the public'. It's s20 (2)(b) CDPA 1988 if you want to check.

This is certainly not the case anymore.

Take a look at these two recent Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) cases where they found that linking and framing did not constitute "communication to the public". The cases are:
Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB and BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch

Therefore, if Getty wanted to sue you for merely hotlinking an infringing image they would have to overturn existing EU case law. Probably not their best / easiest return on investment.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What evidence do Getty hold on their cases?

« on: October 18, 2015, 03:51:35 PM »

They woud have to have the underlying code to see where the image is actually hosted

Even this doesn't prove where the image is hosted. I was running a site where the URLs of remote images were disguised for (possibly misguided) SEO purposes. It is very easily done and the code looks exactly as if the image is on the local server.

I can easily provide a proof of concept of this all of which makes it pretty hard to imagine what Getty could keep on record to prove an image wasn't simply hotlinked from a remote site - which apparently is not considered infringement, at least in Europe.

If Getty want their $1000 out of me they are going to need expert witnesses and be willing to overturn existing case law - probably not a good return on their investment...

4

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I don't think Getty have a case against me. How do I get them off my back?

« on: October 18, 2015, 10:14:09 AM »

I would make them aware of this once, in writing, return receipt requested. 

I believe Atradius is a collections agency.  I might also inform them that there is NO debt here and that they may have been mislead by their client, but let them know that you will rigorously defend your rights and good name, should they persist.

Thanks for the reply. I'll do this, and may be try and resist any urges to pen it more confrontationally than necessary!

5

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are you sure Atradius are not licensed?

« on: October 18, 2015, 10:11:30 AM »

FYI, in most cases, Getty is NOT the exclusive license holder.

Useful to know. I was tempted to contact the photographer direct as I think any normal human would not be demanding payment in this instance.

However, I would be interested in any further info about Atradius' credit license which is often cited as a reason you can ignore them.

6

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Are you sure Atradius are not licensed?

« on: October 18, 2015, 07:28:32 AM »

I've seen a lot of info stating that Atradius Collections Ltd are not licensed to collect debts. However, a little searching lead me here:
https://register.fca.org.uk/shpo_searchresultspage?search=atradius

This seems to suggest they do have some sort of license.

I think there are other reasons for questioning the legitimacy of Atradius' claims. For example I don't see how they could bring legal action to recover debts without a judgement to back it up. Plus Atradius won't be the ones to take you to court for infringement as only the copyright owner or exclusive license owner (Getty) can do this.

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / What evidence do Getty hold on their cases?

« on: October 18, 2015, 06:09:56 AM »

Just wondering what evidence Getty hold and use in their infringement cases?

I know they send out a screenshot and URL but for my particular case that doesn't really prove anything. Does anyone know what kind of technical info they hold?

Thanks,
Chris

8

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / I don't think Getty have a case against me. How do I get them off my back?

« on: October 18, 2015, 06:03:51 AM »

As a published photographer who strongly believes in the right to protect one's copyright I was a little surprised to be on the wrong end of a Getty letter.
I know enough about copyright law to not knowingly infringe, even accidentally.

So, the first I heard about Getty's complaint was from Atradius. It seems all the letters Getty sent went to an old address - personally I would only send this kind of letter signed for...

Anyway, it turns out the image in question is from a hotel booking website I worked with. They supply details and images off the hotels which are advertised on my (now defunct) website. There are thousands of hotels and many more images so obviously I didn't check them. However, I realise that this still possibly constitutes a technical copyright infringement.
BUT, my objection is the images were never actually on my server, they were just linked from the hotel company using inline <img> tags. Now according to a recent EU court case (BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch) "framing" an image in such a manner does not constitute an infringement.

So, I want to call Getty out. Tell them if they think they have a case, sue me. Otherwise take a running jump. I'd also like to know where I stand in terms of harassment if they do not desist.

Any help, greatly appreciated. Thanks