Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Nodge

Pages: 1 [2]
16
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: UK Query
« on: March 09, 2012, 01:28:24 PM »
Hi Horgio,
First thing I would say is that there are thousands of us who have received the letter so you are not alone. This includes many professional web designers so you shouldn't feel too guilty about things.
What have head office said to you? Have they passed the letter to you just for your info or have they asked you to sort it out? I think I would be inclined to just plead ignorance in this instance and pass it back to head office. They set up the software platform and asked for volunteers to add content so I think they have to accept the consequences. I bet they didn't give you any training or advice about copyright issues.

There is plenty of info on here about how to respond to the letter but if you're not the one who will be dealing with Getty it would be best if you advised the person who will be to pay a visit here.

17
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 08, 2012, 07:53:54 PM »
I found a posting wherein Nick said that he worked on Liz Ward's website.
I'm not sure if he volunteered, traded, or bartered, though.
Lol, I wondered that. If it was me I would think a bit of battering was well in order.

At this point, I'm convinced that Nick is Liz Ward's "marketing guy".
Paid, or unpaid, it doesn't really matter.

S.G.

I think that's probably an overstatement but I agree it doesn't really matter. What's important is that they offer a quality, value for money service.

18
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 08, 2012, 06:01:24 PM »

For the record, according to Nick, the copyrightinfringement.org.uk website is not even owned by him and he is entirely a volunteer who (like me) years ago just contributes his time when he can referring people to his solicitor.

This prompted a quick check on Whois which shows that copyrightinfringement.org.uk is owned by Virtuoso Legal, Liz Ward's law firm. Not really surprising then that the website comes accross as not much more than an advert for Virtuoso Legal. I'm not claiming anything untoward is going on - in Nick's second post he almost goes as far as saying they are the same thing. However, in her video Liz says that copyrightinfringement.org.uk are "an association of individuals who club together and use their buying power to hire her services". I think in the interests of openness, Nick needs to explain just who comprises copyrightinfringement.org.uk and what their relationship with Virtuoso Legal is.

Nick also states that Liz would defend you on a no win no fee basis. I would like to ask exactly what constitutes a "win". In a court case the only thing in dispute would be the size of the damages. So would a win be any reduction in damages or perhaps zero damages. In the event of a "win", how would Liz calculate her fees. Oscar has quoted us an hourly rate so it would be good if Liz could do likewise.

19
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 08, 2012, 10:31:20 AM »
As I am UK based I've been following this thread with interest. I've looked at www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk and I did feel that the website was trying to guide me towards one outcome ("SEEK OUT A SPECIALIST solicitor. This is a complex area of law and not something many lawyers are familiar with. We recommend Liz Ward"). A solictor's letter may well be the best option for some people and it's one that I seriously considered. But as I did more research I found that I felt a lot more confident about dealing with things personally. As for www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk, I think offerering a solictors letter as an option rather than a recommendation would go down better. I would suggest recommending doing some research into the topic before doing anything else. Maybe add a link back to ELI and any other useful sources.

I don't have any issues with Nick's posts here. I've found them helpful. In particular I like the suggestion of offering a sum in settlement on the condition that Getty supply proof of copyright etc. I was going to offer a sum regardless but I think I prefer this option.

I have made an appointment with my Member of Parliament to discuss the Getty scheme. May not do any good but can't do any harm. I'll also be sending copies of all documentation to "Watchdog" (a consumer advice program in the UK) as well as the Trading Standards office if they continue to harass me.

20
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 05, 2012, 11:49:15 AM »
I'm with buddhapi as well. You can't admit an offence until you know that you have committed one. You may well have copied images without checking but you don't know if this was an offence until such time as Getty provide the relevent proof. So your 3 points need to be in the order a), c), b)

21
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Yet another letter recipient
« on: March 05, 2012, 09:25:43 AM »
Thanks buddhapi & Khan. I didn't know about any of those. I tried the google reverse image search and it did find a couple that Tineye didn't but still nothing of any help to be honest. I'll try some of Khans next.

22
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Yet another letter recipient
« on: March 05, 2012, 04:58:33 AM »
Thanks for the reply Jerry.
With respect to what is the "going rate" I did go through the exercise of checking what it would have cost to licence the image from Getty in the first place. Many people have stated the actual figure would be £10s or maybe £100s. If I enter my details correctly (image on multiple pages, length of time etc) then the licence fee would actually cost me substantially more than what they are claiming in settlement. Even for a medium res image on 1 page for the minimum time of 1 month I believe the fee is £435. As you say, it would be the sales record which would determine the current rate and if there have been no sales then there is no current rate. I'm left wondering what sort of business model is it that allows a company to set it's prices at a level that no-one is ever going to pay. I can certainly find similar photos at around the £10 mark from other places including iStockphoto. If Getty own iStockphoto then why are the prices worlds apart? I could understand it if Getty's images were all exclusive premium quality stuff but what people are being chased for seems to be average quality general photography and everyday clipart like shopping carts.

I had come across Tineye in the course of my research and checked my image. I only get 3 hits but none were offering the image for sale.

23
Getty Images Letter Forum / Yet another letter recipient
« on: March 04, 2012, 07:19:16 PM »
I received my letter last week and thought I would share my experience to date. I have a home based typesetting business which is only just surviving so when I saw the demand for £1000 plus £230 VAT I felt physically ill. The paperwork showed the full image in question together with a screen print of the image in place on my website. I hadn't used the image as is, I had cropped a small section of it and incorporated it as part of a bigger image. I was completely baffled as to how they had made the step from the image on my website to the Getty image. I had produced the website myself with the aim of zero cost and also to teach myself something about website design. I have no record of how I acquired the image but as a typesetter I am aware of copyright issues and I'm sure I got the image either from a library on a magazine disc or from a free website. I didn't get any sleep that night and the next day I started researching on Google after first taking the image down from my site. A few days later and I think I must have read many hundreds of posts on the subject. At least I knew I wasn't alone but I was still unsure of how to proceed. There was the ignore them and they'll go away advocates. There were those who said that I was in the wrong and I should just pay up and there were those who said get a solicitor. I read all about Picscout and msut admit to being impressed with what it can do. After a week I thought I needed to stop researching and just step back and re-assess things.  I realised that after the initial shock I had started sleeping better and generally just felt better about things - more ready to take them on. My situation seems to be very typical and I had been hoping to find info on a recommended plan of action - maybe a letter template for a response, plus details of how cases had been resolved. I didn't really find anything much like this. So I need to form my own response.

I decided not to just ignore them (though I suspect this approach does have it's merits). The "ignore them" brigade were saying that if you reply they know you are taking them seriously and will pursue you even more. This may be true but I had also heard that you could ignore them and hear nothing for years and suddenly they will start chasing you again. I decided I wanted a definite end to the matter, even if I did have to pay something at the end of it. So I am planning the following course of action ..

1. Reply to Getty stating that it is my contention that the image was obtained legitimately and as such no fees were payable to Getty. As an act of good faith I had removed the image anyway and hoped that would be an end to the matter.

2. Getty will send a second letter, ignoring my response and repeating their demands for the full payment.

3. I will reply stating that any payment was out of the question. They would first need to provide proof of registration etc, (not just for now but for when I obtained the image) to support their claim of infringement.

4. Getty will reply that they have proof but will only provide it when the case goes to court.

5. At this point we could have a stalemate. I could refuse a settlement and Getty could send repeated demands and I could quote various acts and accuse them of harassment. However, I think I would prefer to cite their refusal to provide proof, together with other mitigating factors such as the very low hit count on my site plus the fact I had only used a small fraction of the original image as bargaining factors to try and get them to accept a greatly reduced figure in settlement.

So how does the above sound? Any feel for what the minimum percentage is they might settle on?

Finally just like to say thanks to Matthew and Oscar for all their work on this site. I've watched all the videos :)

Thanks.

Pages: 1 [2]
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.