Messages

151

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image

« on: May 08, 2013, 11:54:23 AM »

Like I said at the start:

 

Find a law firm to be a "patsy." That is, one that won't put up much of a fight or just plead guilty. That way you have a precedent set for these single image cases. Am I paranoid?

My suspicion is that's what happened here. My theory is something like this: 1.) Find a small law firm that is infringing on your image. 2.) Tell them you would like to sue them and if they don't put up a fight, you will forgive the infringement, pay them some cash and/or cover all their costs. 3.) File a "Stipulated Motion for Consent."  You can see this at: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/stipulated-motion-for-consent-judgment-g-25447/

So this means the case never went to trial so it doesn't count as a loss for the law firm. But for Getty, it counts as a big win. It sets the "going rate" for a single-image infringement at $5000 and you can damn well believe they will use that chip to bargain with other innocent infringes in the future.

This is all my opinion of course. But I can think of no better reason as to why this law firm chose to roll over.

152

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Jupiter Images

« on: May 06, 2013, 11:32:13 PM »

Again, I would let them know that their harassment is not welcome. I would reply to Mr. McCormack and send a copy to Getty letting them know the images were purchased legally and you have the agreement and if they wish you to send it to them you would be willing to do so but will bill them for your time and inconvenience. I would make the bill is outrageous as Gettys invoice to you was. I would also let them know you consider the matter closed and if you receive any further communication other than to request and pay for the above-mentioned information you will file complaints with all the agencies I stated in my previous message.

This is what I was thinking. Be VERY clear that you will be billing for your time if they continue to pester you about any image. I would also be sure to mention that this is not the way a company should act if they wish to keep you as a customer.

The only thing I have to add is another #gettyflubs tag.

153

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter Received But No Such Image

« on: May 03, 2013, 08:19:38 PM »

If it were me and I was absolutely certain that this image had never been published on a page on my site, I would just ignore future letters.

154

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: May 02, 2013, 05:26:45 PM »

5) Keeping the above in mind how could we be sure Getty was indeed the legal copyright holder? We asked for the original copyright claimant and any assignment or granting of exclusive rights including the right to enforce violations.

You can't and that's why so many have an issue with Getty. It seems they are unable (or unwilling) to provide the chain of title to the image and prove they are the exclusive representative of that image.

Once you draft a letter saying you cannot discuss any settlement until such documentation is delivered, keep it handy. By all reports you'll need to send it out a few more times as GI continues to pester you.

155

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 02, 2013, 05:15:00 PM »

Of course, I agree with Lucia.

My assertion is simply that Getty may legally accuse somebody of copyright infringement.
That's not a "crime" or "extortion".

In fact companies and people accuse each other of legal transgressions every day.
Somebody's always right, and somebody's always wrong.  But, the accusation itself isn't a "crime", or "fraud".

Now, if some actual material facts were misrepresented, somebody paid, that person could prove such, AND they didn't sign a confidentiality agreement, they MIGHT have a case against Getty.

...and yes, I know where this is going... and it's a waste of everybody's time.

S.G.

I don't think anyone has brought this up before. But what about a class action suit.


HAHAHAHAA! (Sorry S.G., I couldn't resist.)

156

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 01, 2013, 05:18:35 PM »

And why does an ordinary citizen have to inform a "Copyright Compliance Specialist" from Getty about US Copyright law?

Could whoever is reading this from Getty Images please ask Ms Nancy Monson? I would really like for someone from that organization to just clarify their position.

157

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images in Canada

« on: May 01, 2013, 05:09:52 PM »

They purchased photos from a certain company, who was bought out by another company, who was then bought out by Getty. Now, Getty goes after the thousands of clients they have for the images that were uploaded during the design of their clients' websites.

I know this has been going on for quite some time. In the 90's people bought CD-ROM collections of royalty free images for them to use in print on the web. Somewhere along the line Getty bought these collections and now they are trying to assert copyright.

Is there any chance at all you could ask them the name of the collection or company? We purchased such a collection 20 years ago but I haven't been able to find it. If you or they would rather contact me directly, please email witt at the domain motioncity.com or PM me here.

Thanks!

(Also, tagging this #gettyflubs for future reference.)

158

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: A message from the little guy

« on: April 27, 2013, 06:15:58 PM »

Wow, somehow I missed this thread entirely until now. DavidvGoliath, thank you for posting. I'm with everyone else who says we only wish the large stock image agencies (as well as other copyright holders) conducted themselves in the way you say you do.

In the case of large images being used for commercial purposes I agree with your approach 100 percent. And in most cases these companies should know better. It sucks for you that you have to obtain a lawyer to "wake them up."

I do wonder how you deal with smaller mom-an-pop commercial blogging sites that have mistakenly infringed on your copyrighted work. Maybe they found an image on a third party site or in an rss feed and used in in a blog post on a craft site. In that case, you hold the cards. They could argue "innocent infringement" because they thought it was freely available. But they posted your art on their site without paying and without attribution. Maybe they point to images on the microstock sites that sell for $1 to $50. What do you say to them? What would you deem to be fair in this circumstance?

By the way, we have had photographers on here in the past and most have moved on. Many of them were represented by the stock photo agencies. It became clear that the difference in opinion was too vast to ever come to a consensus of how copyright claims and proof of infringement should be presented.

It's interesting that so many of us here on ELI produce our own intellectual property but also are appalled at the scam the large stock agencies are running.

159

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new image bot/spider/scraper

« on: April 19, 2013, 11:35:52 AM »

Although I salute the effort Robert and Lucia put into blocking these bots, I really don't see it worth the effort. I was convinced the first time I tried to visit Lucia's site and my IP was blocked. I can't afford to start blocking potential customers, so I knew this wasn't for me.

Besides, I know if I were designing some sort of "image scanning spider" I would make it possible for it to crawl the site under a proxy and perhaps spoof the user agent. And if that was rejected, I'd simply have a human go poke around.

To me the best course of action is to simply not use images that aren't yours to use.

Are both of you really loosing money to bots that are hogging up bandwidth? Because the hosting I usually have includes far more available bandwidth than the tiny slice that is used by bots.

160

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image

« on: April 16, 2013, 11:04:13 PM »

Looks like it's Hezog Law Firm in Arizona.

 via: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/arizona-district-court/471134/getty-images-us-incorporated-v-herzog-law-firm-pc/summary/

Does it seem odd to anyone else besides me that the first single-image case is filed against another law firm? I don't want to break out the tin foil hats and murmur "conspiracy," however, it sure would be an interesting strategy to find a law firm to be a "patsy." That is, one that won't put up much of a fight or just plead guilty. That way you have a precedent set for these single image cases. Am I paranoid? Have I been watching too many John Grisham movies?

Question for Oscar (if he happens by). Would that be legal?

Somebody should probably give Michael Herzog a shout and at least let him know about this forum. His phone number is on the front page at: http://www.herzoglawfirm.com/

161

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image

« on: April 16, 2013, 10:39:27 PM »

I knew it was coming. We throw around the fact that they hadn't done so yet far too frequently, I see this as a strategic move by Getty.

However I really hope the single-image case decides to fight it. Somebody should get word to them that if they believe they got the image from the internet, it might be worth it to offer them $50 or so. Gonna see if I can track them down...

162

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My 3 year experience fighting back in playing Getty's dirty game

« on: April 12, 2013, 04:19:44 PM »

That is a very good template letter and your strategy is certainly sound. Congrats for making it through your three years.

163

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 12, 2013, 11:22:29 AM »

Lettered, that is a great and useful chart for anyone analyzing the possible outcomes of "The Letter". But I would suggest adding notes that in most cases Getty Images is NOT the copyright holder. Is some cases they are not even the "exclusive" representative of an image.

164

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 10, 2013, 12:33:08 PM »

The Getty-v-Virtual-Clinics is an interesting "get" Greg. It appears that Getty is targeting someone who is both going over the top with pirating images Getty claims to represent, as well as people with a previous criminal record. These individuals also host a few sites that are critical of Getty: http://www.stopgettyimages.com

Hard to know who to root for here. If Virtual Clinics is taking stock footage, adding some spots or re-touching it slightly, and then claiming they don't owe Getty for the image, that's a fight they won't win. But if they licensed the image elsewhere or can prove that it was offered for free elsewhere prior to Getty "exclusively" representing it, Virtual Clinics may prevail.

It seems pretty sneaky for Getty to try and register a copyright now. I don't think that will hold up. (See previous post.)

This will be interesting to watch. I think Getty did some calculations and decided that this one had a good chance of returning a default judgement and was worth pursuing. How did this end up in the Washington AG collection anyway?

165

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 10, 2013, 12:22:17 PM »

In 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as follows, concerning "retro active copyrights": "The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that all retroactive copyright transfers and licenses are invalid. In Davis v. Blige,—F.3d—, 2007 WL 2893003, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1353 (2d Cir. 2007), the court found that 'retroactive transfers violate the basic principles of tort and contract law, and undermine the policies embodied by the Copyright Act.' Although the decision appears sound under the facts of the case, its broad conclusions could have far-reaching effects in the world of copyright licensing."

Source: http://www.stopgettyimages.com/getty_images_extortion_attempts.htm