Getty Screen Shot

[WellWellWell]

Hello had the standard letter blah blah
However the site has been changed completely since the screenshot was taken, it is not entirely clear from the screen shot when it was taken.
The old site is not on Wayback or on any servers.
So my question is what proof is the screen shot, not suggesting that anyone would mock one up but it is entirely possible they could isn't it?
Could i just deny that was ever my site?
 

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

It could be that Pic-Scout got the image a long time ago and someone is just getting around to looking at it.  I'm sure there is a huge back log of images needing to be looked at be a human for determination.

Long story short, there are so many images out there on sites that Getty and their ilk can send letters to that they don't need to make anything up.

[WellWellWell]

Thanks for your reply Greg, I realise that Getty don't fake screen shots but I guess what I m trying to say is if a fairly low res screen shot is all they have and there is no trace of that site anywhere anymore, surely thats not proof enough, anyone could have put that site up, with the alleged misused image, for example a competitor trying to drop me in it, even if it clearly shows the URL , URL masking is easy so that proofs nothing.

 

[JLorimer]

I came here with the exact same kind of thinking when I first received my complaint.  I think the average person, especially one with some technical knowledge, lives in a world where this argument makes sense and the average person aims to be generally fair.  The problem is that you have now entered the world of those who seek astronomically unrealistic damages for minor offenses.  Their world is built around this sort of thing.  They litigate and manipulate the system so it works best to their advantage.

If you haven't already, read around the forums and educate yourself.  I highly recommend going to the youtube channel and watching ELI videos as well.  I think you'll find that screenshots generally aren't enough proof.  However, there are a lot of other things you probably want to get into since arguing against the legitimacy of a screenshot may not be enough. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

You also need to keep in mind a screen shot only shows the image in question appeared on the site, it does not prove that the image was hosted on the site, it could have been linked from an outside source, therefore it would not be a "copy"...thus weakening their case.

[spacecadet]

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.

[Couch_Potato]

Not true.

Section 20 2 b states:

"the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them."

If you did not host the image then you have way to control how it can be accessed so it would be a stretch that linking to an image would be considered an infringement.

[cptKernow]

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.

[RexM]

Hi all,
I am also in the same boat with Artradius hounding me for an image that is no longer on a my site. The interesting thing is the screen shot. If you look at the mock up below you can clearly see one of my images (the dog with 44 under it) on their celebrity pages. I put this image there so surely there screen shots could also be faked...
http://www.pawsobedience.esy.es/Ghetty_Proof.jpg


RexM