SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 5 of 33 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 808
  1. #101
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Getty letter wording

    Will somebody post the entire wording of the Getty letter please?

  2. #102
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    It wuold probably take an offer though to save legal fees.
    Not necessarily true. Many of these claims (under £5000) would be dealt with by the Small Claims track of the County Court, so any legal fees (except for the court fee) would be Getty's problem, not the defendant's, even if the defendant lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    For the most part it would be easier to pay up than go to court. Getty's case is usually CUT and DRIED.
    Not true. We know that Getty are not taking people to court because they know they would lose. They have no case against many defendants for the reasons stated earlier in this thread.

    It is quite possible that Getty themselves are posting in this thread. Don't believe everything you read here that suggests Getty should be taken seriously.

  3. #103
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    The problem is that most people are missing the point. All images taken or created are under copyright. Some images are out of copyright if very old. Getty is simply protecting its investment in acquiring or making those images. You do not need to check if copyright exists. Only who owns it. The pulling down of images from a website and use in print or website, or the copying of any image within defined terms (Copyright Acts) is a form of theft. Copyright infringement is a form of theft.

    I think Getty is being heavy handed in its approach but it is aiming at a reasonable level of compensation. It wuold probably take an offer though to save legal fees. For the most part it would be easier to pay up than go to court. Getty's case is usually CUT and DRIED. Copyright infringement does not rely on intent for the most part. Alo, if you are a director of a company that has used a copyrighted image without permission (which could be free of payment) then you may also receive a CRIMINAL RECORD which would ban you from being a company director. That is not an option.
    More scare tactics I see - nice .

    I imagine Getty is feeling a little uneasy about now.

    One mildly unethical act (in the scheme of things) is not made right by a bigger injustice - extortion.

    Now people are throwing out there the fear of not being able to reach "director level" if you don't pay Getty? This is outrageous. Stop it - stop it now!

    For all of us who personally know judges and attorneys (or are an attorney or judge for that matter), we know unequivacably that Getty has no case against the vast majority of people it is harrassing (as clearly evidenced by the fact that no one here has gone to court) - I suggest you get your information from a better source.

  4. #104
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    me and my brother had a letter too, but from CORBIS (UK).

    same old story though, we had apparently had an image on his site from there, which he actually got from ultravertex.com about 3 years ago. we both agreed that it best to ignore it, for the reasons ive seen other people give above - and hope they piss off. if they do come back, or with a debt collector, we will say what other people have said above - no debt is due.

    absolute *******s, the lot of them. how they sleep at night, i dont know
    Last edited by smithie; Oct 5, 2006 at 07:18.

  5. #105
    Guru Meditation Error gnarly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cheltenham, United Kingdom
    Posts
    692
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    I think Getty is being heavy handed in its approach but it is aiming at a reasonable level of compensation.
    It may be reasonable for them to chase people who have breached their copyright, but as various people have pointed out, they've arguably gone about it in an entirely unlawful way.
    Olly Hodgson
    thinkdrastic.net

  6. #106
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    Alo, if you are a director of a company that has used a copyrighted image without permission (which could be free of payment) then you may also receive a CRIMINAL RECORD which would ban you from being a company director. That is not an option.
    I bet if you had access to the details, you would find that they are going after people who have no intension of becoming a company director. It'll mostly be individuals who run their websites as hobbies or those who are self employeed and make very little.

    Basically the sort of people who don't have access to the kind of money they are demanding... that's the way the internet works - it's dominated by individuals setting up their own sites in their spare time, the more technical knowledge they have, the more professional they appear.
    Last edited by ticksoft; Oct 5, 2006 at 05:53.

  7. #107
    SitePoint Zealot kosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    if you are a director of a company that has used a copyrighted image without permission (which could be free of payment) then you may also receive a CRIMINAL RECORD which would ban you from being a company director.
    You are so full of BS that it is spilling out of your mouth. You might want to find a bathroom and take care of that.

    -Tony
    Outshine - geek blog & free phpBB mods
    Publisher Database - tools & forums for writers
    What Do Women Want? - dating advice for men, from women

  8. #108
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ditto to that!

  9. #109
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally Posted by mrstock
    The problem is that most people are missing the point. All images taken or created are under copyright. Some images are out of copyright if very old. Getty is simply protecting its investment in acquiring or making those images. You do not need to check if copyright exists. Only who owns it. The pulling down of images from a website and use in print or website, or the copying of any image within defined terms (Copyright Acts) is a form of theft. Copyright infringement is a form of theft.


    If getty is simply protecting its investment, maybe they ought to try protecting a little harder, by placing those big watermarks across their images, then most of their images would not be found in 3rd party resources. ...but as I've said before...it is lucrative for them, why would they protect you the consumer, 'we' are making them rich!

  10. #110
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    Will somebody post the entire wording of the Getty letter please?
    And mrstock, why would you us to do that? Would you like us to include all the details ("customer number", invoice date, amount etc) as well? Just so you (i.e. Getty Images) can see who is here?

    I notice that you have just joined Sitepoint for the sole purpose of contributing to this thread. This suggests one of two things:

    1. You have received a letter from Getty Images demanding a lot of money.
    2. You work for Getty Images.

    As the former does not appear to be the case and you clearly support Getty's actions, the latter seems very likely.

    To everyone else, please be aware that Getty are watching us!

  11. #111
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,478
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Two words as far as I'm concerned. LET THEM.

    Why? Because in the end there's nothing they can legally do about it. If they're willing to resort to what appears to be intimidation, harrassment and extortion, in addition to breaking the laws of at least three countries, then they get what they deserve. If they see the writing on the wall, then they should start whistling to a different tune.

  12. #112
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    Will somebody post the entire wording of the Getty letter please?
    plank ...

  13. #113
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    Will somebody post the entire wording of the Getty letter please?
    I posted the entire wording of an email I received from a Getty representative, or did you miss it? The words that are most interesting to me are "Getty understands that this misuse may have been accidental, however, these factors do not excuse..." So they understand I may be innocent, but I still have to pay. Does that really make sense to you?

    If I had copied the photo from their website or had known the image belonged to them, then I would not be here on this forum griping about it along with other people. I live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. I did not come into their house and steal anything. It's incredible how any large corporation would make people pay for something they did not do.

    I received another email a couple of days ago offering a 15% reduction or $850 to settle the invoice. That's big of them (ha) but for someone who never heard of Getty Images before this started, and who can hardly pay a grocery bill, I think I'll use what little money I have to feed my family, thank you very much.

    I do not know if the emails I receive from Getty are from a legal representative or some Joe Shmoe who works there. At least one legal person says I don't have to pay anything, so who do you think I'm going to listen to?

  14. #114
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragster
    Originally Posted by mrstock
    The problem is that most people are missing the point. All images taken or created are under copyright. Some images are out of copyright if very old. Getty is simply protecting its investment in acquiring or making those images. You do not need to check if copyright exists. Only who owns it. The pulling down of images from a website and use in print or website, or the copying of any image within defined terms (Copyright Acts) is a form of theft. Copyright infringement is a form of theft.


    If getty is simply protecting its investment, maybe they ought to try protecting a little harder, by placing those big watermarks across their images, then most of their images would not be found in 3rd party resources. ...but as I've said before...it is lucrative for them, why would they protect you the consumer, 'we' are making them rich!
    I think Getty does not watermark their images so people will steal them and then Getty can go after them. Getty does use a tiny watermark on a corner of each pic, all but invisible to the naked eye. I don't trust them.

  15. #115
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jshumko
    I posted the entire wording of an email I received from a Getty representative, or did you miss it? The words that are most interesting to me are "Getty understands that this misuse may have been accidental, however, these factors do not excuse..." So they understand I may be innocent, but I still have to pay. Does that really make sense to you?

    If I had copied the photo from their website or had known the image belonged to them, then I would not be here on this forum griping about it along with other people. I live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. I did not come into their house and steal anything. It's incredible how any large corporation would make people pay for something they did not do.

    I received another email a couple of days ago offering a 15% reduction or $850 to settle the invoice. That's big of them (ha) but for someone who never heard of Getty Images before this started, and who can hardly pay a grocery bill, I think I'll use what little money I have to feed my family, thank you very much.

    I do not know if the emails I receive from Getty are from a legal representative or some Joe Shmoe who works there. At least one legal person says I don't have to pay anything, so who do you think I'm going to listen to?
    Getty emailed you? They snail mailed me from the info on my whois record.

  16. #116
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SortedGeezer
    And mrstock, why would you us to do that? Would you like us to include all the details ("customer number", invoice date, amount etc) as well? Just so you (i.e. Getty Images) can see who is here?

    I notice that you have just joined Sitepoint for the sole purpose of contributing to this thread. This suggests one of two things:

    1. You have received a letter from Getty Images demanding a lot of money.
    2. You work for Getty Images.

    As the former does not appear to be the case and you clearly support Getty's actions, the latter seems very likely.

    To everyone else, please be aware that Getty are watching us!
    Yup, Getty is watching us. I am sure they are googling their name day and night watching to see what their victims are doing and if they are talking about a class action lawsuit.

  17. #117
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by photoshop250
    Yes but Getty also needs to realize that the person who gave them the images may have also hosted them with other sites as well so there really is no way to tell except by watermark or hotlinking that the image is really from their site......and besides there are billions of sites and trillions of images on the net....do they think they can check them all
    "Images" didn't respond. He came here to make his point and won't respond albeit I am sure he is reading all the posts related to this topic.
    Why isn't Getty watermarking their images? Because they want people to steal them so they can invoice them.

  18. #118
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrstock
    Getty's case is usually CUT and DRIED.
    Says you. Lots of other people, including many attorneys disagree with you.

    Alo, if you are a director of a company that has used a copyrighted image without permission (which could be free of payment) then you may also receive a CRIMINAL RECORD which would ban you from being a company director. That is not an option.
    That is ridiculous. You are just scare-mongering now. You have a better chance of getting a criminal record for your post, than anyone is for unknowingly using copyrighted images on a web page.

  19. #119
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SydneyJen
    Getty emailed you? They snail mailed me from the info on my whois record.
    I've received 3 snail mail letters also, but they aren't getting a response from those. The first letter I ignored because I had never heard of Getty Images and thought it was a hoax. After the second letter, I started Googling them and came across this discussion. I responded via email and then received the email that I posted here. Then I contacted templatemonster.com and sent the requested information to their legal person. A couple of days after that, I received a 3rd letter from Getty. Then 2 days ago I received another email. They can forget about making phone calls because I never answer the phone.

    It's pretty easy to get my contact information off of my website. I don't hide much on the internet and you can find out some by Googling jshumko, except that there is another person who has this id. Shumko is not a popular name, I should find out if we are related. The posts on alldeaf.com, Dave's Garden, afterdawn.com, and sitepoint.com are mine.

    Anyway, Getty would have no trouble finding me if this is what they wanted to do. I doubt though that I alone am important enough to go through the bother. I would be willing to participate in a class action, but other than that I only have enough energy to gripe.

  20. #120
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It appears that i light of the whole issue templatemonster.de seized its business operations.

    http://www.battlinggoliath.com/mboard/viewtopic.php?t=5

  21. #121
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have contacted templatemonster.com via livechat and they will not give me an answer regarding whether or not their templates are free from copyright protected graphics. I have noticed in the past that template monster uses alot of graphics from corbis. So I was just curious.

    I asked them this question just a few seconds ago

    Do you expressly have the rights and documentation to prove that you have licensed the graphic in your templates. They then booted me out of the chat client and will no longer let me in.

    Please everyone in here go do that also.

    My guess is alot of people get templates from template monster and if tempatemonster is stealing images they could be hurting thousands of people.

  22. #122
    SitePoint Zealot cpiwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    119
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's an article from June that says Corbis is sueing templatemonster.com for copyright infringment. (Check that messageboard posted above. That's where I found it)
    Cara

  23. #123
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For clarification as to what is going on with Corbis and TemplateMonster:
    http://www.stockindexonline.com/inde.../1451/start/11
    http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswir..._id=1002913964

    This is related and interesting:
    http://www.templatemonster.com/article100.html

  24. #124
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Template Monster should be shut down.

    Here is the direct link to thier online live support. After speaking with me they have removed the link from thier homepage.

    http://help.template-help.com/chat/i...nel=assistants

  25. #125
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi
    I too received the letter from Getty yesterday and after a search on google, found this forum and relieved that I'm not the only one in this situation. Although I do not condone copyright theft - I believe 95% of us have done this with no intention of deliberatly taking copyrighted images and most will have got them from a 3rd party. I used freewebtemplates.com so presumed that all images were royalty-free. I did not go to getty website and steal the images. As soon as I have received notice, I have taken down my website and removed the images. I think this is all that Getty should expect. Asking for money, is plain extortion.

    I'm now trying to decide the best tactic to take. I've ignored the first letter, since I believe it's a hoax. On subsequent letters, I'm planning on returning them undelivered to the sender with "addressee unknown at this address". If I didnt receive the invoice, I dont have to pay right? Since they didnt send it signed delivery, then they have no prove that I actually got the invoice and I'll deny ever having received it. If they send it signed-for, I'll not pick it up or sign for it, so it'll get returned to them

    I dont believe they can take to court while the invoice is being disputed. The other tatic is to stall and be as much of a pain in the **** as I can possibly be. I'll make them send so many letters and waste time replying that eventually it'll not be worth the claim.

    Here is what I'm preparing to throw at them as part of the dispute:

    1. Getty must provide proof of ownership of the copyright. An screenshot of their image is not sufficient proof. Anyone can claim ownership with a printout. I require the ORIGINAL photograph with the datestamp of the camera sent for my inspection. Or I require written proof that the photograph was logged with the US Copyright office. If the date was after 1988, I require written statement from the photographer that they have requested Getty to represent the copyright interests. Only after these have been proven will I accept Getty as the copyright owner

    2. A screenshot of the alleged image on my website is not sufficient proof, since this can easily be be doctored or manipulated in a photo editing package. If they want I can prove this by superimposing their images on www.microsoft.com to prove that this printout of a screenshot is not proof. They must provide more concrete proof than a doctored image. Anyone can knock up doctored image of a website with any image they want.

    3. They did not follow the DMCA teardown procedure and did not issue a warning to give chance to remove the offending image before sending the invoice

    4. They have broken the UK law 88 by sending a invoice with a harrassment to pay to intended to cause distress.

    It is an offence under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988
    ·to harass of debtors with a view to obtaining payment including the issue of letters which convey a threat or false information with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

    They have sent this letter to cause distress and anxiety so have broken this law.

    5. I'm already preparing a case to counter-sue them for damages for extortion, entrapment and grievance. This case starts at a minimum of £20,000 of damages. So I'll be slinging this counter case against them if they want to take it further.

    Getty, reading this?
    We may be little ants, but we have bloody big bites, and an army of little ants will quickly overpower a giant. Getty, you've pissed off the wrong guys

    TB


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •