SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 12 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 808
  1. #276
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello - has anybody progressed through the collections stage or a legal suit yet? I've been ignoring Getty for the past month plus and am waiting for their next notification. Thanks.

  2. #277
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JaredS
    Hello - has anybody progressed through the collections stage or a legal suit yet? I've been ignoring Getty for the past month plus and am waiting for their next notification. Thanks.
    They have sent my corporation to collection for their invoice amount. in the early stages right now, first 30 days, my corp has sent the agency 1 letter, awaiting their responce. My first notice from Getty was in July.

  3. #278
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    isn't the answer right here:

    http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyr...?NoticeID=4906

    Even though Getty owns the copyright, there is no way they file for a copyright on every image and therefore:

    "A copyright owner can only sue for infringement on a work whose copyright was registered with the Copyright Office, and can get statutory damages and attorney's fees only if the copyright registration was filed before infringement or within three months of first publication."
    Last edited by ZonePlate; Nov 10, 2006 at 21:44.

  4. #279
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I understand the value of image licensing. Our firm always purchased rights for images, many from Getty.

    My problem lies within the way Getty Images representatives treated me on the phone. I said the image in question was a major part of the design, and that's why we carved out a considerable budget for licensing the image. Their reply? "Sounds like we need to investigate that your usage is even greater. This is big. If you want to save face..."

    Save face? Is this professional?

    They continued berating, saying they could guarantee the image was not licensed properly, or long enough.

    According to their records, we'd only licensed 2 images. Logging in to our account, I had listed over 20. Sadly, the one in question was not listed. However, this makes me think their records are incomplete.

    Sadly, I could not log in to our Tony Stone account, where we purchased the image in 2002. Getty folded that site into their umbrella site later.

    So we're resolving the issue, but I was not, and am still not satisfied that they treated me as a customer. In over 10 years in this industry, I've never felt this dissatisfied with my experience.

    Trying to contact customer service to voice my concern put me back in the licensing loop on the phone.

    I encourage everyone to stop using Getty for any purposes.

    Perhaps a separate thread of Getty alternatives is in order.

    Post note: Here is a thread for alternatives:
    Alternatives to Getty Images

  5. #280
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,833
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rescueranger
    Getty are counting on enough people paying up in this initial purge to cover the costs to picscout before they get slapped down and are forced to go back to sending cease and desist notices again.
    According to Picscout's terms, they get 50% of whatever the copyright holder collects. That is why the amount is so high.

    Picscout charges a subscription fee plus 50% of whatever is collected. But is Picscout paying for the bandwidth they are using? I'd have to imagine that if someone has a large site with lots of images, Picscout could suck down gigs of bandwidth all with no benefit to the webmaster.

  6. #281
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cheesedude
    Picscout could suck down gigs of bandwidth all with no benefit to the webmaster.
    That's the thing that bothers me the most about this mess.

    Picscout has a bot that is trawling the web - apparently - spoofing as a normal web browser. It is sucking up bandwidth that is not provided for commercial usage. This means that Picscout & Getty are leeching bandwidth from the majority in order to trap a minority.
    Last edited by ticksoft; Nov 12, 2006 at 15:08.

  7. #282
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    IncrediBILL may have found a way to identify them .
    http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...&postcount=273

  8. #283
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bizwiseit
    Guess what, I have now had an email today, 08/11/06 from Getty & Co with a scan of the letter I sent them last month, It says:-
    *******************
    To Whom It May Concern,

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. We are in receipt of your correspondence dated September 27, 2006. Getty Images apologizes for the delay of our response. We are in the process of reviewing open and unresolved unauthorized image use cases.

    As the end user of Getty Images' imagery, you are ultimately responsible for insuring that you have obtained the appropriate rights to use the imagery. That means that if you acquire imagery from a web template provider or other such company, you are still liable for copyright infringement if that provider or other such company did not properly license the imagery for you use. Copyright law covers both willful and accidental infringement and it is the responsibility of the end user to ensure that any content that is copied, publicly displayed or publicly distributed does not infringe any copyrights. Regardless of the infringer's intent, the copyright holder is entitled to damages. It is also not necessarily the case that a copyrighted image would have a watermark or a notice of copyright since copyright exists the moment a work, such as a photograph, is created. Any unauthorized use constitutes copyright infringement, for which Getty Images is entitled to recover a retroactive fee. Again, anyone who copies, publicly displays or publicly distributes a photograph, infringes the copyright whether it was aware that the use was infringing or not.

    With respect to the 1988 Act, while efforts to identify the copyright owner may, if proven, be taken into account by the Court when calculating the level of damages, it would not negate liability on the question of infringement which is strict liability. Infringement includes "reproducing work in any material form" and is universally recognized to include electronically in an intangible form. The innocent infringer may have less monetary liability than a willful infringer, but as previously mentioned, the innocent infringer is still be liable for damages for copyright infringement and be subject to other judicial remedies. Further, the Act applies to service providers, not to individual's or business' websites.

    Getty Images appreciates the removal of its represented images from your company's website. However, removal of the images in question solves only part the issue, as Getty Images will continue to require full payment of the settlement demand to settle the matter and avoid further escalation.

    At this time Getty Images can offer conditional discount on the demand by 20% - totaling the settlement demand at £1080.00. Payment must be received by November 15, 2006. Please be in touch with our department so we may resolve this as quickly and as amicably as possible.
    ********************
    So to those in the UK, what do you all think about the above ?

    Especially the 3rd paragraph and statement about the 1998 UK Copy Right Act etc and what they have written "the innocent infringer is still be liable for damages for copyright infringement and be subject to other judicial remedies. Further, the Act applies to service providers, not to individual's or business' websites.”
    I received two invoices, a month apart, and responded by registered post to their London address. I received an email which was identical to yours and thought that I would probably have to pay. I stupidly sent them a reply (out of fear) yesterday asking if I could pay in instalment. After finding this thread today, I have resent the email with a header saying that I rescind the offer and am taking legal advice, to buy myself some time. I was pretty much resigned to paying but after reading all of this, I think I'll risk it and not pay. I'm a sole trader and can't afford this kind of money.

  9. #284
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anyone got any update on their situation?

  10. #285
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A client I worked for 6 years ago, recieved the Getty invoice for £8000! At the time, the images I used were from a site which had them as available with no usage restrictions, but as it was 6 years ago, I don't have a url. The images hadn't been used over the past year as the site had been redesigned, but the images had been held in a directory marked old_site, which is where I presumed picscout picked them up from. I contacted Getty, explaining that I had used the images in good faith, believing them to be restriction free, and that although the images were no longer in use in the time frame that picscount had crawled the site, I had still deleted them from the obsolete directory in accordance with the DMCA takedown policy. I assumed for responsibility for the images, stating that my client was not responsible for the site, wanting to take tye pressure off them, and allow me to deal with Getty. Yesterday, I recieved the following email from Getty:

    Dear Mr. xx

    Thank you for your email.

    It is your client, xx, which will be pursued for this copyright infringement.

    The DMCA takedown regulation applies only to ISPs and is not relevant in this case. We encourage infringers to seek legal advice to confirm the situation.

    Getty Image will continue to pursue xx for payment of our settlement demand in compensation for the copyright infringement that occured on the company's website. If no settlement is reached, the case will be escalated to our Legal Department for further action.

    Regards,


    My question is, I want to relieve the onus from my client from 6 years ago, and my accepting responsibility for the site, I would have thought that this would have been enough, apparently not?

  11. #286
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LockyBoy
    A client I worked for 6 years ago, recieved the Getty invoice for £8000! At the time, the images I used were from a site which had them as available with no usage restrictions, but as it was 6 years ago, I don't have a url. The images hadn't been used over the past year as the site had been redesigned, but the images had been held in a directory marked old_site, which is where I presumed picscout picked them up from.
    if the images weren't being publically displayed - what infringement took place?

  12. #287
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    has anybody here been dinged for uploads to message boards?

  13. #288
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This company completely sucks !!!

    What a bunch of putrid *** swipes !

  14. #289
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    **** swipes

  15. #290
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This has proved a really useful thread.

    I run a very small U.K based company working with a partner. We had a website designed ten months ago by a friend who runs a marketing company and were assured that the photos used in the sites design were 'free'. We today recieved a letter from Getty asking for £6000 + VAT dating from april 06 to the end of november 06, however having recieved a letter from Corbis regarding to images they claim to own last month demanding nearly £10,000 our site has been offline for the last month. Clearly i am shocked and astouinded that i am to beheld responsible for images i had no right i was illegally using and took down as soon as informed of to do so.

    It seems to me like flat out robbery. I would be more than happy to pay a reasonable fee to apologise for any inconvenience caused but to ask for such astonomical amounts of money seems ludicrous, surely no business can ever afford to pay this.

    I have tried to seek legal advice but have as yet found it very unhelpful, both myself and my business partner are panicing about the implications of these charges and don't know what our next step should be.

    Any advice on what to do, considering we paid a professional to design our site would be greatly appreciated.

    I cannot believe people are allowed to get away with this!

  16. #291
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, check YOUR contract with the person who designed the site. If it says the site designer is responsible for the images and content, forward it to Getty and Corbis and let them deal with the designer. Then tell them that you are willing to work with them to ensure that the site designer is held responsible.

  17. #292
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the heads up
    ««▌http://www.megaphile.com/
    ««▌1000 MB File Size Limit
    ««▌Unmetered Transfer
    ««▌99.99% Uptime

  18. #293
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I posted here some months ago regarding my letter I received from Getty Images. I had purchased a template website over 3 years ago and received a letter from Getty demanding over €2000 for a single image that they said was theirs. I took down the image immediately and a little later the entire website.

    We ignored the invoices and calls from Getty, a few weeks later we got fax and then a call from Morton Smith their UK collection agency (we are not in the UK) demanding payment + interest

    So I contacted Getty to explain that we purchased this template providing proof of purchase and a copy of the EULA stating I could use the “contents” of the template. But like many on this forum I got the standard response that they did not care and wanted the money and offered 20% discount if I paid within 3 days.

    So Morton Smith call again and taking advice form the many helpful posts on this forum I asked for copy documents backing up their claims and proof of copyright and also explained that the Invoice was in dispute and as far as I was concerned not legitimate as the VAT was incorrect (UK VAT)

    That was over seven weeks ago and I have heard noting from them since, As far as I am concerned the matter is closed. I think they are going after those they can panic into paying, their emphasis seem to be on getting your money as quickly as possible before you have time to consider you options hence the pressure calls and offers of discounts if you pay quickly.

    I don’t condone copyright infringement, but I and many others here did not intentionally use Getty images on their website. How would you know?

  19. #294
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinx99
    That was over seven weeks ago and I have heard noting from them since, As far as I am concerned the matter is closed. I think they are going after those they can panic into paying, their emphasis seem to be on getting your money as quickly as possible before you have time to consider you options hence the pressure calls and offers of discounts if you pay quickly.
    My mate went through the same and also was hassled by Moreton Smith too for a few weeks but hasn't heard from them (nor Getty) in two months. Getty seem to dump the 'problem' on Moreton Smith to see if they can finally screw anything out of the recipient.

    Jinx99, I think your last sentence I've quoted is a great summary of what Getty appear to be doing. It takes a stiff resolve to stand firm in the face of their pressure and extortionate tactics but it appears to be worthwhile facing them down.

    At the end of the day, for small infringers, from what I read here it looks like Getty wouldn't get anywhere near the damages they invoice for if it went to court, nevermind the costs of taking anyone to court. On that basis, why would anyone pay them, other than to avoid some sleepless nights and have some peace of mind?

    Sal.

  20. #295
    MadCool Webmaster MadCool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    611
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just received the letter for my website as well. It said i was using a good number of pictures that a designer create for me. i hired him from elance. I'm in the US. Should i ignore the letter and take all the pictures down? Any advices?

  21. #296
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Take down the pictures, notify eLance that the designer in question is unlawfully using copyrighted images (show them the Getty letter as proof), and just walk away.

    And of course, do not respond to the Getty letter.

  22. #297
    MadCool Webmaster MadCool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    611
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the advice dan. I'm trying to find out where i can report him on eLance. At least they have proof that i hired him from eLance to do it.
    Last edited by MadCool; Nov 17, 2006 at 15:55.

  23. #298
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That, I can't help you with, since I don't use eLance. But other people here do.
    Last edited by Dan Schulz; Nov 18, 2006 at 23:34. Reason: Name removed by request.

  24. #299
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    PREDICTION (HOT TIP) This company will not exist in 12 months time.

    Morale at Getty must be at an ALL TIME LOW!!! Believe me, when a company resorts to these kinds of tactics, they have LOST DIRECTION. They have lost strategic focus. No company looking to build upon its strategic platform urinates on the leg of its customer base. As a community, we are the very people who determine whether they survive or perish!

    Both management and front-line staff at Getty must be under significant pressure. The company has over extended itself and is now departing from its core strategy in an effort to improve cash flows. This takes its toll on how staff feel about the company.

    I believe the best course of action is silence. If nobody responds to the requests for money from this company, they (Getty) are in a very difficult situation.

    It's very difficult (financially and otherwise) to fight a battle on many fronts.

    Silence in relation to any matter specifically addressed in a letter authored by them or their representatives is the best defense in the game they are playing. However, noise (and lots of it) is the best course of action on-line. Raise the attention of as many developers (and members of the general public) that this company is scamming people. Use any means available to you.

    Stay strong as a community and help incinerate this rabid disease-infested company.

    Hairybob

  25. #300
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While I agree with you in general, I'd give them 24 months before they go under. It's a big ship, so it's going to take a while before it fills with water and submerges below the water line.


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
  •