SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 15 of 33 FirstFirst ... 511121314151617181925 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 808
  1. #351
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Archive.org

    W.r.t. www.archive.org

    If you take a look at old pages there you will see that they are only storing the html page. If the page has embedded images which are still stored on your server then they will be displayed in the page.

    This means that picscout is not looking at an image stored at archive.org, it is looking in your images directory for images.

    So it is worth going to your server and cleaning out the orphan images.

  2. #352
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OK - Had the second letter demanding money with menaces!!!!

    Can't wait till they take me to court!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I really am looking forward to them using a Barrister (as they will do) and me myself standing up against them as a lowly "civilian".

    BRING IT ON GETTY!!!!!!!!

    See you in Court

  3. #353
    SitePoint Enthusiast Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    ModxVille
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Yet Another View Post
    OK - Had the second letter demanding money with menaces!!!!

    Can't wait till they take me to court!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I really am looking forward to them using a Barrister (as they will do) and me myself standing up against them as a lowly "civilian".

    BRING IT ON GETTY!!!!!!!!

    See you in Court
    Depending on your circumstances, it's not really in anyone's interests to see you get beaten up by an attorney - they'd love the chance to make an example of someone if they haven't already, taking it on without representation could be an easy ticket for them. Maybe you could post back here before court action takes place?

  4. #354
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They are avoiding taking people to court, and my guess is that they know it would cost them way too much money, and they also know that their legal ground is shaky. Off the top of my head...

    * A US company, sending letters from within the UK, attempting to charge irish tax is bad enough, but with no vat number on the invoices? Isn't this illegal in itself?

    * Most of you didn't obtain these images from their site and there are no visible signs of copyright/watermark. Therefore at the time of alleged infringement, you did not know you were infringing on their copyright - and as soon as you were made aware, you removed the images.

    * They never sent any cease and desist.

    * They have not sent you any proof of their own copyright of the image, and in court they would need to proof without any doubt that they owned the copyright of the image at the time of infringement.

    * The letters they have sent you were not sent via any kind of recorded/certified mail - and therefore there is no record that you have even been made aware of the infringement.

    * The repeated letters (despite some of you having already contacted them to resolve the situation) could easily be seen as harassing - especially if they sent a debt collector to your door without ever confirming you received their previous letters and without any kind of court judgement.

    * Without a court judgement, I do not believe there is any legal obligation for you to pay their invoice.

    * According to some people on this forum, some of us have already assigned lawyers to their case, and despite the lawyer having contacted them....they failed to acknowledge the lawyer and continued to contact the client directly. This is a huge legal no-no, and just serves to prove how closely they are really monitoring our cases.

    * A screenshot of your site is not evidence, and as many of us have already stated...you could easily turn up in court with a picture of their site photoshop'd to contain a image that you just drew in mspaint. How can anyone argue that yours is definately a fake and that theirs is definately real?

    Remember, they are sending you these letters claiming amounts of money that make no sense (even if you check the prices of the images on their site), with Irish VAT and no valid vat number provided, and most importantly WITH NO COURT JUDGEMENT. The fact that they are sending debt collectors to peoples doors without a court judgement or any legal proof that you owe them money, speaks volumes - they know that if they go to court, it will cost them more $$$ than its worth, and there is a very good chance that will either lose or be counter-sued.

    In my opinion - relax...lay low...and if any debt collector comes by - send them packing with a firm warning that you know your rights, that you wont be harassed. They seem to want you to pay out of fear....don't.

  5. #355
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Can a business or individual get a bed credit record for not paying these ridiculous demands? How far down the line does it need to go before this happens? If it gets handed over to the debt collectors can that affect your credit record?

  6. #356
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There was some info on this earlier in the thread I believe. This should not affect your credit - remember that at the moment all you have is an invoice (for a arbitrary amount) from a company that you had previously probably never heard of, for a item that you never knew was copyrighted (and never received a cease + desist for).

    You are not obliged to pay that invoice, unless they go to court and get a judgement against you....until then, the invoice is "in dispute" and they have no right taking any action that may affect your credit. If they do, it's easily harassment and the law would be on your side.

    Read back through this thread, there was definitely some useful information on this topic earlier. From page 6:

    "Man, too bad you guys aren't here in the States. I'd tell you how to squash the collection agencies like a bug for doing that (for those here in the USA, what the bill collectors in kristianp's post did would be considered a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if the action was taken here inside the US) if you were."

  7. #357
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    DaveUK100, your post above with the bullet points is a very good summation of the situation.

    My 2c ...

    1. Debt collectors cannot affect your credit rating without some sort of court order. Picture the scene ... I find a random web site online, send them a made-up invoice for services which I didn't supply them with (which is 4 times the going rate anway) and they don't pay (obviously). Then I expect credit companies to back me up when I ask for the web site owner to be placed on a 'bad credit ratings' list for not paying? They would laugh so loud that they might burst their bellies. So, don't be scared by threats from Moreton Smyth or any other 'heavy' used by Getty.

    If Getty, Moreton Smyth or any other Getty side-kick rings you, here's what to say ...

    1. "I dispute the invoice" (You don't have to explain to Moreton Smyth why you dispute it. Just shut up and refuse to answer the question.)

    2. When Moreton Smyth persist say this... (for UK people) "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 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.”

    3. Then tell them you are going to hang up the phone, wait 5 seconds and then terminate the call.

    Finally, a word of advice to those who only recently have received a Getty love-letter ... my friend has went through all of this - it is a very disturbing, distracting and worrying time and your head wants to pay it before you go mad with worry but you have to be brave and face these gangsters down. Let Getty pick off the easy 'corporate' targets for $$$$$ - just keep your head down. There are many, many people who have been notified by Getty many months ago and you will find out, through time, what action (if any) Getty intends to take long before they get around to you. That being the case, why worry about things now which may never happen anyway? Take the image(s) down, remove them from your web space, remove your site from archive.org and get on with your life.

    Sal.

  8. #358
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The worst thing is that my uncle used to be an oil tanker captain working for Mr. Getty and knew him very well. In his opinion the big man would turn in his grave if he knew that one of his companies was doing something like this.

    Obviously things have slipped a lot since Paul was in charge.

  9. #359
    SitePoint Zealot NinjaNoodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SallyM View Post
    DaveUK100, your post above with the bullet points is a very good summation of the situation.

    My 2c ...

    1. Debt collectors cannot affect your credit rating without some sort of court order. Picture the scene ... I find a random web site online, send them a made-up invoice for services which I didn't supply them with (which is 4 times the going rate anway) and they don't pay (obviously). Then I expect credit companies to back me up when I ask for the web site owner to be placed on a 'bad credit ratings' list for not paying? They would laugh so loud that they might burst their bellies. So, don't be scared by threats from Moreton Smyth or any other 'heavy' used by Getty.

    If Getty, Moreton Smyth or any other Getty side-kick rings you, here's what to say ...

    1. "I dispute the invoice" (You don't have to explain to Moreton Smyth why you dispute it. Just shut up and refuse to answer the question.)

    2. When Moreton Smyth persist say this... (for UK people) "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 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.”

    3. Then tell them you are going to hang up the phone, wait 5 seconds and then terminate the call.

    Finally, a word of advice to those who only recently have received a Getty love-letter ... my friend has went through all of this - it is a very disturbing, distracting and worrying time and your head wants to pay it before you go mad with worry but you have to be brave and face these gangsters down. Let Getty pick off the easy 'corporate' targets for $$$$$ - just keep your head down. There are many, many people who have been notified by Getty many months ago and you will find out, through time, what action (if any) Getty intends to take long before they get around to you. That being the case, why worry about things now which may never happen anyway? Take the image(s) down, remove them from your web space, remove your site from archive.org and get on with your life.

    Sal.
    Well said.

  10. #360
    SitePoint Enthusiast Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    ModxVille
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveUK100 View Post
    There was some info on this earlier in the thread I believe. This should not affect your credit
    "Might not" is a safer bet, its possible to be considered a "security risk" - which is a tactic some debt collection agencies employ like an underlying "reputation system", proven or not, your guilty until someone tells the computer otherwise.

    It's all very illegal and underhanded, but the business of debt collection is rarely above board. People in the business of lending money or securities will have access to this 'reputations system', and base their judgements about you on "any" information they can get, since their jobs depend on risk management, they'll take the safe track everytime, irrespective of the accuracy of the information the mere suggestion is enough of a taint to ruin any good credit history you've established in the past.

    That's why instances like this shouldn't be taken lightly, almost worth firing off a warning letter to Getty that any wrongly alledged debt will result in legal action for the recovery of all and any damages suffered as a result of any defamatory or misleading information Getty publish about you or your company to any third party - including debt collectors or agencies.

    Protect your integrity, by any means necessary - and don't be caught offguard.

  11. #361
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    With regards to getting a bad credit record, I found the following on the Moreton Smith (debt collectors) website:

    Moreton Smith International hosts the companychecker payment database. It is the world’s only free on-line credit circle providing payment information supplied by our members.

    The database links payment data by company name, address and contact numbers.

    Suppliers of trade credit can register and view debts on this site by applying on-line for membership.
    Surely companies not paying the Getty invoices will end up on this database. Im not sure who, if anyone really uses it but it might make things difficult for companies who purchase stock etc on credit.

  12. #362
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    5 year old images still there

    Hello -

    Someone asked me about images that were taken down. I looked up my sites on archive.org and YES. Believe it or not, the very first web site I designed for myself is still out there.

    What bothers me is that, this is perosal information that is available to people around the world. This is MY personal information that I choose to share on the internet or not. If someone is archiving it and still showing it, it violates me and maddens me. It's like someone taking my old photo album and sharing it.

    I'm now more mad about the fact that archive.org and others are doing this than I am at Getty. My beef is about privacy at this point.

    What about you?

    P.S. I did remove all the old images in my folders and many times I even had the images renamed something I could recognize. I also had images as part of a montage done in Photoshop so there is no way of tracing the images original Getty name. But they still find them.

  13. #363
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Personal Information

    Well I just checked again and this really bothers me.

    I have clients who have asked that certain information be removed from their sites for various reasons from spammers and identity theft to partners who are no longer with the organization.

    Archive.org keeps this information available to anyone who wants its.

    My clients have a huge amount of spam mail coming in and I've done everything in my power to keep it out and to redesign websites to help keep it out and yet it is still available through the archives.

    There has got to be a way of permanently removing yourself from cyber space. If not, be prepared to have our most personal and business information out there for anyone to find.

    I for one am glad this site has enlightened me to the things going on out there and am taking it to a lawyer. Privacy is still a right in this country right? Maybe not.

  14. #364
    SitePoint Enthusiast Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    ModxVille
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Unfortunately archive.org store snapshots of the web which I'm sure they do for reasons not including infringing on you or your clients privacy.

    I guess cases like yours would appear to highlight a potential downside to what their doing.

    One of the unofficial rules of cyberspace is if you don't want people knowing about something, don't put in on the public domain - its unfortunate in this case that your criteria for whats published and whats not, has changed after the fact.

    I was wondering if you had contacted archive.org and asked them to remove the information thats the source of your boggle ?

  15. #365
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    fillydeva,

    If you want to remove file form www.archive.org, the link below will lead you to the instructions on how to stop any of your web sites from being archived in the "wayback machine", we came found these instructions, and the change happened instantly. We applied this all of our websites.

    http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php

    Hope this is helpful to you or anyone else in the same situation.

  16. #366
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Got this bt e-mail from Getty

    Thank you for your attention and response to this matter.

    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 CD collection of imagery, 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 your use. It is very important to ensure the origin of where the image comes from prior adding the image to a website.

    Copyright law covers both willful and accidental infringement. Regardless of the infringer's intent, the copyright holder is entitled to compensation for the use of their imagery. 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.

    Getty Images appreciates the removal of its represented images from your organization'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 XX% - totaling the settlement demand at £XXXXX. Payment must be received by XXXXXXXXXXXXX. Please be in touch with our department so we may resolve this as quickly and as amicably as possible.
    Kind Regards,
    Chloe Surdyk

    Chloe Surdyk
    License Compliance Specialist
    Getty Images License Compliance
    licensecompliance@gettyimages.com

    ________________________________________


    Getty Images Headquarters
    601 North 34th Street
    Seattle, WA 98103 USA
    Phone: 1.800.972.4170
    Fax: 1.206.925.5001
    Parts deleted to provide anonimity.

    There was also a big bit about not distributing the content of the e-mail

    PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
    This message may contain privileged or confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail or any attachments hereto. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system without copying or disclosing the contents. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Getty Images, 601 N 34th St, Seattle, WA. 98103, USA, www.gettyimages.com. PLEASE NOTE that all incoming e-mails will be automatically scanned by us and by an external service provider to eliminate unsolicited promotional e-mails ("spam"). This could result in deletion of a legitimate e-mail before it is read by its intended recipient at our firm. Please tell us if you have concerns about this automatic filtering
    As far as I'm concerned anyone who wants to use or quote this is quite welcome to do so.

    Hey Chloe how does it feel working for an organisation that, in my humble opinion, is no better than terrorists and extortionists.

  17. #367
    SitePoint Zealot NinjaNoodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Doplar, know your rights before you respond to that message.

  18. #368
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    this "robots.txt" file.

    It will not remove me from robots from sites like google and yahoo will it? From what i can see, using the robots.txt file will stop any site from viewing my content, and as such your site will not appear in search engines in the future?
    Can anyone shed any light on this? I have emailed them direct, but zero response so far.

    Oh, and still no return call from Getty.

  19. #369
    SitePoint Enthusiast Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    ModxVille
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Depends how you were planning to use robots.txt file ? Is this part of the instructions to be excluded from archive.org ?

  20. #370
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The robots.txt file only works with the agents that you set it to work with. For instance if you have a robots.txt with just the following in it:

    User-agent: ia_archiver
    Disallow: /


    this will only stop you getting listed on archive.org (Alexa crawler) it won't affect Google etc.
    There are specific lines of text you would need to add in order to affect Google etc.

  21. #371
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Wink Alert Other Users

    This was mentioned before but deserves more attention as other people are searching for this info - PLEASE post the following code onto any web pages you can (websites, forums posts and signatures, blogs, comments, personal profile pages, etc) - the more the merrier!

    <a href="http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902" title="unauthorised use of getty images"><strong>Unauthorised use of Getty Images</strong></a>
    <a href="http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902" title="getty images"><strong>Getty Images</strong></a>

    This will help others and p*ss off Getty big time!

    if you want to use BB code in your forum posts or sigs here it is (i did!) - remove the asterisks from it though first!!

    [*URL="http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902"]Unauthorised Use of Getty Images[*/URL]
    [*URL="http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902"]Getty Images[*/URL]


    will show as (once asterisk removed):

    Unauthorised Use of Getty Images
    Getty Images

  22. #372
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Getty VAT

    As you may have noticed Getty are issuing “NON VAT Invoices” with a UK address, but with Irish VAT and an Irish VAT number. If that has been sent to a UK business that is VAT registered it is probably wrong. It is also very dubious and bordering on illegal way of including VAT on a non-tax invoice. Plus for anybody that has paid, are you going to worry if you get a VAT invoice back? No. Therefore this appears to be a good way of hiding the payment from the VAT authorities. That could mean a lot of money for them especially as Irish VAT is currently 21% rather than the UK rate of 17.5%.

    I can't elaborate on a public forum, but I would STRONGLY urge anybody in the UK or Europe that has a received a UK addressed letter with Irish VAT to contact their tax authorities immediately. In UK I suggest to contact the Customs Confidential section as below.

    Phone: 0800 595 000
    E-mail: Customs.Confidential@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk
    Fax: 0800 528 0506 (e.g. to fax a copy of the invoice)
    Postal address:
    Customs Confidential
    Freepost SEA 939
    PO Box 100
    Gravesend
    DA12 2BR

    It is confidential; you don’t leave any details of who you are etc.

    Getty’s Irish VAT no is IE9988348J, the tel number for the Irish Large Trader section to report it is 00353 1-6470710, email:- largecasesdiv@revenue.ie

    I have found out that the Getty Images UK office is registered for VAT here.

    Please do take time to do this, as I said I can't elaborate on a public forum, but I really would STRONGLY urge you all to do this.

  23. #373
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    we are being threatened with legal action to pay $18,000 for 5 images that we uploaded from an art student 2/3 years ago. Getty claim our images had been photoshoped to their original ones. Upon receiving their demand letter i immediately withdrew the 5 images in question.
    Notwithstanding s97 they claim they have legal precedents that they can still obtain 'damages' however they have not presented any cases to support this issue.
    Two facts i have gleaned is that Getty images vary in price throughout the world. They claim the location of your business is the deciding factor. When i viewed one of the images on Getty it was £1,200 in the uk but £400 in the US. I queried this with 'sharon' of getty images who said 'so what that image is only $25 in China.' Blatant price rigging of this nature falls foul of the Uk competition Acts as well as various other legislation. A point worth making in any defence.
    Secondly their web-site is completely inaccessible to disabled users. It has 63 verification errors on their image cat index. This means they are wide open for a counterclaim/prosection under current Uk disability discrimination legilastion. I wondered if anyone is making such a claim against getty.

  24. #374
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    'When was the last time your took some food and ate it without paying or ate at a restaurant and walked off?'

    It’s NOT THE SAME!!!!! What is happening is innocent people are buying food from a restaurant and then having their food snatched away whilst being told to pay $9,000 extra because the restaurant was not licensed by Getty to sell it.

    If you work for Getty then perhaps you could explain why the same image costs $400 in the US, $1600 in the Uk and $25 in China ??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Perhaps also advise why your site is totally inaccessible to disabled users with 63 W3C validation errors!!!!!!!!!!

  25. #375
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Heres an idea.
    To all those affected by getty images and concerned about the legal costs of defending an action why not all liase and meet. Firstly we could all share the burden of obtaining a sound copyright specialist defence which will more or less be the same for everyone, secondly we could act as a support group to those who are particularly anxious at the stress caused by getty, thirdly we could share ideas/evidence/comments etc.
    Anyone intrested.


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
  •