Will somebody post the entire wording of the Getty letter please?
Will somebody post the entire wording of the Getty letter please?
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.Originally Posted by mrstock
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.Originally Posted by mrstock
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.
More scare tactics I see - nice .Originally Posted by mrstock
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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by mrstock
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.Originally Posted by mrstock
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.
ditto to that!
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!
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?Originally Posted by mrstock
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!
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.
Save the Internet - Use Opera | May my mother rest in peace: 1943-2009
Dan Schulz - Design Team Advisor | Follow me on Twitter
WordPress SEO Checklist | What WordPress Plugins Do You Use?
Web Standards Curriculum | Image Free Equal Height Columns
plank ...Originally Posted by mrstock
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?Originally Posted by mrstock
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?
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.Originally Posted by Dragster
Getty emailed you? They snail mailed me from the info on my whois record.Originally Posted by jshumko
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.Originally Posted by SortedGeezer
"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.Originally Posted by photoshop250
Why isn't Getty watermarking their images? Because they want people to steal them so they can invoice them.
Says you. Lots of other people, including many attorneys disagree with you.Originally Posted by mrstock
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.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'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.Originally Posted by SydneyJen
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.
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.
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)
For clarification as to what is going on with Corbis and TemplateMonster:
This is related and interesting:
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.
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