sickofit, if you’re in the US and received a letter or a phone call from a debt collector regarding the “Getty debt” then do a quick Google search for “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”, “FDCPA”, “Fair Credit Reporting Act”, and “FCRA”
If you don’t find anything useful, post here, and I’ll provide you with the information you need.
Yes, I am in the US…but have only received harassing letters from Getty Images, not from a debt collector. fyi…if a person does not have “proof” from Getty that they actually “own” the pictures in question even after you have requested that from them numerous times, I am being told that you are under no obligation to them. I do have proof that I had the right to use the pictures in question, but from another source…however, I am not required to give that info over to Getty, if Getty is not willing to provide their proof of claim first…THEY are the ones sending out invoices.
looked up getty on the better business bureau web site
here is the link that I found
http://www.thebbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=37000916
May make sense to file some complaints, …no proof of copyright provided to individual being billed, etc.
Exactly sickofit. The burden of proof is on Getty to prove ownership of the images before they can invoice you for any unauthorized use.
I couldn’t quite tell if you had received any collections notices from a debt collector or not so I referred you to the FDCPA and FCRA just in case.
At any rate, it’ll be useful information should you get a notice (or a phone call) from a debt collector regarding this, or any other matter :).
Does anyone know what the worst thing that can happen to you if you comply to take off any images, but decline to pay the unreasonable fees? Can google drop you? Can your host drop you? What is DMCA and how does that impact the situation?
Thanks…
Your host can drop you if Getty writes to them and they don’t feel like dealing with Getty so they will take the easy way out and drop you. Don’t know about Google though.
DMCA can be found here: http://www.google.com/dmca.html
I think what richmondrebel was saying if he ( does take down the images ) but does not pay the extortion fee, if his host ISP will take him down.
I personally dont think so, since you no longer have any images anyone can claim as copyright. Anyone can pipe in with your comments.
I think we all received our letters within that last 45 days. I think this is their trial 1st run at extortion, yet just in case anyone has seen developments beyond the 1st letter.
1st question. Anyone been called or mailed by a collection agency yet?
2nd question. Anyone been notified that your extortion invoice has been increased due to lack of acknowledgement?
…to answer your question 4440500, one of the getty notices went to collections, it was a mom and pop type operation, and the owners thought it was a scam, and just ignored it. (it was one bill totalling $1000)
GETTY sent an invoice for 1k to collections? To what, maybe get $200 after all is said and done, IF the mom and pop dont fight it? Pathetic
I think we all feel that we were found guilty without a trial or even an arrest… No warings at all. The $1,000 is stiff when you didn’t realize that an infringement to a copyright was being done. I think these steps need to be taken:
What else?
Ignore Getty, don’t reply to any correspondance you get from them. Take down the images, keep all your correspondance and hire an attorney.
Now if you went to Getty, got the images without paying for them, and used them on your site (or a client’s site), you’re pretty much screwed. But again, Getty would have to send you a notice first informing you of the violation before invoicing you, IIRC.
Just keep in mind that I am not a lawyer. Best advice I can give is to talk to one.
I talked to a copyright lawyer on the phone when this started. He never heard of Getty Images. He said $1000 was a reasonable price and talking to him would probably cost more than $1000. It figures.
I have not received another email or letter, but hey, it’s still early.
The idea of Getty Images calling a hosting company because a website owner did not pay an invoice is not logical, but obviously Getty is not logical.
I saw the employment ad posted. I need a job <grin>.
Getty won’t call your hosting company because you did not pay your invoice, they will call because you have a copyrighted image on your website or had one. Read about copyright issues on the TOS pages of any hosting company out there. You are right: Getty is not logical!
Someone needs to find/extract the water mark pixels? in the getty images. Then have everyone put those water marks into their own images.
You must have talked to a pricey lawyer in a big city. My small town lawyer wants $150 an hour to work with me, but he does not know if he would do a class action lawsuit. For $75 he will write a letter to Getty for me…
He said he was $300 an hour and wouldn’t be able to advise me unless he could look at all of the information I had and find out if the photo really did belong to Getty. He does practice in a big city and it took me 4 phone calls to find him. He didn’t sound very interested in talking to someone who wouldn’t make him a lot of money.
If it comes to that, I’m sure I can find someone cheaper and more interested.
We need to find some hot shot just out of law school who has the guts, stamina and determination to fight a giant like Getty. Someone who thinks it will further his career and make big name for him/herself. Its all about self-interest in the long run!!
Raad the Wall Street Journal Article on Oct 14, 2006…
Did Getty comply with this law and give proper notice?
I need to read that ACT!!!
Media Titans Pressure
YouTube Over Copyrights
By MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG and KEVIN J. DELANEY
October 14, 2006; Page A3
In an apparent display of saber-rattling aimed at nudging video Web site YouTube Inc. into cutting favorable licensing deals, a number of major media companies have banded together to explore the legal implications of the video site’s unauthorized use of copyright material, people familiar with the matter say. etc…
Legal experts debate how much liability YouTube faces. Some say that YouTube has the benefit of a set of special “safe harbors” enshrined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Under that process, Web-hosting sites such as YouTube have to comply with “takedown” notices that copyright holders may send when they become aware of content uploaded without their permission. Some entertainment companies have privately expressed frustration with the process, since it requires them to track down infringing works on a multitude of video-sharing sites.
“YouTube looks to be on relatively firm legal ground,” said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. But, according to John Palfrey, an intellectual-property professor at Harvard Law School, media companies will argue that YouTube shouldn’t fall within the safe-harbor protections of the copyright law because, among other reasons, YouTube is deriving direct financial benefit from the infringement.
Actually, it’s quite obvious who people should be contacting about this - the Electronic Frontier Foundation - for some reason I totally forgot about them. They were set up for exactly this sort of problem where a big corporation is messing with individuals’ rights on the internet.
Give them all the details you have, and see what they say. It may result in nothing, but it’s worth a try.