Its an extortion scheme pure and simple. Just ignore the letters. http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/attorney-advises-to-just-ignore-the-getty-mccormack-letters/
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > Darren Addy wrote: > >>Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but: In short, your client is screwed >>for using an image they simply took off of the internet. As any lawyer (and >>particularly a lawyer who is a photographer) knows, U.S. Copyright exists >>at the moment of image creation. Getty uses sophisticated software to >>search for images being used. They have more resources than your client to >>keep this going and make their life hell. The truth is that companies like >>Getty make far more money off of infringement than they do from legal >>licensing, these days. > > Pretty much on the money here. I don't know if Getty actually makes > *more* money from infringements than from stock licensing (I don't > have access to their books!) but they do make a lot. > >>The only thing (probably) left to negotiate is the AMOUNT of the infringement. > > Not negotiable. Not with Getty. They just bill what they would have > changed for the usage in question. > >>If the image was NOT actually registered with the U.S. Copyright office, >>your liability is less. > > If it's Getty there's about a 0% chance of the image not being > registered. > >>If your client (or whoever they got the image from) cropped OFF a watermark >>or copyright area, their liability under law is far higher. The only thing >>you are doing now is trying to negotiate for the lowest possible settlement >>without going to court (which would not be in your client's best interests >>because they would LOSE). They are probably looking at 4 figures. > > I had Getty come after me for an image on my web site (long story but > it turned out to be a mistake and they were good about dropping the > whole thing when I talked to them on the phone). The payment they > wanted was around $650.00. Going to court would have cost well into > the 5 figures. And as I understand it, in copyright cases the loser > pays all the legal fees of the winner, so Getty has *nothing* to lose > by going to court if it's really their image. > > Your only hope is that it's one of the Public Domain images Getty has > been selling as their own. But I wouldn't get my hopes up over that: > Not only do those images represent just a tiny fraction of Getty's > catalogue, Getty's currently being sued over that practice so I very > much doubt they're pursuing payments over any of the images in > question at this time — they'll be hoping to keep the matter quiet > until the suits are settled. > > > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.com > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- -- Reduce your Government Footprint -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
