1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Is "Getty" Getting You Down?

Discussion in 'Legal Issues' started by purplepixi, Sep 19, 2006.

  1. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #101
    @mjewel, I agree.

    Keep in mind that, when you boil it down to it's basics, you need to think like a good saleshuman and ask "what do they want"? Well, they want money!!! You need to make it clear, tactically and in a professional manner, that they will not get any $$$ out of you. In the USA, the legality of their tactics is questionable because Getty's burden of proof of ownership is based totally on their say-so. And they deliberately put the value at a figure that takes it out of small claims. that's a roadmap to beating them right there, despite anything the newbie troll chaka here says.

    Keep in mind that I'm not advocating deliberately breaking the law - this is for those that used an image in good faith and were slammed with a dunning letter from Getty - and most of those letters are unenforceable and can be ignored. Why, Chaka, our resident anti-Semite? Because despite your open bigotry, in the USA a legal notice must be certified. First Class Mail is not acceptable for a letter of legal notice. It can be legally ignored.
    SEMrush
    I'm probably the only person here to slip out of paying Getty images ANYTHING and I explained how I did in in a previous post.

    And THAT is why Chaka's posts are as useless as Getty's dunning notices.:D
     
    Corwin, Oct 22, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. Chaka

    Chaka Peon

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #102
    Are you seriously lecturing mjewel about law? That's hilarious! :)

    Nope.

    LOL, nope. Federal Court is the only place you can file infringement cases. You might try actually reading Title 17 sometime.

    You should really study up on the past history of trolling. While contemporary trolling has taken a bit of a nasty turn (with SWATTING and the like), the trolls of the past are really leaps and bounds beyond what you are doing here. It's a bit of a sad effort, really.

    Sure, you can ignore anything. You can ignore certified mail, for that matter. You won't be able to ignore the summons. (Well, you can ignore that, too, but you won't be able to ignore your new $100,000 worth of debt that you can't bankrupt out of.)

    While you are a bit of a moron and you're free to be a moron in this country, sadly, the advice you are putting forth here is likely to cause a great deal of harm to anyone dumb enough to listen to it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2009
    Chaka, Oct 22, 2009 IP
  3. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    847
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #103
    Where did you hear this nonsense?

    Is this a particular kind of legal notice or are you really telling everyone that every legal notice has to be sent certified mail?
     
    browntwn, Oct 22, 2009 IP
  4. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #104
    A court case is about PROOF. If the addressee claims they never received the item, HOW can you prove that first class mail was delivered, hmmm?

    If the addressee does not admit to receiving the mail, it can be claimed to be mis-delivered, or lost, or stolen, or not mailed at all. Right?

    This is especially true here in Boston, where mis-delivery of first-class mail has become an epidemic (I ask for FedEx delivery on all important documents).

    With certified mail, there is proof of delivery and a signature. It's delivery cannot be disputed in a court of law.

    Got it???

    Ah, Chaka. Ready to spew your misinformation, are you? You seem long on rhetoric and very short on any actual facts.

    Explain to me how certified mail can be ignored. If the court shows you the receipt with your signature on it, explain to me how certified mail can be ignored. Explain how you can claim that an item that was proven to be delivered to your house, with your signature on it, can be ignored. Lots of lawyers would love to hear your answer, bucko.

    Thanks for further proving your utter ignorance in this matter. Your pathetic insults prove your incompetence.

    While you are totally ignorant and you're free to be ignorant in this country, sadly, Chaka, the advice you are putting forth here is likely to cause a great deal of harm to anyone silly enough to listen to it.

    Chaka, you do for bullshit what Stonehenge did for rocks!:D
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
    Corwin, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  5. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    847
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #105
    No, I don't get it because that is not a correct statement of the law. I guess this is what happens when people just guess about what the law is and then have the balls to tell other people how right they are. Go on and keep making an ass of yourself - I am enjoying it.


    Try reading a law book or asking a lawyer. Just because you don't know is your whole justification for telling people "First Class Mail is not acceptable for a letter of legal notice. It can be legally ignored."

    So, in other words you just made it up that you can ignore those letters. That is really pretty lame.
     
    browntwn, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  6. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #106
    Why? Because you don't understand the issue? or you don't want to admit you are out of your league? Why are you afriad to answer my question - how do you prove a first-class letter was delivered?

    I'll ask you again - HOW do you PROVE in a court of law that a first-class letter was delivered?

    Consider this legal cross-examination
    Lawyer: Did you receive the Plantiff's first-class letter?
    Defendant: No
    Lawyer: ??????


    What does the lawyer say next?
     
    Corwin, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  7. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    847
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #107
    I will take these one at a time.

    1. I am confident I understand the issue and that I am not out of my league. Perhaps you have more experience that I do in both federal and state courts.

    2. The law has a presumption that when something is put into the US mail with proper postage that is was received. This is a rebuttable presumption, and if the letter was not actually received you can testify to that and the finder of fact can make a decision who to believe.

    3. I LOVE YOUR EXAMPLE.
    Consider this legal cross-examination
    Lawyer: Did you receive the Plantiff's first-class letter?
    Defendant: No
    Lawyer: ??????


    What does the lawyer say next?[/QUOTE]​

    You have advised people that:
    "in the USA a legal notice must be certified. First Class Mail is not acceptable for a letter of legal notice. It can be legally ignored."​

    Are you also advising them to LIE in COURT and say that they did not receive a letter they did actually receive? If that is the case, well then you are 100% correct that if you lie in court someone might believe your lie.

    So, you basically admit now that a letter CAN'T be legally ignored, but that your advice to people is that you can LIE ABOUT IT IN COURT and maybe get out of it that way.

    Riddle me this Corwin: If you can legally ignore a legal notice if sent via first class mail, then why do you have the person in your example lying about it?

    Sounds like some real great advice you are giving out in the legal forum. Thanks Corwin.

    p.s. Now would be the time to just admit you goofed and move on.
     
    browntwn, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  8. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #108
    I might have more experience than you, yes.

    Agreed.

    Yes, people do lie in court. The very first time I went to court, I was incredibility naive and I listened in horror as the police officer blatantly lied, and the judge silently accepted the lie.

    No, you've misunderstood my position. That is probably my fault and I apologize, I should have put it better.

    When in court, you need to ask yourself HOW DO I PROTECT MYSELF AGAINST LIES FROM THE OPPOSITION? The problem with using plain First Class mail as a legal notice is that the recipient can lie and claim that they never received the letter. Without supporting opposing evidence, the lie can be successful. And your own attorney can even encourage you to lie about it. No, they don't come right out and ask you to lie. But in the process of providing you their best defense, they hint at it. ("Did anyone else see the letter? Is there any proof you received the letter? what if you forgot you received it?...")

    I hope this makes my position clear.


    No. I didn't goof. I was mistaken in believing that everyone understood the legal system. I think that you are young and idealistic and I applaud that in you.

    But it's not enough to tell the truth - you've got to be able to defend yourself against lies. Plain First Class mail is insufficient as legal notice since the recipient can lie about proof of delivery.

    Getty has a slick way around this. If you call the phone number on the letter, calling the number becomes proof of delivery. Understood?

    And Getty is not above breaking the law themselves. For example, Getty ignores "fair use" instances, and other legal use situations, and counts on the recipient to know that Getty has no claim in these instances. That was somewhat like my situation. My lawyer informed me that I was legally using a Getty image, but that Getty wouldn't care and seemed intent on collecting any amount regardless of whether they were legally entitled to it or not.

    When most lawyers and corporations go to court, they aren't interested in justice, they are interested in what they can get away with. Individuals like us, suffer when we assume courts are about truth. We become ice cream for liars.

    It's not enough to be honest - you need to protect yourself against dishonesty. Plain First Class mail isn't enough. Getty wants their money and is willing to lie about it. It's not about justice for them - it's about PROFIT and what they can get away with. To paraphrase Sun Tsu, sometimes to get justice you have to fight on the battlefield your attacker has chosen.
     
    Corwin, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  9. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    847
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #109
    This is just an untrue statement of the law. And you obviously know it since your only advice is that people can lie and say they did not receive it. Let's not forget you are offering advice to someone who received a letter and you are telling them then can LEGALLY ignore it.

    So now you are offering advice on how to protect the sender of the letter? The advice you gave above was to the recipient that they could ignore the letter.

    You cannot ignore a letter just because it was sent first class mail.

    Not a chance based on your posts in this forum.

    You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Yes, as a SENDER of a letter, it is advisable to use a method that you can prove you send the letter if you think there may be a question about that issue later. As a RECIPIENT of a letter, you advised people that they could ignore the letter and that it can't be legally enforced. That is blatantly false.
     
    browntwn, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  10. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #110
    I fail to see the purpose of ignoring a demand letter from Getty? They send those letters out in an attempt to settle without going to court. If they are actually going to file suit, they will use a process server, and ignoring the demand letter hasn't given you any legal advantage. If you call them in response to their letter, it isn't giving them any legal advantage by itself. If you are sure you aren't going to pay them a cent, and don't care if they sue you and are willing to spend what is necessary to defend yourself, then of course you shouldn't waste the time it takes to respond.
     
    mjewel, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  11. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #111
    browntn, all you've done in your recent post is posture. You've provided no facts, and no evidence.

    As I'd asked before, how can you prove a first class letter was delivered? Your non-response to that is your admission that it CAN'T be proven delivered.

    Look, it's been made fairly clear you don't understand the issues. That's why you are one of the people so easily manipulated by it.

    EXACTLY!!!

    And so, according to you, if they use plain First Class mail, it means they are not going to file suit - right?

    Ignoring the letter gives you a tremendous legal advantage. By ignoring the letter, you have not been legally served. All you do is get lost amongst the thousands of demand notices that Getty is sending out. You get lost amongst the crowd.


    That is tragically, dangerously wrong. As I'd already written, if you call them in response to the letter, then that's proof that you have received the letter - right? Why else did you call?

    Again, it's clear you also don't understand the issues. That's why you are one of the people so easily manipulated by it.
     
    Corwin, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  12. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #112
    Who cares if you receive the letter or not? They can just sue you whether or not you respond to the letter, it isn't going to mean anything to their legal case. A non-response could be taken as you have no defense. A demand letter isn't a summons to appear it court. They don't even need to send a demand letter - they could just sue you.

    Do you actually think it means something if they serve you and you show up in court and say you never received a demand letter? It doesn't mean anything - and I would say the odds of someone believing you are slim - especially when the day you would have received a letter, you removed the infringing material and added no-index to your website. Try to explain that it was just a coincidence - it would just harm your credibility, because even if you didn't receive it, it means nothing. If you "steal" their content, they aren't required to send a courtesy notice giving you a chance to remove it and make everything ok. It doesn't work that way - you are liable from the minute you put an image you don't own or have permission to use on your site - you don't get a free pass until/if they serve you.

    "And so, according to you, if they use plain First Class mail, it means they are not going to file suit - right?"


    You must not have very much experience in lawsuits. I have been involved in a lot - and every single on of them began with dialog that started with a phone call, email, fax, or first class mail. It would be foolish to think that if the first contact wasn't in the form of a certified letter or service that it won't result in litigation - it almost never works that way.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
    mjewel, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  13. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    847
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #113
    I am probably one of the few people on this forum who has actually defended people in state and federal court on these types of issues.

    Your comments about me are about as accurate as your legal advice.
     
    browntwn, Oct 28, 2009 IP
  14. DubDubDubDot

    DubDubDubDot Peon

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #114
    As the direct infringer of the photos you are liable the moment you publish the photos. You seem to be under the impression that you are protected until there is proof you received a warning letter.

    DMCA safe harbor offers protection to service providers, but we aren't talking about user uploads here. This is blatant infringement where webmasters are going in search of content to publish that includes no license agreement.
     
    DubDubDubDot, Oct 29, 2009 IP
  15. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #115
    BUT - there are absolutely no documented cases where Getty has sued and taken someone to judgment.

    Let me state that again - there are absolutely no documented cases where Getty has sued someone and taken them to judgment. None. Nada. Zip. Zero.

    If you are one out of 10,000 letters Getty sends out, and out of those 10,000, 1,000 call back and you don't, Getty will focus on those that called back and not you.

    Based on your previous statements, I honestly don't believe you. Frankly, your statements are as substantial as a campaign promise.

    But you have a chance to prove you are not being deceptive by answering my question below, O.K.?


    No. In the United States, there is a presumption of innocence. For you to claim that someone is liable the moment they publish any photos is legally WRONG in every sense of the word.

    Also, even if the photos are Getty photos, in the USA there are Fair Use laws, as well as certain legal precedents set by search engines and image search, that can still make use of Getty photos on your website completely legal.

    Now, browntwn, states that he "has actually defended people in state and federal court on these types of issues", so I'm sure that he will chime in and tell us what those precedents are and when it is legal to use a Getty photo on a website without compensating Getty, right?:)
     
    Corwin, Oct 29, 2009 IP
    Mia likes this.
  16. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #116
    As I already explained, that means absolutely nothing. It's documented that they have sued people before, and those people decided to pay them.

    Getty isn't going to sue everyone - and the few that they do are going to slam dunk cases. You don't pursue your weakest cases to send a warning. The vast majority of people who use their content without permission aren't going to spend $25,000, $50,000 or more to see a case through the courts - heck, most probably couldn't even if they wanted.

    "Fair use" doesn't apply to 99% of people - it's an argument that people throwout when they don't know what they are talking about or have a defense. Even google has lost in court over the display of images in their image search results. I'll wager that your particular case had nothing to do with "fair use" as evidenced by your action to immediately remove the images.

    Your claim that Getty will only go after people who choose to contact them is absurd. Most people have contact from a collection agency that Getty uses. You may take pride in getting tough with some minimum wage bill collector, but it did nothing to prevent or encourage a lawsuit. You claim you had contact and it didn't result in a lawsuit so your argument doesn't even make sense. The fact remains that your argument of saying you didn't receive their letter via first class mail means absolutely nothing.
     
    mjewel, Oct 29, 2009 IP
  17. DubDubDubDot

    DubDubDubDot Peon

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #117
    Even if you want to use the angle that accused infringers are in the clear until the copyright holder proves their guilt, that doesn't change anything about this thread.

    If you want to go start a thread about allegations of infringement that are a mistake, go for it. Go talk about "innocent until proven guilty" in there. This thread is about actual infringers, and that is a breeze to prove. Either the photos are on the site or not. Either there is a license or not.

    Your unreasonable behavior in this thread leads me to believe you've got sites loaded with infringing materials, and your little act here helps you to justify it in your own mind.
     
    DubDubDubDot, Oct 29, 2009 IP
  18. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #118
    It means EVERYTHING.

    But O.K. I'll take you up on your challenge. Show me documentation that Getty has sued people to judgment. Go ahead. show me documentation that Getty has sued people to judgment.

    And, if you wish, you can show me documentation that Getty has sued three or more people.

    Oh, by "documentation", I don't mean posting a link to a blog or a second-hand news story. Show me court docket numbers and dates. Go ahead.


    Show me documentation. Show me these "slam dunk cases". Go ahead. Show me documentation. Show it to me. Show me documentation of the 'slam dunk cases" that Getty has taken to court. Show them to me. Convince me that your argument has not become so lame that you are just making things up. Show me documentation that Getty has taken "slam dunk" cases to court.


    Where did you pull this 99% statistic out of? Show me documentation. Show me that you can back up what you are saying and that you didn't completely make up the 99% statistic. Show me that your argument is now so lame that you are now reduced to making up lame statistics.

    SHOW ME documentation that Getty has sued people, show me documentation that Getty has sued in "slam dunk" cases, and show me documentation that that Fair Use doesn't apply to 99% of people.

    I want court docket numbers and dates, please. Especially for the "slam dunk" cases.

    YOU are the one that claims this documentation exists. Fine. This is your chance. SHOW ME!

    SHOW ME DOCUMENTATION!
     
    Corwin, Oct 29, 2009 IP
  19. mjewel

    mjewel Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes Received:
    514
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #119
    mjewel, Oct 29, 2009 IP
  20. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #120
    Why? Because I want facts? And because I want facts, you are reduced to throwing insults like a monkey throwing feces?

    Um, keep up with the discussion. We already discussed this:
    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=12729210

    It did NOT go to judgment, it was settled out of court. And it's a U.K. case that would probably not see the inside of a U.S. court.

    Want to know why Getty has never taken a case to judgment, and why they don't want to? Because their images contain no copyright information in the IPTC Photo Metadata. That's right - their photos and images contain no embedded copyright information. Something any professional webmaster can do with tools that are freely available.

    Why would Getty deliberately exclude a copyright in the Metadata copyright field?

    Is Getty's business model ENTRAPMENT?
     
    Corwin, Oct 30, 2009 IP