Not to get off the track here, and maybe this should be in a new thread, but I have Getty Images coming after me because of a client's alleged stolen picture.

I have a reseller account at Wild West Domains and I registered the domain for this person and I forgot to change the whois info and at the time of this incident the whois was in my name so Getty is coming after me now. I told Getty I have nothing to do with this website and I didn't even make the site I only registered the domain name, but they tell me this does not matter because at the time the whois was in my name. I think they are claiming $2,000 is what I owe them for unauthorized use of images. The person who owns the website has shut it down and left town. All I have is his name and a dead cell phone number and email address that bounces back. I thought that a cease and desist letter is suppose to be sent out first, but Getty said no.

I can not afford to pay $2,000 for two pictures I had no part in taking.

There is no justice for internet users.

Split from specific copyright question post.

According to the DMCA, you should not be held liable as a service provider (see the Limited liability section).

The woman on the phone and the person sending me emails claims I am the "legal" owner of the website because my name is on the whois therefore I owe Getty for the stolen images. I will read the limited liability secton of the DMCA and maybe that will give me the defense I need. Thank you.

As long as you can prove you are simply providing a service (which will mean disclosing the details of your client), you should be fine.

I'm curious if Getty has legal grounds to pursue renumerations from proxy/privacy registration services.

According to their logic, they do.

IANAL but you are legal registrant of domain name and that is it. There is a major leap between that and being owner of actual website or even business the website represents. As you are service provider, at the most Getty should be able to approach you and request information about the actual owner of the website. It is up to you (and privacy policy your client accepted when they created an account with you) to decide whether you want to provide them that information.

Getty does not have the rights to hold you responsible for the actions of a reseller. The individual is not employed by you or has any legal contract with you. As he is a customer it is up to Getty to find the owner of the website and charge the fee to him.

Say for example some one goes into a store and hangs a poster up which is a Getty image, the shop manager does not see it. Who should be fined? the manager can only help Getty try and find that user, it is not up to you to clear up their mistakes and silly security over their images.

^ The above was like a little story lol. Hope this helps, if you are really unsure go to a legal advice company which should help you out :)

I'm curious if Getty has legal grounds to pursue renumerations from proxy/privacy registration services.

According to their logic, they do.


According to some nasty ill-bred woman who I spoke to on the telephone I am responsible for the images because the whois was in my name and they have no proof, that I can provide, that I registered that domain for my client.

Because the whois was in my name I was the legal owner and the financially responsible person I was told.

Getty does not have the rights to hold you responsible for the actions of a reseller. The individual is not employed by you or has any legal contract with you. As he is a customer it is up to Getty to find the owner of the website and charge the fee to him.

Say for example some one goes into a store and hangs a poster up which is a Getty image, the shop manager does not see it. Who should be fined? the manager can only help Getty try and find that user, it is not up to you to clear up their mistakes and silly security over their images.

^ The above was like a little story lol. Hope this helps, if you are really unsure go to a legal advice company which should help you out :)

According to Getty's logic the shop manager would be responsible for the poster being hung in his store even if he knew nothing about it. It is obvious Getty does not care about the facts and circumstances, they want to collect money from anybody who has a heartbeat.

IANAL but you are legal registrant of domain name and that is it. There is a major leap between that and being owner of actual website or even business the website represents. As you are service provider, at the most Getty should be able to approach you and request information about the actual owner of the website. It is up to you (and privacy policy your client accepted when they created an account with you) to decide whether you want to provide them that information.

I can not locate the owner of the website. He took down his website and left the area. I did not provide Getty with his information because they do not want it because he is "not the responsible party."
I am the responsible party solely because the whois was in my name.

I don't have a legal leg to stand on.

As long as you can prove you are simply providing a service (which will mean disclosing the details of your client), you should be fine.

I don't know how I can prove I was providing a service only. The website is gone, the owner is gone, the domain is up for registration again last time I checked.

I can not locate the owner of the website. He took down his website and left the area. I did not provide Getty with his information because they do not want it because he is "not the responsible party."
I am the responsible party solely because the whois was in my name.

I don't have a legal leg to stand on.

You are service provider. You are not responsible for ANY content your clients ever posted - as far as you were not aware of that content. If your client had a site with child porn and bomb making instructions and what ever, you are not responsible for it.

About whois info: Even if you are legal registrant of the domain name that does not mean you own actual website as well. You simply provided service of pointing that domain name to web space your client rented where they posted content for which you are not responsible.

I suppose you could tell them that you'll release the Web site owner's information upon subpoena.

FWIW, anyone can list any information in their whois they'd like. The Web site owner could have put your information in the whois without your knowledge, and there'd be nothing you could do. If you did find out, you could pursue getting it removed, but how would you have known?

If the site is nolonger up, then what is the issue?

They sent you a cease and desist and the activity has desisted. I would write them a letter and point this out along with you just being a service provider. The lady doesnt' know jack. You can put anyones name and address in the whois information.

Getty images is a bunch of ________ They are some money hungry jerks, they went after a client of mine for an image on his website that came with the template he purchased from template monster. They faxed him a threat letter, demanding $1200 for the use of the image. (Note that I said they FAXED him) no phone call, no email, no formal letter in the mail. They are just a bunch of scamming fools in my opinion. I will never give them any business.

Well, to be fair to Getty, if they own an image and someone is using it, aren't they entitled to compensation? Sure, they use strongarm tactics, and they're not very nice about how they pursue people who use their images without license, but it is theft, whether you've received stolen property from another company or stolen it yourself.

We've licensed photography from Getty in the past - we own a few images, and a few of our clients have some as well. At the end of the day, their images are either worth the price to you, or they're not. I would make the decision to use them based on this, as opposed to whether you agree with them trying to curtail theft.

I feel bad for OP getting caught in the middle, and I hope it all gets worked out. I'm pretty confident it will. But I don't blame Getty for reclaiming what is rightfully theirs, the rights to their photography.

Dori1975, my advice to you would be to ask a lawyer to write them a letter explaining your situation. Letters from lawyers have a tendency to get noticed more than explanation from non-lawyers.

Some companies (and people) have a legal philosophy of shoot first, ask questions later. I don't think you have to worry very much about this. From their perspective, it may be that you're just the most visible target, but that doesn't make the argument a logical one. That's why it may be worth it to you to pay a lawyer to respond for you. It may well put an end to the matter, so you can move on.

If the site is nolonger up, then what is the issue?

They sent you a cease and desist and the activity has desisted. I would write them a letter and point this out along with you just being a service provider. The lady doesnt' know jack. You can put anyones name and address in the whois information.

This site is not up and the issue is Getty keeps sending me letters demanding payment for the images. They never sent me a cease and desist letter which I thought was required. I got a final letter from them today saying if I don't pay they will file a lawsuit against me.

All my letters to them have been a waste of time because their response is the same, that I was at the time the legal owner of the domain and I must pay for the images, but I am free to go after the "real" domain owner and get him to pay me back.

They want somebody to pay for their images and I suppose they are within their rights, but I did not take those images and I don't think I should have to pay solely because my name was on the whois.

I'm curious if Getty has legal grounds to pursue renumerations from proxy/privacy registration services.

According to their logic, they do.

Getty's logic is not the same as anyone else's logic.

I'm curious if Getty has legal grounds to pursue renumerations from proxy/privacy registration services.

I am too interested, as many registrars can offer privacy registration and if it where WWD being the owner on the whios record would getty's stance be the same.?
Was the whois record in your personal name or the name that you trade under with the reseller account.?

The whois was in my personal name with my PO Box listed and they were contacting me through my PO Box with registered letters which I stopped signing for so then they discovered my email address and have been contacting me through there. Wild West Domains is shown as the registrar.

Did you host their site where the infringed image was hosted.?
Is the hosting site anything to do with you.?
where was the domain pointing.?
If you had nothing to do with the hosting of the image and/or control over how the offence could have been carried out, then the responsibilty for stopping the offence cannot be yours...
Talk to a legal representative if you can.

Why even waste your time on this? I would simply continue to store all the crap they send you (online and offline) and then just continue with your daily work.

As mentioned, what if I change the contact info on my domain to your name and then load up 50 stolen Getty images... you'd owe a whack load of money!

The website is no longer online and they're saying you're the owner because of a whois... sounds like a good bluff to me.

Why even waste your time on this? I would simply continue to store all the crap they send you (online and offline) and then just continue with your daily work.

As mentioned, what if I change the contact info on my domain to your name and then load up 50 stolen Getty images... you'd owe a whack load of money!

The website is no longer online and they're saying you're the owner because of a whois... sounds like a good bluff to me.

They got a collection agency after me and I wrote to tell them I had nothing to do with the pilfered image and this is the reply I got today. It sounds like one way or another I am going to end up paying for this.

"The image was used on your website without authorization from
our client. The image was removed as they requested, however, your company
still owes $1,000.00 for the infringement fees. Somebody knows about the
image issue since it was reported removed to our client. Now, our client
expects payment. Please advise of when payment can be expected."

Tell them they can subpoena you for the contact information of the actual site owner, but you are not the owner and you do not intend to pay someone else's bill.

Better yet, contact your lawyer.

Dori do not make anymore contact with them personally anymore, get legal advice here is a link that may interest you:

http://groups.google.com/group/help-for-victims-of-getty-images?hl=en

you are not the only one.?

Dori do not make anymore contact with them personally anymore, get legal advice here is a link that may interest you:

http://groups.google.com/group/help-for-victims-of-getty-images?hl=en

you are not the only one.?

I guess it is not Getty who I has been emailing me, but a collection agency. So it means they are serious about getting their $1,000 from me. They never sent a notice to remove the image, just the bill for it.

I would just collect the information they send you and keep checking your credit, I do not believe they can do anything to your credit without your SS# but who knows these days.

If you see something on your credit fight it and claim you are not responsible for the bill and hopefully it will just be removed by the credit agency.

Sounds like they are just shooting into the dark knowing there will be one or two 'bites' that may pay up.

Dori do not make anymore contact with them personally anymore, get legal advice here is a link that may interest you:

http://groups.google.com/group/help-for-victims-of-getty-images?hl=en

you are not the only one.?

I just read some of the posts on that google group and it looks like peope are paying Getty's outrageous fees. I haven't read about anyone successfully defending themselves against Getty's collection agency bully tactics.

Getty never sent me a cease and desist letter, just a bill for $1,000. Are they not required to send a cease and desist letter?

In order for you to be able to seek the benefit of the Limitations on Liability in Title 2, you must qualify as a "Service Provider". A service provider is specified as:

"An entity offering the transmission, routing or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by the user, of material of the users choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received."In addition to meeting the above specifications to be eligible for any of the limitations, a "Service Provider" must meet two conditions:

1) it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringer's and
2) it must accommodate and not interfere with "Standard Technical Measures"In short, Standard Technical Measures are the measures taken by the Copyright owners to protect there published works.

So, if you have a registered business in the Web Hosting industry, have active clients or can provide proof that meets the above requirements to be defined as a "Service Provider", you are not responsible for anything that you and your company host.

All information here was taken directly from the DMCA. I could not find anything stating that the company who's rights have been infringed have to send you a Cease and Desist letter. But the above does clearly state that no Copyright Owner can purse "Service Providers" for any compensation for Copyright Breach.

In addition, the failure of a Service Provider to qualify for any of the Limitations does not necessarily make it liable for Copyright Infringement.

It also seems the that the Copyright Owners must inform you of any Legal Action before it takes place:

The court may require such owner (Copyright owner) to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case.

Here is some more information from the U.S Copyright Office on the Limitation of Liability of a "Service Provider":

(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. — A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if —
(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

I just read some of the posts on that google group and it looks like peope are paying Getty's outrageous fees. I haven't read about anyone successfully defending themselves against Getty's collection agency bully tactics.


I did spot one or two that had some success one way or the other.?
they have an email at the bottom maybe seeing as they have all been or are in the same situation as you they may be able to advise you further.

Saying that, if what you have told us is correct then you are infact in a better position legally, as you where not the owner of the website, you did not take the image, you did not display the image on a website and you had no control whatsoever over the copyright infringment.?
You are merely the nearest human contact in the chain, owning the domain, alot of those guys on there have actually admitted displaying getty images and have taken them down when the contact has started.?
If you knew the legal system and knew how exactly the law on copyright works then I would be willing to bet that you could deal with this situation effectively, but seeing as you do not you need to go get some legal advise.

If you knew the legal system and knew how exactly the law on copyright works then I would be willing to bet that you could deal with this situation effectively, but seeing as you do not you need to go get some legal advise.


By the time I was contacted about the image the website had already been shut down and I was not able to reach the owner of the site. I don't know where he is, all I have is his name which is a very common name so its going to be hard to track him down. Getty has my info and apparantly they think its all they need to get their money and they are coming after me.

Dori1975,

I know this might be a stupid thing to say, but heck I do stupid things all the time. Have you asked them to prove that the images, they say were stolen, actually were stolen?

Paul

;4925964']Dori1975,

I know this might be a stupid thing to say, but heck I do stupid things all the time. Have you asked them to prove that the images, they say were stolen, actually were stolen?

Paul

No, I have not asked them to prove the image was stolen. I could do that, but all it would do is buy me some time.

Or they might find out that they were actually paid for.

Unless you know for sure they are stolen then what is the harm in asking?

Paul

Well, it has happened.
We got our court summons from Getty for $60,000+ CAD.
We are in Quebec, Canada, and the court papers summoned us to a court in BC (over 4000 km away!).

I'll keep you posted as the case develops

Wow, these guys mean business. What actions have you taken so far? Did you reply to the initial demand letter?

Dory, I found this blog, it might be useful for you:

Getty Images are Trying to Getty Me!!! (http://internetmadness.blogspot.com/2007/06/getty-images-are-trying-to-getty-me.html)

Good luck mate

Well, it has happened.
We got our court summons from Getty for $60,000+ CAD.
We are in Quebec, Canada, and the court papers summoned us to a court in BC (over 4000 km away!).

I'll keep you posted as the case develops

Any updates to report?