Getty Images C&D Letter w/ $1000 invoices
- Thread starter I_like_cock
- Start date
- Status
This is the best part of this thread... ChrisS admitting that he likes cock!
Now if I can only get Shawn Collins to put that on my AFFSummit badges instead of Wickedfir I_L_C....
Thats why you should rent a mail box that has a suite address that has no connection with your name or home address for your domain registeration.... (pay a college student to register for you) :anon.sml:
Recommend reading:
How To Be Invisible By J J LUNA.
Read it 2 years ago, implemented the advice and never looked back.
Recommend reading:
How To Be Invisible By J J LUNA.
Read it 2 years ago, implemented the advice and never looked back.
Actually, he likes underage jailbait cock.
I heard it from someone who heard it from someone.
I'd tell them to bring it and deal with the Collection Agency myself. You never signed shit so not like they have a contract. They really have no legal ground to stand on, even if it went to court.
Scare tactics are fun, suing a Collection Agency for trying to chase you down for some bogus shit is priceless.
Scare tactics are fun, suing a Collection Agency for trying to chase you down for some bogus shit is priceless.
Classic bully tactic. Walmart pulls shit like this all the time ... you have to make an appointment to deliver product to their DCs. If you miss it and don't notify them they send you a "fine". Can be up to $1000 or more.
They count on the 'fraidy cats to just pay it, but all you have to do is call up the buyer you deal with and politely tell him to go fuck himself.
Lotta companies out there pulling shit simply because they know a certain number of people will just cave.
They count on the 'fraidy cats to just pay it, but all you have to do is call up the buyer you deal with and politely tell him to go fuck himself.
Lotta companies out there pulling shit simply because they know a certain number of people will just cave.
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
People, just because a domain can have whois guard means you're protected.
If you want to make sure they can't get to you personally, buy domains with a pre-purchased, disposable credit card, and do it from an internet cafe.
Any of the domains I want to use for dodgy crap, I do that with.
No link back to me, unless they're investigations department is so good that they track the time in which the credit card itself was purchased, and where from, and then go get the security footage from that 7-11.
If you want to make sure they can't get to you personally, buy domains with a pre-purchased, disposable credit card, and do it from an internet cafe.
Any of the domains I want to use for dodgy crap, I do that with.
No link back to me, unless they're investigations department is so good that they track the time in which the credit card itself was purchased, and where from, and then go get the security footage from that 7-11.
congrats on your first Getty C&D...
it's a big pile of bullshit, don't worry about it... just remove the image and ignore them...
if they try to send a collection agency after you, make sure you dispute anything they put on your credit report as fraudulent...
it's a big pile of bullshit, don't worry about it... just remove the image and ignore them...
if they try to send a collection agency after you, make sure you dispute anything they put on your credit report as fraudulent...
Even if a collection agency wants to try to go after you doesn't necessarily mean the credit bureaus will honor the agency's report.
I ran an collection agency back in the early 90's and we were a reporting agency. The credit bureaus actually denied our reports on consumer debt they deemed dodgy. Some of the accounts we were disallowed from reporting were gym and tanning memberships that involved a yearly membership contract where the consumer cancelled.
That threatening letter is totally baseless.
I ran an collection agency back in the early 90's and we were a reporting agency. The credit bureaus actually denied our reports on consumer debt they deemed dodgy. Some of the accounts we were disallowed from reporting were gym and tanning memberships that involved a yearly membership contract where the consumer cancelled.
That threatening letter is totally baseless.
That is Awesome to hear!!! I was apart of a gym where I paid in full for a year and went back for two additional months after my membership was up and paid out right with no contract... sent two different in writing cancel letters... 6 months later the gym closed down and apparently sold my membership to another gym as active.. they threatened me for 2 weeks before I finally SAID FUCK OFF Send me to collections Fuckers.. that was over a year ago and I have yet to see it show up on my credit but I am waiting!!!!
sorry didn't mean to change subject....
It's literally a scare tactic.
The only difference between this and me arbitrarily claiming that you owe me $1,000 is that they MAY take you to court if you are a serious infringer (like, selling their images).
Take the image down or modify it and claim it as any copyright exception (i can type out an explanation if you want). Most of all, do not correspond with them for the same reason you don't correspond with a Nigerian scammer. Don't let them know that they made contact with you. It's bait and quite literally the foundation of their business model.
The only difference between this and me arbitrarily claiming that you owe me $1,000 is that they MAY take you to court if you are a serious infringer (like, selling their images).
Take the image down or modify it and claim it as any copyright exception (i can type out an explanation if you want). Most of all, do not correspond with them for the same reason you don't correspond with a Nigerian scammer. Don't let them know that they made contact with you. It's bait and quite literally the foundation of their business model.
I just found the e-mail they sent me after I told them to fuck off. I replied to this one with "fuck off" as well and they never bothered to write back:
Thank you for your email. However, we're not clear on which C&D letter
you so poignantly make reference to below. If you could provide a case
reference number or Case ID, we can try to help you understand the basis
of our claim that we may have against your company or client.
We take serious objection to the offensive language you use in your last
email. We are willing to help you understand our position and assist you
with any questions you may have, but sending the kinds of emails as you
have below is never productive.
We encourage you to reconsider your negativity and invite you to work
with us to figure out a solution to a problem that appears to be
bothering you.
Best regards,
License Compliance Team
Getty Images
Just goes to show that they not only use these scare tactics, they can't even keep track of who they send them to.
Thank you for your email. However, we're not clear on which C&D letter
you so poignantly make reference to below. If you could provide a case
reference number or Case ID, we can try to help you understand the basis
of our claim that we may have against your company or client.
We take serious objection to the offensive language you use in your last
email. We are willing to help you understand our position and assist you
with any questions you may have, but sending the kinds of emails as you
have below is never productive.
We encourage you to reconsider your negativity and invite you to work
with us to figure out a solution to a problem that appears to be
bothering you.
Best regards,
License Compliance Team
Getty Images
Just goes to show that they not only use these scare tactics, they can't even keep track of who they send them to.
You could be getting screwed like this.
Myself, I have a script I wrote that monitors abusive traffic and either flags or bans the i.p. Aparently picscout ignores robots.txt files. I have a directory listed in the robots file that only has one file in it. This one file when visited adds the i.o. to the ban database automatically.
You could use something like this, although I'm not sure of the affect on performance if your site is really busy.
Oh, and if you block the wayback machine...
Are they finding these by searching through exif data? You could look at a the image they were referring to and see what's in the exif.
Myself, I have a script I wrote that monitors abusive traffic and either flags or bans the i.p. Aparently picscout ignores robots.txt files. I have a directory listed in the robots file that only has one file in it. This one file when visited adds the i.o. to the ban database automatically.
You could use something like this, although I'm not sure of the affect on performance if your site is really busy.
Oh, and if you block the wayback machine...
I find PicScout's Image Tracker quite fascinating if it actually does what it promises. For instance how can it match a picture if it has been resized, reshaped and recolored. And what's the error margin... I don't believe it can work very reliably so if you just modify your stolen pictures, you are pretty much safe. Basically it would have to match shapes in the picture and measure unique ratios between edges etc. But that still sounds like you would get a million false alerts per one generic image.
Getty has also been a major pain in the ass for photographer's selling their work thru their service.
For example, there was a photographer who shot such and such image. A magazine pays for this image for use in their publications.
The photographer being proud that he was yet again published in another magazine decides to scan the page out of the magazine (ie: traditionally known as a 'tear' as we would literally tear the sheet out of the magazine and paste it into our book, or frame it) and post it online as part of his online portfolio.
Well Getty (keeping in mind this is this guy's own image, but sold thru getty to the magazine for their use), sends a letter demanding a takedown and payment from the photographer for unauthorized use of the image because the magazine had not paid for web-use and as such his usage of the scan on the web was copyright infrindgement and so forth. they didn't even bother to talk to the magazine just went straight after their supplier, ie: the photographer, that owned the image.
While it is completely legal to get a magazine, tear the sheet out and put it into a book. The act of scanning and posting online in itself puts a tricky twist to the whole copyright issue especially when it comes to Getty.
Getty also owns istockphoto.com so the same image could appear on both services, so what happens when you purchase the image from istockphoto.com for 5$ but getty claims its the image from the getty account as part of a 500$ CD package. Seems like they're so out-of-sync, and most of the time I don't think they can actually enforce their own claims. And feel they can scare people into settling (Remember the RIAA people, not a single conviction/suit was won in their favor, cuz everyone either ignored their threats or settled).
They don't even pay as good anymore since the surge of microstock sites shot up (great for designers though... provided you don't get accused of infringement, or try to go unique on an ad campaign, like how Met Life and Viagra ended up using the same ad cover one month
cuz they went cheap and paid 5$ for an image on istock).
For example, there was a photographer who shot such and such image. A magazine pays for this image for use in their publications.
The photographer being proud that he was yet again published in another magazine decides to scan the page out of the magazine (ie: traditionally known as a 'tear' as we would literally tear the sheet out of the magazine and paste it into our book, or frame it) and post it online as part of his online portfolio.
Well Getty (keeping in mind this is this guy's own image, but sold thru getty to the magazine for their use), sends a letter demanding a takedown and payment from the photographer for unauthorized use of the image because the magazine had not paid for web-use and as such his usage of the scan on the web was copyright infrindgement and so forth. they didn't even bother to talk to the magazine just went straight after their supplier, ie: the photographer, that owned the image.
While it is completely legal to get a magazine, tear the sheet out and put it into a book. The act of scanning and posting online in itself puts a tricky twist to the whole copyright issue especially when it comes to Getty.
Getty also owns istockphoto.com so the same image could appear on both services, so what happens when you purchase the image from istockphoto.com for 5$ but getty claims its the image from the getty account as part of a 500$ CD package. Seems like they're so out-of-sync, and most of the time I don't think they can actually enforce their own claims. And feel they can scare people into settling (Remember the RIAA people, not a single conviction/suit was won in their favor, cuz everyone either ignored their threats or settled).
They don't even pay as good anymore since the surge of microstock sites shot up (great for designers though... provided you don't get accused of infringement, or try to go unique on an ad campaign, like how Met Life and Viagra ended up using the same ad cover one month
cuz they went cheap and paid 5$ for an image on istock).
- Status