Does someone have advice about how to answer to process server letter ?

[Ellipse]

Here's the latest attack.

I have my own company and I have receive a letter from a process server (huissier in French) to pay about 5500$ because the web site of the company use two images which rights belong to his customer, a big bank of images.

The problem is that the web site was done by someone who do not say me from were the images was coming from. Perhaps he had even buy the rights but I'm totally unable to contact him now.
The second point is that this web site have very few visit, I've never advertise for it.
The third is, the company is unable to pay.

The letter is a formal notice (mise en demeure), not a decision of justice. They do not attack my company via justice at this moment. They want to be paid under 15 days
The total amount to pay is the price of the two images multiplied with a coefficient coming from nowhere.
The positive point is that they can't prove for how long those images was on the site, the site does not appear on waybackmachine.

Here's what advice I get from friends :
1 - Remove the images (already done)
2 - Explain you get no information about the rights of those images.
3 - Explain you get no profit from the use of those images so there's no prejudice and join the balance sheet of the company to prove it (yes, the company lost money).

So, here's my question : do you think it's better to :
- say : no prejudice so I don't want to pay at all
- propose to pay the amount I can, ie the original amount of the two images

The last solution have my favour but I'm not sure it's the best strategy.

For information, the bank images now belong to Bill Gates and I think they have found the images via Bing, the Microsoft search engine. They certainly compare the two data bank because I'm amaze on how they can found images in a such tiny site.

So, if someone have experience with such situation, advices welcome :)

 

[Tigersoap]

Hi Ellipse,

This seems pretty shady.
Are you sure this is a legitimate request and not a scam ?
If it's genuine, that's just a blatant attempt to cash in money the easy way.

I would take down the images, like you did, and be sure they do indeed need to be paid for.

Which image bank did they say it was coming from, if you're allowed to say ?

If they do belong to a bank of images, there are other ways to resolve this than by sending such letter.
You might even track the original person who did the pictures and settle for something else.

For example, an extract from Wikipedia about Getty images (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images)

Copyright enforcement

Getty Images uses a firm called PicScout to scan the web for unauthorized and unlicensed usages of its protected images. Websites that are found to be in violation are sent financial settlements that retroactively licensed the image. Getty are notorious for sending letters for final demands due to copyright infringement. However, the settlements also demand damages, which are said to have been incurred against the copyright holder. Settlement demands are typically more than $1,000 per photograph, and are based upon Getty's highest possible price for unlimited-use rights-managed photos. Getty seldom takes individuals to court. For this reason, the letter has become widely referred to by recipients as the "Getty Extortion Letter" [13]. Getty normally targets small business, charities and nonprofits, since they usually do not have the money to make a stand in court. Even small nonprofits that cater to children with various forms of cancer, have been victimized by this method. Getty is currently being investigated by government officials.

There is currently an online movement to fight back at these strong-armed extortion methods used by Getty. People can show their resentment by doing a search for the keyword "stock images" on Google and then click on their Pay Per Click Ad usually found in the yellow box up top, or the right side of the page. Every click will cost Getty money.

Thousands of these letters have been sent out, yet as of October 2005, Getty had not taken any of these potential cases to court.[14][15] [16] In 2008, Getty Images lost a lawsuit in Germany[17]. Getty claimed unauthorized usage, but the defendant could prove authorized usage as he had bought a retroactive license directly from the photographer.

In 2008, Getty published a notice to its contributors describing how a court decision in New York makes it more difficult to obtain damages for infringement in the USA on images that are not registered at the United States Copyright Office. The letter strongly encouraged photographers to register their images.[18]

FYI.

 

[Ellipse]

Are you sure this is a legitimate request and not a scam ?

Yes, I have check the official directory of process server and he is well registered. The letter I have received is very professional with screen copy and the description of the procedure used to do those screen copy.

Which image bank did they say it was coming from, if you're allowed to say ?

Corbis

Thanks for the exercpt, I had search for such information without success.

Getty seldom takes individuals to court. For this reason, the letter has become widely referred to by recipients as the "Getty Extortion Letter" [13]. Getty normally targets small business, charities and nonprofits, since they usually do not have the money to make a stand in court.

Edit:
The magic words to search for are "Corbis scam" or "Getty scam". Thanks TigerSoap to put me on rails
There's this interesting excerpt from http://www.zyra.info/getstu.htm

If you ever pay a threatening demand, on the basis that it will go away or that you'll get a "quiet life", it probably won't work. You'll more likely attract even more heartache and trouble. Organised crime protection rackets also rely on the victim being scared into paying up on the basis of the "quiet life" misconception.

and

Even if you can't afford to fight a legal case against a huge corporate entity, there are some people who will fight. What if they win? This would then set a precedent for other cases to be thrown out of court.

 

[Tigersoap]

I wish it will turn out fine for you Ellipse.
These companies are really using copyrights in such cases to extort money and not to defend the photographers rights despite what they try to make them believe.


Maybe you have seen this forum, it is mostly for US,UK and Canada but maybe some information there might help you

_http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/list.php?2

and this forum about Corbis sending letters such as yours

_http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4437774


Most seem to say that if you removed the pictures and don't reply to the letter, they will drop it BUT who knows...they can be more aggressive depending on the case I suppose.

FYI.


EDIT :

Just an example of how AFP with Getty image are using tweeter's copyrights against the owner of the picture

_http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/features/pdn-online/e3ifa3623f6516076b7a20fe4aac936f07b

And Corbis who registered bulk copyrights for themselves without naming the photographers

_http://pdnedu.blogs.com/pdn_pulse/2010/05/in-copyright-case-court-rejects-corbiss-bulk-registration-practices.html

 

[vectis]

For real copyright infringement cases, they first would most likely send a "cease and desist" order. This would tell you to stop using their copyrighted material. Otherwise they can't just fine you through the mail, with no notice. You might like to look up copyright law or copyright infringement on wiki, for the basic outlines of the law. They would have to first prove you claimed the work as your own (plagiarism) and/or sold their work for profit; before they started legal proceedings, and a court certified "cease and desist" order would be the first step.

 

[Ellipse]

An update.

Just to say that I have not answered and, at this date, I have no news.