Partner
Getty Images is based out of Seattle, Washington and has become well known over the years for sending out ‘settlement demand letters’. Unsuspecting parties receive these letters and are informed that they are infringing on the rights of copyright protected material. Specifically, by posting the protected material on their websites without a proper license to do so.
According to an article posted in the International Business Times from 2014, Getty Images used an automated process to scan hundreds of thousands of websites looking for images they held the copyright protections for. Once a ‘violator’ had been discovered, they would receive a letter in the mail from Getty Images. The letter would inform them of the infringement and suggesting a dollar figure to settle the complaint before it went any further.
Unbeknownst to Getty Images, one of these letters was sent to an intellectual property law firm in Florida. This firm deals with and understands how copyrights work. The firm sued Getty Images for their ‘unfair, deceptive scheme’. Getty Images commented that had the firm informed them of the mistake it would have been corrected immediately. According to the firm, though, this is irrelevant because the unknowing average person may not know a mistake was made and would pay the prescribed settlement fee without further inquiry. The alleged ‘violator’ could also be a small business with little ability to pay for a lawyer to advise it. So the firm pressed forward with their suit to draw attention to the issue and bring to the forefront the possible scam at play.
Another company has recently ‘popped up’ using a similar approach to Getty Images: LCS Global (License Compliance Services). Nothing on LCS’ website suggests that they are owned by Getty Images. However, users in many forums where these letters have been discussed certainly believe that the two companies are one and the same.
People receiving letters and emails from LCS are often told that LCS represents a copyright owner that the recipient has infringed the rights of said owner. Additionally, these communications often suggest a settlement fee for the alleged infringement. However, LCS does not appear to be a law firm of any kind. Whether or not any of their staff have a legal background is also unknown as their website provides no insight as to the staff or specifics of the company.
It’s certainly possible that some of the copyright infringement claims against individuals and companies in these letters are legitimate. However, if the system sending out these letters is still automated and people are choosing to pay the fee instead of challenging the validity of the claim, whether or not the whole system is a scheme will remain unknown.
So what’s the moral of the story? Do your research and double-check the facts. What if you receive a letter from LCS Global? Research the allegedly infringing image, ask questions, and seek legal advice before cutting LCS a check. Otherwise, you could unnecessarily be out several hundred dollars or more without cause.
For more information about copyright infringement deception and what kind of action to take upon receiving a letter from either Getty Images or LCS Global, contact Revision Legal’s Copyright attorneys through the form on this page or by calling 855-473-8474.
ExtortionLetterInfo – http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/license-compliance-services-inc-corporate-naming-hanky-panky/
Image credit to Flickr user gaelx.
Editor’s note: this post was originally published in February 2016. It has been updated for clarity and comprehensiveness.
Copyright owners have the right to send demand letters and to negotiate settlements of alleged infringement claims. This is a legitimate aspect of copyright enforcement — litigation is expensive, and pre-suit settlement is efficient for both parties when infringement has genuinely occurred. The line between legitimate copyright enforcement and an “unfair, deceptive scheme” under the FTC Act runs through the question of whether the demands are made in good faith with a reasonable belief that infringement actually occurred, and whether the demands are accurate as to the legal rights being asserted.
The FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. A copyright demand letter that misrepresents the sender’s rights, overstates the recipient’s liability, or threatens consequences the sender has no legal authority to impose can constitute a deceptive practice under Section 5. Several state consumer protection statutes contain similar prohibitions. Courts have also applied the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in extreme cases where a party sends mass demand letters as part of a systematic extortion scheme.
A legitimate copyright demand letter, whether from Getty Images or any other rights holder, should include: (1) identification of the specific copyrighted work and the registration number (if registered); (2) a description of the specific infringing act — what was copied, where it appeared, and when; (3) the legal basis for the claim, including citation to 17 U.S.C. § 501 or the applicable state law equivalent; (4) a demand for specific relief — removal of the infringing content, a license fee, or settlement payment; and (5) accurate information about the potential consequences of non-compliance, including the actual range of available damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504.
Letters that omit the specific work or registration number, inflate the stated damages exposure beyond what the statute actually allows, fail to identify the actual infringing content, or misrepresent the sender’s authority to act on behalf of the rights holder are red flags. Recipients of demand letters that contain these deficiencies should consult an attorney before paying anything or responding substantively.
If your business receives a copyright demand letter — whether from Getty Images, LCS Global, or any other entity — the appropriate response depends on whether the alleged infringement actually occurred and whether the demand is legitimate. Do not ignore the letter, but do not pay immediately either. The following steps are advisable:
When copyright demand letters are sent systematically to parties who have not infringed — or are sent using automated systems that cannot distinguish actual infringement from lawful use — the demand campaign itself may be unlawful. The Florida intellectual property firm that sued Getty Images was pursuing exactly this theory: that sending demand letters to non-infringers as part of a mass monetization scheme constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice, regardless of whether Getty had legitimate claims against other recipients.
Courts have been willing to entertain abuse of process claims against copyright trolls — parties that acquire copyrights not to exploit the underlying works but to generate demand letter revenue. The Copyright Act’s remedial structure, which allows statutory damages far exceeding the market value of most individual works, creates an incentive for this behavior. Legislative proposals to reform the statutory damages scheme to reduce troll activity have been debated in Congress but have not been enacted. In the meantime, companies that receive suspicious demand letters should evaluate whether the sender fits the copyright troll profile and whether a counterclaim or state law unfair practices claim is viable.
The most effective way to avoid being on the receiving end of bogus copyright demand letters is to ensure your own content is clearly identified as your own and to avoid using third-party content without a verified license. Proactively registering your original content with the Copyright Office costs $65 per application and provides significant benefits: you can sue infringers in federal court without waiting for the registration to process; you can recover statutory damages and attorney’s fees against infringers; and a registration certificate is conclusive evidence of copyright validity if obtained within five years of first publication.
If your business creates original content — graphics, photographs, written materials, software — and has not registered that content, you are potentially leaving enforcement rights on the table while remaining exposed to infringement claims from others. A one-time audit of your content portfolio and a registration program managed by an IP attorney is an efficient investment in both offense and defense.
If your business has received a copyright demand letter and you need to evaluate whether it is legitimate, or if you believe you have been targeted by a copyright troll scheme, Revision Legal’s intellectual property attorneys can assess your situation and advise you on the most effective response. Contact us through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.
Hitpiece.com scraped artists’ music and created NFTs without permission. Here’s how the copyright infringement dispute unfolded and what it means for NFT platforms.
Read more about Hitpiece.com and Copyright Infringement
Cybersquatting involves registering domain names in bad faith to profit from others’ trademarks. Here’s an overview of the ACPA and how it protects trademark owners.
Read more about An Overview of Cybersquatting Laws
E-commerce sellers face copyright infringement risks from product images, descriptions, and counterfeit goods. Here’s how online retail copyright scams work.
Read more about Online Retail Copyright Infringement: E-Commerce Scams