Getty Images / Pinsent Masons - Copyright Claim

[Deleted member 59730]

I think that there is a misunderstanding here - I am stating that Getty have to initially prove that it is their image - not arguing about whether innocent / guilty of theft once that ownership is shown; but the starting point is that Getty have to prove ownership first, then they can pursue copyright

you can't pursue copyright if you haven't first shown that you own the image...

so the burden of proof is:

1) on Getty to demonstrate ownership
2) (assuming 1 is proven) on the user to show purchase

you can not expect 2 without 1, therefore step 1 is a burden of proof on Getty - without that the user is innocent...

Dear Alisdair

I think there are 2 things here. In the first all Getty have to do is make a simple statement that they are acting for the copyright owner. In practice that is enough. During an out of court settlement I had with one of the biggest law firms in the country they only thought of asking for a signed affidavit at the final stage before paying a settlement cheque.

The second instance is if someone is stupid enough to argue the case in court. This requires two expert witnesses, one for each side, at about £150 per hour, two barristers at goodness what cost per hour and all the other court costs. Unless the infringer really does believe, and have clear evidence, that Getty do not have the rights he is on an expensive hiding to nothing.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Dear Alisdair

I think there are 2 things here. In the first all Getty have to do is make a simple statement that they are acting for the copyright owner. In practice that is enough. During an out of court settlement I had with one of the biggest law firms in the country they only thought of asking for a signed affidavit at the final stage before paying a settlement cheque.

The second instance is if someone is stupid enough to argue the case in court. This requires two expert witnesses, one for each side, at about £150 per hour, two barristers at goodness what cost per hour and all the other court costs. Unless the infringer really does believe, and have clear evidence, that Getty do not have the rights he is on an expensive hiding to nothing.

And if he provides this at an early stage history shows that getty back off.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

And if he provides this at an early stage history shows that getty back off.

And in two cases I've heard of the photographer loses their very lucrative contract with Getty.

 

[akirk]

Dear Alisdair

I think there are 2 things here. In the first all Getty have to do is make a simple statement that they are acting for the copyright owner. In practice that is enough. During an out of court settlement I had with one of the biggest law firms in the country they only thought of asking for a signed affidavit at the final stage before paying a settlement cheque.

The second instance is if someone is stupid enough to argue the case in court. This requires two expert witnesses, one for each side, at about £150 per hour, two barristers at goodness what cost per hour and all the other court costs. Unless the infringer really does believe, and have clear evidence, that Getty do not have the rights he is on an expensive hiding to nothing.

I don't disagree with this

the point I am making is that Getty know that should the case go to court then they may be having to show evidence that the photo is theirs to pursue... (assuming that the defendant claims to show otherwise)...

which means that they are likely to have a way of doing that...

which is most likely to be within the image itself - i.e. watermarking / etc.

the rest is fluff around the process - the core to it is that Getty will have to have an initial reason for the action - that will be based on evidence they have (to a level which makes them convinced it is their image) that the image was produced / watermarked by them...

therefore the fact that they have taken action is likely to show that at some point the image was theirs...

all of this discussion from me was in answer to an earlier statement that a photog. might have sold the image to a number of libraries and therefore how could Getty show it was their image - the response is that they can...

as to the rest of it - I was making no point regarding that...

I am not entirely sure that the Getty approach is one I would take (there has been some good discussion about that here), however I do firmly support chasing payment for images used without payment and I suspect that the only way of succeeding is the Getty approach.

I mentioned above the unique position I am in by owning companies in each sector of the process, however I don't sell stock in quite the same way so my stock photos are historic / only online as watermarked thumbnails / the library aims to sell the originals primarily... so I have yet to chase in the way Getty does - but I can see why I might take the same approach... I would hope not to have to, but in reality it is probably the only way...

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

the ONLY time they are legally required to provide definitive documentary evidence, is when going to court. By which time it will have cost the alleged infringer a lot of money in legal costs.

4. image rights owner confirms in writing that they hold sole rights
5. Alleged infringer demands a copy of the document
6. Image rights holder says 'we do not have to provide this to you at this point, we only have to file the document with the court'.
7. alleged infringer says 'bugger off'.
8. rights owner continues to try to settle, in vain
9. rights owner goes to court and claims for costs for everything done in the run up to court action.

All this is correct in principle but there is a key point missing in this scenario.Under the Civil Procedure Rules, both parties have to co-operate with each other to ensure they are both "on an equal footing" (CPR 1.1.(2)) and that court time is not wasted. Further to this there is a Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct to which Annexe A paragraph 5 states that all documenst relied upon in the case should be specified by the proposed Claimant in its Letter Before Action and that if the proposed Defendant asks in reply to see a document :-

"The claimant should provide the documents requested by the defendant within as short a period of time as is practicable or explain in writing why the documents will not be provided."

If one party b recahes these rules or otherwise fails to co-operate in an extreme way which leads to court time being taken up that might otherwise, with more co-operation, have been avoided, then the court have powers to punish that party by disallowing costs that would otherwise be awarded to them on succeeding with the case. The court could even order a winning party to pay some of the legal costs fo the losing party.

When a case is based on rights in a document, it is blatantly un-co-operative and a breach of the CPR and the above Practice Direction to refuse to reveal a copy of the document when requested before proceedings are issued.

 

[The Resolver]

As a number of people have been asking me privately for assistance, I have decided to run a one hour webinar on the 12th January 2011 at 8pm (UK) on the subject of how to evaluate and respond to the image copyright claims by Getty, Corbis, Masterfile and others. This is for those who wish to represent themselves and not instruct lawyers, although lawyers are welcome to participate.


To avoid the image library 'spies', I do require evidence of a letter to you from the image library or their lawyers and some proof of your identity. However lawyers and others advising those alleged to have breached image rights will also be welcome on the basis they can satisfy me that they are not acting for any of the image libraries.


The webinar will include a presentation by myself with slides and websites displayed under desktop sharing (you sit back and hear me and see my screen) as well as questions and answers from participants.


I will cover the following:-

1. How to investigate whether the library is able to establish rights in the image sufficient to justify proceedings in court.
2. How to assess whether or not you are liable for damages.
3. How to asses whether you are at risk of being liable for the other party's legal costs.
4. How to limit any potential liability for the other party's legal costs even if unsuccessful at court.
5. How to, and where to, gather in evidence in support of your defence/denial.
6. How to assess how much a court would likely award against you if they sued and were successful.
7. How to negotiate with the library or their lawyers.
8. How to consider whether you have a claim on other parties e.g. web developers for providing the image.
9. How to bring other parties into the negotiation.
10. What action to take against third parties.
11. How to respond to court proceedings including the forms and documents to submit.
12. Alternatives to litigation (e.g online mediation, adjudication etc) and how to encourage (or, if they refuse, put pressure on) the library to pursue them with you.
13. How to asses whether there has been a breach of professional rules by the lawyers acting for the library (harassment, unreasonable claims etc)
14. Comparative strategies and levels of co-operation including analysis of a totally non-co-operative strategy and potential outcomes.

The webinar will provide materials to all taking part being template letters and model procedures to follow. The presentations will be available for download (subject to my copyright!!). There will be a question and answer session and those enrolling will be able to continue to raise questions on a private forum. To cover my preparation and webinar time and post- webinar Q&A time, there is a charge of £35 for entry.


If interested please email me for details of how to register. If you have already written to me, apologies for the delay, but I will be responding today to you all.


In order to ensure everyone has an opportunity to raise questions I am limiting the numbers to the first 10. I already have 4 who I am in touch with and for whom I will reserve a first option.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

To avoid the image library 'spies', I do require evidence of a letter to you from the image library or their lawyers and some proof of your identity. However lawyers and others advising those alleged to have breached image rights will also be welcome on the basis they can satisfy me that they are not acting for any of the image libraries.

Perhaps you will then follow with a seminar for those photographers whose work is ripped off. Those photographers whose property it is that has been misused but which you now think it a good idea to 'help' the infringers.

Talk about ambulance chasing!

PS In 2009, total infringement case volume reported by PicScout clients increased more then 3 times over 2006 levels, which demonstrates the ongoing explosion of the use of digital imagery and its non-legitimate use. The amount lost by photographers ran to just under $70 million worldwide in 2006 so we are looking at over $200 million in lost revenue annually today. That is just RM sales. Infringement of RF images could be even greater.

 

[The Resolver]

Perhaps you will then follow with a seminar for those photographers whose work is ripped off. Those photographers whose property it is that has been misused but which you now think it a good idea to 'help' the infringers.

Talk about ambulance chasing! .

I think these comments are unfair. Most of the infringers I have spoken to are people who did so innocently, ie paying others to build a website etc or otherwise believing they were not infringing anyone's rights. I am happy to exclude blatant infringers but I guess they are hardly likely to tell me.

I did not, by the way, say photographers are not welcome. I prefaced my restriction by saying "To avoid the image library 'spies'". I was just excluding the libraries. The reason is to avoid people prejudicing themselves in front of those acting for the libraries.

Now you mention it I see no reason to deny photographers. Of course I see the injustice of infringement.

Incidentally, I am not ambulance chasing as I have retired from practice and thus will not be taking on a case representing anyone. I think my record on UKBF shows how much time I spend helping with advice.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I think these comments are unfair. Most of the infringers I have spoken to are people who did so innocently, ie paying others to build a website etc or otherwise believing they were not infringing anyone's rights.

Please point to where in the Copyright Act 1988 people 'believing' that they were not infringers means that they are 'innocent'?

The answer to the people you have spoken to is very simple. Ask the website builder to pay them the money.
Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co. is the precedent on this.

 

[The Resolver]

Please point to where in the Copyright Act 1988 people 'believing' that they were not infringers means that they are 'innocent'?

I have already explained that guilt and innocence are not terms that relate to liability in civil proceedings. It is, however, common terminology to use the word 'innocent' to refer to those who infringe without knowing that they have infringed. I am well aware,and have already stated, that ignorance is no defence to liability, hence my use of the term 'infringers', but these people do need help to understand their position and exposure. If you prefer a better adjective to 'innocent' then by all means suggest one.

 

[The Resolver]

The answer to the people you have spoken to is very simple. Ask the website builder to pay them the money.
Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co. is the precedent on this.

This only applies to those who acquired the images in that way. But oyu will see that I have in fact covered this in items 8 to 10:-
"

1. How to consider whether you have a claim on other parties e.g. web developers for providing the image.
2. How to bring other parties into the negotiation.
3. What action to take against third parties."

Its not the full solution because liability neverthless remains with the developer's client who remains exposed for so long as he cannot comtact the developer or persuade him to pay.

 

[UKSBD]

What I don't get is,
I have read photographers say by having someone else using the image it means the value of the image is lost because it is no longer exclusive.
If so, how can they attempt to charge everyone using it the exclusivity rate?

 

[alistaird]

Hi
I can see how stressful this is for you.
You certainly need representation and closing the company down can also create additional headaches with other creditors.
Feel free to contact me for an alternative quote.
Regards

Alistair

 

[akirk]

What I don't get is,
I have read photographers say by having someone else using the image it means the value of the image is lost because it is no longer exclusive.
If so, how can they attempt to charge everyone using it the exclusivity rate?

without looking I would guess that there is a default position in their terms stating that the de facto cost is the equiv. of the exclusive price...

Alasdair

 

[Deleted member 59730]

What I don't get is,
I have read photographers say by having someone else using the image it means the value of the image is lost because it is no longer exclusive.
If so, how can they attempt to charge everyone using it the exclusivity rate?

The fee is what I say it is. There is no obligation on me to licence images cheaper to infringers than legitimate purchasers. Quite the opposite.

Getty's average web fee 2 years ago for legitimate sales was $650 in the USA and slightly more in the UK.

I've lost substantially over lost exclusivity. Up in the several thousands.

 

[The Resolver]

What I don't get is,
I have read photographers say by having someone else using the image it means the value of the image is lost because it is no longer exclusive.
If so, how can they attempt to charge everyone using it the exclusivity rate?

I may have misunderstood the question but I would imagine what photographers are referring to is the exclusivity for the end user licensee of the image. I will pay more for an image if I can be assured no-one else will be able to use the same image. That is different to the exclusivity given to the distributor library which is given the exclusive rights to distribute but can sub-licence to as many people as they wish.

The high charges sought by libraries like Getty are not based on giving exclusive rights to the end user licensees but are high because they obviously find people are prepared to pay more than they might have to pay elsewhere, usually those who do not fund the fee out of their own pocket - eg employees in design firms acting for larger clients still guided by the pre-recession line that 'nobody got fired buying IBM'. One could also add to the list infringers who pay up reluctantly out of fear. It would be interested to ascertain comparative revenues between customers and infringers as the suspicion is that the Picscout led campaign may have affected the business model.

Does anyone know whether those libaries who do not watermark used to and , if so, when they ceased to do so?

 

[akirk]

Does anyone know whether those libaries who do not watermark used to and , if so, when they ceased to do so?

Are there libraries now who don't watermark? Watermarks may not be visible...

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

I meant visible watermarks rather than metadata.

 

[akirk]

ahh - as far as I know no library watermarks visibly the images they sell - people are buying an image, not an image plus the library's branding - so we have never bought a visibly watermarked image - plenty of digimarc / other markings in images though

Alasdair

 

[Edward Moss]

Alamy watermark all of their images.

 

[The Resolver]

ahh - as far as I know no library watermarks visibly the images they sell - people are buying an image, not an image plus the library's branding - so we have never bought a visibly watermarked image - plenty of digimarc / other markings in images though

Alasdair

I am talking about watermarks added to the images displayed on the library website for selection rather than invisable metadata (fingerprinting) . Many do that and pre-picscout I think they all did. It was the way to prevent people just taking a screenshot to copy. 123rtf still do. Of course they all remove them when you download on purchase.

This is important because most people would not be able to remove the watermark and still have a workable image and also if they did use it in some way it made it near impossible, unless they acquired it second hand from someone with that skill, to claim to be an 'innocent infringer'. It would be like stealing an item from a shop and removing the electronic tag.

The interesting question is why libraries would prefer to incur the larger cost of paying picscout and lawyers and losing images that picscout do not locate rather than just watermarking to begin with. There is surely only one answer ;-)

 

[akirk]

I am talking about watermarks added to the images displayed on the library website for selection rather than invisable metadata (fingerprinting) . Many do that and pre-picscout I think they all did. It was the way to prevent people just taking a screenshot to copy. 123rtf still do. Of course they all remove them when you download on purchase.

This is important because most people would not be able to remove the watermark and still have a workable image and also if they did use it in some way it made it near impossible, unless they acquired it second hand from someone with that skill, to claim to be an 'innocent infringer'. It would be like stealing an item from a shop and removing the electronic tag.

The interesting question is why libraries would prefer to incur the larger cost of paying picscout and lawyers and losing images that picscout do not locate rather than just watermarking to begin with. There is surely only one answer ;-)

Apologies - I think that this is a misunderstanding here...

As far as I know all libraries visibly watermark when displaying their images (perhaps not the thumbnails - but certainly the comps (medium size images) - Getty do / istock do / etc.)

but this is not where there is an issue...

once they have sold that image to punter A - the visible watermark is removed as a part of that sale - punter A who is a genuine customer is paying £1 - £600 - £??? for the image and doesn't want the stock library watermark visible anymore once paid for...

so the image they download at the end of the sales process no longer has a visible watermark...

punter A then uses that image on his website - as he is entitled to... without the watermark

at this point the image re-enters the internet, but not watermarked...

now is the issue
- punter B finds the image through google image search and takes a copy
- designer for punter B does the same
- stock library no 2 with no morals finds it and copies it / puts it up for sale again
- punter c buys it from stock library no 2 - actually buying stolen good but doesn't realise it (no defence - but reason it happens)

so - the problem isn't at the point of purchase / display by the original stock library - it is later...

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

Apologies - I think that this is a misunderstanding here...

As far as I know all libraries visibly watermark when displaying their images (perhaps not the thumbnails - but certainly the comps (medium size images) - Getty do / istock do / etc.)

Getty place a small watermark of their name in the largely redundant top left hand corner of their images. In most cases , this is easily removed without damaging the image itself. The proper way to watermark, if you really wanted to prevent theft at source, is to place it fairly centrally albeit as a transparency. Once you register in Getty even that small watermark is removed for full size image.

Now with registration you would expect at least some proof of validity of the email address (so that address may in future amount to evidence of unlicensed use - eg on a website asssociated with, or on a domain registered to, that email address, but their system does not require confirmation. The watermark is removed even if you have never opened an account ie bought from them. So [email protected] can register and access immediately unwatermarked, reasonably sized, images. My question is why?

I agree with your helpful scenario that many unlicensed images are taken from licensed copies and then sold on the black market.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I had a client approached by Getty about an image, they sent the licence and getty wrote back saying 'thanks, matter closed'. I am not sure what the validity of an email address has to do with anything.

I am not sure if getty digimark images with the licence number or not though.

 

[akirk]

I don't think that email can work - I use one email address to buy stock for 100s of sites - any design agency would...

key for them is that they can prove that they own the image and if you are not recorded as a purchaser (eta - or linked to a relevant purchase) then they will chase you...

Alasdair

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I don't think that email can work - I use one email address to buy stock for 100s of sites - any design agency would...

key for them is that they can prove that they own the image and if you are not recorded as a purchaser then they will chase you...

Alasdair

Not quite true in exact terms, I have bought licences for clients, Getty have confirmed to me in writing that this practice is acceptable.

ADDED: please don't think I am being pedantic, but if the designer bought a licence for the client then they may well be covered (provided he has bought a licence exclusively per usage )

 

[akirk]

Not quite true in exact terms, I have bought licences for clients, Getty have confirmed to me in writing that this practice is acceptable.

ADDED: please don't think I am being pedantic, but if the designer bought a licence for the client then they may well be covered (provided he has bought a licence exclusively per usage )

no problem - you are right - above edited.
the difficulty though is that Getty will not know this - so they may still chase you - that is when responding with the licence is a simple solution...

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

I am not sure what the validity of an email address has to do with anything..

Not a lot but better than nothing. I am simply saying that its surprising they do not require verification of email address before allowing anyone to access watermark free images because if they did then at least there is some possibility they could end up with evidence not simply of unlicensed usage but infringement that was blatant and direct from their site (because you had registered with them) and therefore liable to greater damages. You may use a number of email addresses but they all serve as potential , one way or another y linkeage to your net activities generally, , to identify who you are.

 

[akirk]

Not a lot but better than nothing. I am simply saying that its surprising they do not require verification of email address before allowing anyone to access watermark free images because if they did then at least there is some possibility they could end up with evidence not simply of unlicensed usage but infringement that was blatant and direct from their site (because you had registered with them) and therefore liable to greater damages. You may use a number of email addresses but they all serve as potential , one way or another y linkeage to your net activities generally, , to identify who you are.

true, but maybe more profitable to just then chase for higher payment

Alasdair

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Not a lot but better than nothing. I am simply saying that its surprising they do not require verification of email address before allowing anyone to access watermark free images because if they did then at least there is some possibility they could end up with evidence not simply of unlicensed usage but infringement that was blatant and direct from their site (because you had registered with them) and therefore liable to greater damages. You may use a number of email addresses but they all serve as potential , one way or another y linkeage to your net activities generally, , to identify who you are.

This assumes that infringers are using images from the Getty site. This is rare. Most infringements are by copying an image already bought by someone else which does not have a watermark.

Getty have stated that they don't chase legitimate clients for infringements.

I have had an infringement case where the watermark was intact.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

The images with the Getty watermark in the corner tend to be ones used by news agencies, rarely have I seen this type of watermarking elsewheere. Then again I wouldn't notice.

 

[scott19031]

Hi there,

this is my first post but hopefully it will help regarding this issue with Getty Images. I was in exactly the same position where a web developer had used an image that had not been licensed from Getty Images (I had no idea that they had done this) and tried to pinpoint them as the offender by asking my web host to tell me when the image had been uploaded and by whom but in my haste to try and rectify the situation with Getty I had erased the image already and along with it the trace to the developer who denied all knowledge to it! I finally got a solicitor to draw up a response to Getty's solicitors which did the trick and they stopped chasing me for payment.

I've attached it for you to use if you wish and hope it brings you the same luck!

The letter was as follows-

To [xxx]

This is with reference to your fax / email dated [xxx] whereby you have informed us that the copyright to one of the images used on our website [xxx] in fact belongs to you.

We may inform you that the website had been designed by an independent web designer and the images used on the website were provided by the same designer as a part of the contract.

If indeed, the image in question belongs to you and has been used without obtaining a valid and legal license or release from you, then without prejudice to our rights, we have already removed the said image from our website and from all relevant archives.

Since the image was provided by the independent web designer, whose details have been already provided to you, and had not been independently procured or used by us, we disclaim any and all legal liability for the use of the same.

We have, in good faith, and without prejudice to our rights, already offered GBP 45.90 in lieu of the licensing fee for an entire year. This offer still stands and is to demonstrate our good faith and desire to settle this amicably. We do not desire the use of your image, even if you were to accept the said sum of money.

Despite our best efforts to resolve this amicably, we are saddened to find that you are trying to saddle us with expenses and costs that we deem unacceptable and undeserved. We may reiterate that if the image indeed belongs to you, then your remedy lies against the designer who has used it without your approval and not against us who have had no role in the selection or use of the said image.

Since the i mage was used without our knowledge regarding copyright and in ignorance thereof, and especially since there is no contract explicit or implied between you and us, we do not feel that we are liable to pay the punitive charges / damages that you have demanded.

You may therefore kindly withdraw your mandate to your collection agency and drop all related proceedings and action against us. In case you decide to keep demanding any money from us on any account, we shall be compelled to retain legal counsel and to seek an appropriate injunction at your expense.

It may also be reiterated that even if the said image was used on our site, without our knowledge, the same was not being offered for sale, nor were we making any commercial gains from the same. We are therefore not liable to render any charges, profits or gains on any account to you.

The said image having been removed immediately on receipt of notice from you, and without even querying your title to the same, must be taken as a gesture of our honest intention and mustn't be taken advantage of. This was at worst a case of "Innocent Infringement" alone.

We may also add that you have not provided any evidence of registration of the image, since it is claimed to be of US origin and which registration is mandatory before an infringement suit can be filed. Without providing documentated evidence of registration of the copyright in the said image, you must of course be aware that you would only be entitled to an award of actual damages etc.

In the event, our offer to pay GBP 45.90, without prejudice or admission of any sort, and in complete settlement of this issue is most appropriate and shall remain valid for a period of 15 days. Should you be willing to settle on these terms, you may kindly convey your consent. In the alternative, you shall be responsible for any and all legal and allied expenses incurred in defending ourselves from any action that you may initiate or take on the issue.

Sincerely

[xxx]

 

[scott19031]

I had the same issue in 2007 when a web developer used a Getty Image on one of my websites without buying the license. I didn't know this and when I received the first demand I thought they were trying it on but the demands became more fierce so I sought legal advice and was given the following letter to send which worked a treat! Please see attached and if you choose to use it I hope you have the same luck too!

As follows:

To [xxx]

This is with reference to your fax / email dated [xxx] whereby you have informed us that the copyright to one of the images used on our website [xxx] in fact belongs to you.

We may inform you that the website had been designed by an independent web designer and the images used on the website were provided by the same designer as a part of the contract.

If indeed, the image in question belongs to you and has been used without obtaining a valid and legal license or release from you, then without prejudice to our rights, we have already removed the said image from our website and from all relevant archives.

Since the image was provided by the independent web designer, whose details have been already provided to you, and had not been independently procured or used by us, we disclaim any and all legal liability for the use of the same.

We have, in good faith, and without prejudice to our rights, already offered GBP 45.90 in lieu of the licensing fee for an entire year. This offer still stands and is to demonstrate our good faith and desire to settle this amicably. We do not desire the use of your image, even if you were to accept the said sum of money.

Despite our best efforts to resolve this amicably, we are saddened to find that you are trying to saddle us with expenses and costs that we deem unacceptable and undeserved. We may reiterate that if the image indeed belongs to you, then your remedy lies against the designer who has used it without your approval and not against us who have had no role in the selection or use of the said image.

Since the i mage was used without our knowledge regarding copyright and in ignorance thereof, and especially since there is no contract explicit or implied between you and us, we do not feel that we are liable to pay the punitive charges / damages that you have demanded.

You may therefore kindly withdraw your mandate to your collection agency and drop all related proceedings and action against us. In case you decide to keep demanding any money from us on any account, we shall be compelled to retain legal counsel and to seek an appropriate injunction at your expense.

It may also be reiterated that even if the said image was used on our site, without our knowledge, the same was not being offered for sale, nor were we making any commercial gains from the same. We are therefore not liable to render any charges, profits or gains on any account to you.

The said image having been removed immediately on receipt of notice from you, and without even querying your title to the same, must be taken as a gesture of our honest intention and mustn't be taken advantage of. This was at worst a case of "Innocent Infringement" alone.

We may also add that you have not provided any evidence of registration of the image, since it is claimed to be of US origin and which registration is mandatory before an infringement suit can be filed. Without providing documentated evidence of registration of the copyright in the said image, you must of course be aware that you would only be entitled to an award of actual damages etc.

In the event, our offer to pay GBP 45.90, without prejudice or admission of any sort, and in complete settlement of this issue is most appropriate and shall remain valid for a period of 15 days. Should you be willing to settle on these terms, you may kindly convey your consent. In the alternative, you shall be responsible for any and all legal and allied expenses incurred in defending ourselves from any action that you may initiate or take on the issue.

Sincerely

[xxx]

 

[internetspaceships]

I Like that. I like it a lot.

What was the response like?

 

[scott19031]

Never heard from them again, and the woman who had been calling daily didn't return my calls after they had received it!

 

[The Resolver]

Good letter - albeit not amounting to a defence. Bear in mind that their policy/lawyers/approach may have changed since 07.

Given you say there had been a "woman who had been calling daily", then maybe it was the kisses at the end that frightened her off.

 

[cmcp]

mwah !

 

[MrMichael]

But what about the copyright in the letter itself? Who owns that?! Ok, ok, perhaps better to leave that one!

 

[The Resolver]

Picscout (one of the major image tracers used by the image libraries) have a free download called ImageExchange.

It sits in the background while you browse and will try to identify any images on websites you visit that are rights managed and then list them and link you to the licensors. Whilst I do not know how comprehensive it is (are the licensors only those signed up as clients - anyone know?) I have come across images with more than one licensor. This tool is thus useful to identify if anyone else is licensing the same images that are the subject of a Getty (or other library) claim. If so this may be relevant to whether the images were properly licensed from another licensor (whether that is in breach of exclusivity is another matter).

Whilst ImageExchage is a useful tool for designers who want to trace licensors so they can buy a licence for images they come across , I imagine, as users browse the web, it also serves, in the background, to feed into Picscout's database of websites identifying where images are being used. So ImageExchange users also are part of the internet trawl and become unwitting digital detectives for Picscout's clients. I would check your own website's images before using it!

Whatever people think about the tactics of the libraries and their lawyers, we have to take our hats off to Picscout.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Picscout uses software that was developed for facial recognition by the Israeli secret service

Not pertinent to the discussion, but I thought I would mention it