Getty images unauthorised use letter

[Emma Beck]

Hi - my colleague has a small business and used an image found on Google images as an illustration on her website. She has just received a letter from Getty images demanding almost £600 for use of the image. Clicking on the image on Google images there is no mention of Getty; it simply takes you to a school website. She removed the image immediately and has tried to email and call the Getty License compliance number with no joy. It was an entirely innocent mistake - albeit a stupid one - and is unwilling to pay.
Has anyone experienced this lately?

 

[crossdaz]

This is how they operate, if the image has been removed then just ignore them - they are full of threats and bluster.

Just because an image is on google doesn't mean it is free to use - they all belong to someone. I hope you have learnt an easy lesson. In future use a site like fotolia where you can get decent images for about £1 with no worries.

Now sit back and wait for all the legal boffins to try and scare you - these things always run into 500 replies saying the same rubbish

 

[OldWelshGuy]

This has been going on for ages. years in fact.

there have been numerous threads on this forum about it.

In short, she has used someone elses copyrighted image and it has come back to bite her on the backside.

She can be as unwilling to pay as she likes, but you have just laid it out how it happened, she got it wrong, and will now have to deal with the consequences of unauthorised use of someone elses Intellectual property.

Do a search for 'sued by getty' you will find all the info you need.

 

[TickledPink]

Don't let OldWelshGuy scare you. A friend managed to land a client in hot water a couple of years ago with Getty after doing the same thing. I advised him to simply remove the image and for the client to write a letter of apology to Getty, explaining the circumstances.

It's easily done. Few people realise that everything on the internet carries copyright. You must not use anything without prior permission. I know a site where the guy who runs it gets very hot under the collar if people just grab images from the site. He's got eBay to shut down more than one auction that's used images from his site. However, ask him for permission first and he'll almost always give it. Of course, you can't do that with the likes of Getty, but if you want to use an image from someone else's site, contact the owners for permission first and then check where they got the image from.

 

[arcon5]

Don't let OldWelshGuy scare you. A friend managed to land a client in hot water a couple of years ago with Getty after doing the same thing. I advised him to simply remove the image and for the client to write a letter of apology to Getty, explaining the circumstances.

I wouldn't too quick to dismiss it!!

Your friend got lucky. What does removing the image acheive in defending their claim? They will have undountedly taken screen shots and what not by now!

Alot of people have also been successfully sues by them. Ye sure they use alot of scare tactics, maybe a large proportion don't get taken to court -- is that because they don't take it that far or because Getty get a settlement?

Also -- what does a letter of apology acheive? They don't care how sorry you are or how it came about!!!! Its their job to get paid for it -- not to teach you the different between right and wrong and give you a slap on the wrist!



If things do hot up you can negotiate the price... look at the getty website.. what would it cost to license the photo if done legally? Then get as close to this number as possible.


Maybe they won't persue your case...
Maybe you will be one of the unfortunate sods they do...

But dismissing it won't acheive much if your the latter.

 

[IANL]

I am a photographer who has images with Getty. I have posted on this subject before.

The OP has done he right thing in removing the Image.

I would like to know what cases in the UK Getty has won in court and what the damages were. If it is an innocent use then a court will look very dimly at the waste of time if proceedings are issued. Also there are no punitive damages in the UK and the most Getty would get would be the normal rate that images would get on a web site. I can assure you it is not very much. Exclusive images will command a lot more but I would doubt it would have been on a website without a credit in the instance.

Send a without Prejudice letter to Getty stating you have removed the image and trust that will be the end of the matter.

I would be very surprised if they issued any proceedings in this matter. Cost would be too much

 

[andygambles]

Personally I think you should purchase the image. Even if you no longer intend to use it. At least then morally the creator of the image is getting some recompense for you using it. Then write to Getty stating it was a mistake and you have now purchased the image.

 

[IANL]

Personally I think you should purchase the image. Even if you no longer intend to use it. At least then morally the creator of the image is getting some recompense for you using it. Then write to Getty stating it was a mistake and you have now purchased the image.

Purchasing it after the incident will not absolve you from any potential liability. If you are inclined to make a payment make the offer on a full and final settlement basis and send without prejudice.

Frankly if someone hasn't profited from the use of the image then I would not bother chasing for a fee. If they have profited from it's use then a fee should be chased.

The publishing world is full of use it and if we get a bill, pay for it. Bigger companies will make a declaration of use normally.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

If it is an innocent use then a court will look very dimly at the waste of time if proceedings are issued. Also there are no punitive damages in the UK and the most Getty would get would be the normal rate that images would get on a web site.

There is no such thing as 'innocent use' in the CDPA 1988.

Getty sells images for web use at rates above £650 often enough for them to get that amount in court.

Getty have six years to decide whether to take you to court or not. In that time period there is likely to be a new fast track IP court which will make it much, much easier for rights holders to pursue infringers.

 

[IANL]

There is no such thing as 'innocent use' in the CDPA 1988.

Getty sells images for web use at rates above £650 often enough for them to get that amount in court.

Getty have six years to decide whether to take you to court or not. In that time period there is likely to be a new fast track IP court which will make it much, much easier for rights holders to pursue infringers.

I should have "innocent use" in quote marks as it's my term of reference. I accept what you are saying but they also sell images for a lot less. Whilst I accept that people shouldn't do this there are some naive business people around as this forum can show.

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/creative/frontdoor/webandmobileimages.

I would like to know of any case Getty has brought in UK courts I do not think there is one (this is not a challenge to anyone's assertions, just would like to know if anyone knows of any, as I can't locate any at the mo.)

 

[IANL]

Further to my Previous post

This is another view of Getty's demands

http://www.zyra.info/getstu.htm

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I should have "innocent use" in quote marks as it's my term of reference. I accept what you are saying but they also sell images for a lot less. Whilst I accept that people shouldn't do this there are some naive business people around as this forum can show.

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/creative/frontdoor/webandmobileimages.

I would like to know of any case Getty has brought in UK courts I do not think there is one (this is not a challenge to anyone's assertions, just would like to know if anyone knows of any, as I can't locate any at the mo.)

http://www.out-law.com/page-10367

£2k in damages, and a reported (elsewhere) £19,000+ in court costs

 

[Deleted member 59730]

You quote for a special offer and only 3 months use. A similar image, girl with video camera,

BD8300-001 Licence details Use Web - Advertisement Size Up to 1/2 page Distribution 1 website Start date 9 Feb 2011 End date 9 Feb 2014 Territory United Kingdom, United States Industry Beauty, Personal Care, Holistic Health Treatment Exclusivity : No Exclusivity

Contact us for exclusivity

Image: Collection: Title: BD8300-001 Stone Twin girls (6-8) playing with video camera

Price: £ 935.00 GBP

 

[bdw]

I would like to know what cases in the UK Getty has won in court and what the damages were. If it is an innocent use then a court will look very dimly at the waste of time if proceedings are issued.

The case mentioned above is cited at every opportunity and do you know why? Because it is (AFAIK) the only one (feel free to show further examples). OTOH there are hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who have received these demands and not paid a brass farthing.

Alot of people have also been successfully sues by them.

Sorry but I am afraid that this is wrong. I am not aware of a single case that has gone to court, been tried and awarded in Getty's favour by a judge. The JA Coles case was settled out of court. There was no court ruling in Getty's favour - the defendant settled. So it was not a vindication of Getty's position. Clearly this was a unique instance where circumstances were different from the rest.

Remember that this case happened about 18 months ago. At that time all the "experts" predicted that the floodgates had been opened and that many more cases would follow. AFAIK none did.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I have to agree with BDW, both he and I have been involved in this for many years now. If it is the only case known, then of course it will be cited at every opportunity when someone requests details of any court cases, by virtue of the fact it is the only widely known one


Have to understand that the Cole case wasn't really a 'proper one', and if you read the link that is clear. it was SETTLED but rubber stamped, i.e. no precedent was created. I think that pretty much anyone with even half a brain now realises (as we all did a few years back), that this system is the golden goose, there is no way they will risk slaying it.

Thankfully legislation is on the way to prevent these cases being forced by the plaintiff into the high court. This will allow people to pretty much halt this practice in its tracks. (thank God)

 

[trader1]

Well I wondered where the sensible lot had gone from fsb and low and behold some familiar names are here.

I would like to know if anyone has had correspondence from Pinsent Masons and what reply if any they have sent. Feel free to PM if preferred.

We have just received a letter from Pinsent Masons after hearing nothing from Getty in over 3 years. Pinsent have also kindly added £600 to the charges.

Thanks

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Well I wondered where the sensible lot had gone from fsb and low and behold some familiar names are here.
made me smile
I would like to know if anyone has had correspondence from Pinsent Masons and what reply if any they have sent. Feel free to PM if preferred.

We have just received a letter from Pinsent Masons after hearing nothing from Getty in over 3 years. Pinsent have also kindly added £600 to the charges.

Thanks

I have heard of a new round of letters going out, some as far back as 4 years. but we have not seen a flood of posts here or at the FSB, so I am assuming they are selective letters? it would be interesting to find a pattern between them.

 

[trader1]

I have heard of a new round of letters going out, some as far back as 4 years. but we have not seen a flood of posts here or at the FSB, so I am assuming they are selective letters? it would be interesting to find a pattern between them.

Hi OWG,

Good to hear from you.

I am actually interested in what happens after receiving such letters.

Interestingly at the time of the first letter the business which never made any money was a sole trader business being transferred and sold into a limited company in 2008 / 9.

Again this company has not earned any income and has no assets.

Since the first letter and a reply going back via Limeone nothing was heard until the letter from Pinsents the other day.

So what happens now? Do Pinsents ever progress things beyond this point? I am sure they would carry out somekind of credit check if they were to actually proceed to ensure they may actuallly get something?

Any feedback much appreciated

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Was it addressed to an individual or a Ltd co?

What did the letter from limeone say? did gettyreply at all? My understanding nis that the basic principle behind the letter was that all correspondence go to limeone. was this the case in your case?

 

[trader1]

The original letter was addressed to the name of the business not an individual but obviously it was still at that time a sole trader business. However it was subsequently transferred over to a limited company.

The limeone letter was the standard letter they send asking for image licence evidence and stating that any infringement was not deliberate etc. No reply to this letter was ever received from Getty. Therefore nothing for over 3 years till the other day.

Pinsent have a cc to Limeone at the bottom of letter so assume a copy was sent to them also.

 

[Lease4Less]

The original letter was addressed to the name of the business not an individual but obviously it was still at that time a sole trader business. However it was subsequently transferred over to a limited company.

The limeone letter was the standard letter they send asking for image licence evidence and stating that any infringement was not deliberate etc. No reply to this letter was ever received from Getty. Therefore nothing for over 3 years till the other day.

Pinsent have a cc to Limeone at the bottom of letter so assume a copy was sent to them also.

If the company was a Sole Trader at the time, it is irrelevant whether or not they are a Ltd company now, they will be sueing the proprietor of the Sole Trader business.

 

[trader1]

If the company was a Sole Trader at the time, it is irrelevant whether or not they are a Ltd company now, they will be sueing the proprietor of the Sole Trader business.

Thanks for your reply. However the legal advice given was that you are perfectly legally able to transfer all or sell all assets and liabilities into a limited company and therefore any issue relating to this would then need to be addressed and dealt with by the limited company.

 

[deniser]

When you click on an image from Google images it does actually say "this image may be subject to copyright" right next to it.

 

[Lease4Less]

Thanks for your reply. However the legal advice given was that you are perfectly legally able to transfer all or sell all assets and liabilities into a limited company and therefore any issue relating to this would then need to be addressed and dealt with by the limited company.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect.

You can transfer assets into the limited company, but if you have a contract that was set up when the buisness was a Sole Trader, you would need to obtain the permission form the creditor to transfer the liability into the Ltd company.

For example, you cannot lease a car as Joe Bloggs, and then just decide to transfer the contract into Joe Bloggs Ltd just because you have formed a Limited company. You would have to apply to have the agreement "ported".

Therfore, if a company is alledging that you committed an offence that was to their financial detriment when you were a Sole Trader it is you that they will persue and not the Ltd company.

 

[akirk]

That is correct - otherwise it would be legal to:

- take on a personal liability, e.g. a house mortgage
- transfer that liability into a ltd. co.
- liquidate the ltd. co.
- kill off the liability

suddenly everyone has a mortgage free house and the banks go bust again

Alasdair

 

[trader1]

That is correct - otherwise it would be legal to:

- take on a personal liability, e.g. a house mortgage
- transfer that liability into a ltd. co.
- liquidate the ltd. co.
- kill off the liability

suddenly everyone has a mortgage free house and the banks go bust again

Alasdair

Ok guys you are obviously entitled to your opinion. However I think the key here is whether a contract exists and of course it doesnt only an alleged infringement which may or may not be the case.

If the infringement was proven and a liability established then you would of course use the term creditor and be unable to transfer any liability.

With a mortgage you enter a contract which is understood by both sides however in this case no contract ever existed. It is, as I mentioned an alleged infringement with no liability yet proven.

 

[akirk]

Ok guys you are obviously entitled to your opinion. However I think the key here is whether a contract exists and of course it doesnt only an alleged infringement which may or may not be the case.

If the infringement was proven and a liability established then you would of course use the term creditor and be unable to transfer any liability.

With a mortgage you enter a contract which is understood by both sides however in this case no contract ever existed. It is, as I mentioned an alleged infringement with no liability yet proven.

mmm - so someone could:
- steal a loaf of bread from Tescos
- claim that they were doing it as a 'sole trader' (bread used for business lunch)
- set up a ltd. company
- transfer all liabilities from sole trader to ltd. co.
- claim that the issue now lies with the ltd. company and not the individual...

mmm
no

Alasdair

 

[arcon5]

mmm - so someone could:
- steal a loaf of bread from Tescos
- claim that they were doing it as a 'sole trader' (bread used for business lunch)
- set up a ltd. company
- transfer all liabilities from sole trader to ltd. co.
- claim that the issue now lies with the ltd. company and not the individual...

mmm
no

Alasdair

I trip to the sony center now huh

 

[trader1]

mmm - so someone could:
- steal a loaf of bread from Tescos
- claim that they were doing it as a 'sole trader' (bread used for business lunch)
- set up a ltd. company
- transfer all liabilities from sole trader to ltd. co.
- claim that the issue now lies with the ltd. company and not the individual...

mmm
no

Alasdair

That is an extraordinary example but in theory if you as a business were accused of theft but it had not been proven then no actual liability exists. It is only alleged.

If you were charged and found guilty of theft then of course you could not transfer any liability but if there was a sufficent time gap, like in this case over 3 years, then you would be legally able to sell and transfer your sole trader business into a limited company and any alleged liabilities and assets with it.

Remember the theft is only alleged it is not the same as transferring an actual proven liability.

 

[bdw]

Well I wondered where the sensible lot had gone from fsb

Well they actually "suspended" me without notice and with no communication - for having the temerity to criticise the FSB (I think). I am still suspended (or so they think.)

 

[akirk]

Remember the theft is only alleged it is not the same as transferring an actual proven liability.

Precisely my point - so no liability transferred and should it be proven it will be clear that the liability remains with the original individual...

Part of the issue with this is that people try and use words to pretend that it is not theft - accidental / I found it on Google / I was borrowing it / I didn't realise / etc. etc. - none of which matters - if you don't own something, but take it and use it that is theft...

There are websites which give away images free of charge, but it is still up to the end user to validate whether that is genuine / likely to be dodgy - that is why it is better to buy and have a paper trail...

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

With respect,Trader1, you are simply wrong in your assertion and I am concerned others may think forming a ltd company is the solution.

Civil liabilities exist when the events creating them occur and not when the subject of a court order. You can have a philosophical discussion akin to the Berkely question ' if a tree falls, but no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?' but , in this case, the liability exists even if Getty did not even know about it let alone claim and obtain a court Order over it.

You are correct in that you can form a ltd company to run your sole trader business and agree with it that the company can enter into an agreement to accept any civil liabilities you have personally in respect of that business. But it doesn't prevent Getty being entitled to sue you personally. The impact of transferring liablity to the companyis simply that,if you have to pay Getty, the company owes you a reimbursement. Your agreement with your company cannot affect the rights of Getty.

As to the issue of whether the lack of reported cases means Getty may not have successfuly pursued infringers, the former is not evidence of the latter. Out of court settlements are not reported. Indeed very few court cases at first instance are reported unless appealed against. Judgements can only be searched as against named defendants. Further, Getty cannot publicise confidential settlements without the agreement of the other party. The long gap betwen early Getty letters and more recent activity by Pinsents does not mean they do not intens to pursue infringers. It just means they are now pursuing infringers.

 

[Trying to run my business]

To get back to the point I am also in the middle of a paper chase with Getty Images and Pinsent Masons and have received varying demands for varying amounts following the usage of Picscout by Getty images to trawl my server and lift screenshots of pages that were not available for public viewing but were testing the single image was used to make a 3 part image the testing of images is fully compliant with the Getty Images preview download licence "Grant of License. Getty Images grants to you, for a period of thirty (30) days, a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable and non-assignable right to use the image and/or film preview file you have selected and any derivatives or copies (collectively, the "Licensed Material"), on your personal computer and, in the case of film, in any test, sample, comp or rough cut evaluation materials. The Licensed Material may only be used in materials for personal, noncommercial use and test or sample use, including comps and layouts." yet they have been at me for thousands of pounds since April 2009 for an image that was on the server for less than a month to test and removed as was decided not to go with the site layout.
To buy a 3 month licence for the image would cost £39 from Getty my understanding is that they can not attempt to charge more than a license for the image would cost and given that I have been able to buy a back dated licence for the image via there site for a 3 month period in the same year some thing I suggest others with the Getty problem try I can not see how they can attempt to continue this what can only be described as money making racket.
I have contacted my local MP regarding this issue as it now affects so many UK small business people and needs to be addressed by the government.
I have no intention of paying Getty the money they have demanded and have informed them that I will pay £39 for a licence to cover the month the image was on the server in non public usage as a test image although there terms offers a trial usage for testing of images but do not accept any liability for copyright infringement.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

Getty Images can Getty Stuffed

 

[trader1]

To get back to the point I am also in the middle of a paper chase with Getty Images and Pinsent Masons and have received varying demands for varying amounts following the usage of Picscout by Getty images to trawl my server and lift screenshots of pages that were not available for public viewing but were testing the single image was used to make a 3 part image the testing of images is fully compliant with the Getty Images preview download licence "Grant of License. Getty Images grants to you, for a period of thirty (30) days, a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable and non-assignable right to use the image and/or film preview file you have selected and any derivatives or copies (collectively, the "Licensed Material"), on your personal computer and, in the case of film, in any test, sample, comp or rough cut evaluation materials. The Licensed Material may only be used in materials for personal, noncommercial use and test or sample use, including comps and layouts." yet they have been at me for thousands of pounds since April 2009 for an image that was on the server for less than a month to test and removed as was decided not to go with the site layout.
To buy a 3 month licence for the image would cost £39 from Getty my understanding is that they can not attempt to charge more than a license for the image would cost and given that I have been able to buy a back dated licence for the image via there site for a 3 month period in the same year some thing I suggest others with the Getty problem try I can not see how they can attempt to continue this what can only be described as money making racket.
I have contacted my local MP regarding this issue as it now affects so many UK small business people and needs to be addressed by the government.
I have no intention of paying Getty the money they have demanded and have informed them that I will pay £39 for a licence to cover the month the image was on the server in non public usage as a test image although there terms offers a trial usage for testing of images but do not accept any liability for copyright infringement.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

Getty Images can Getty Stuffed

Are you replying to the letters and demands as they come in or are you now at the stage of just waiting to see if Pinsent Mason are going to follow through with the threats of action?

How many letters or follow ups have you received from Pinsent for example?

 

[Trying to run my business]

Hi Trader1,
NO i have responded to all the letters asking for proof of there claim of exclusive copyright etc explain when they becam aware of image on my site how they calculate there charges and to provide a clear image screen shot of my site so image violation can be seen not a low reselution thumbnail screenshot of site so no clear image detail can be viewed.
Had 3 letters since april 2009 of Getty and 3 or 4 from Pinsent Masons since October 2009 last one today they have said there client has instructed them to proceed to raise cour proceedings against me unless i sign confession and pay up. well they can not get blood out of a stone and i will if it comes to it make a stand and go inside over this sick of Getty images and other big bully boys trying it on time to stand up to them.
Would not mind but i have been able to purchase a back licence via there own site so if it comes to it will laugh them out of court over that one

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

Its a bit difficult to understand your scenario. Did you download an image as a comp? Did you then put it on a web server against the rules of the comp. licence you partially quote? When you decided not to use it did you pay the $150 which Getty's terms and conditions for comp use specify?

 

[trader1]

Hi Trader1,
NO i have responded to all the letters asking for proof of there claim of exclusive copyright etc explain when they becam aware of image on my site how they calculate there charges and to provide a clear image screen shot of my site so image violation can be seen not a low reselution thumbnail screenshot of site so no clear image detail can be viewed.
Had 3 letters since april 2009 of Getty and 3 or 4 from Pinsent Masons since October 2009 last one today they have said there client has instructed them to proceed to raise cour proceedings against me unless i sign confession and pay up. well they can not get blood out of a stone and i will if it comes to it make a stand and go inside over this sick of Getty images and other big bully boys trying it on time to stand up to them.
Would not mind but i have been able to purchase a back licence via there own site so if it comes to it will laugh them out of court over that one

Interested in your communications with Pinsent Masons. Do they reply to any of the points you make or are they just replying with the same threats.

The standard approach from them seems to be to give from 7 - 14 days to pay or else. In your case they seem already to have extended this by four months?

 

[akirk]

...and given that I have been able to buy a back dated licence for the image via there site for a 3 month period in the same year...

so you you used an image without permission?
you admit it by then retrospectively buying a licence - presumably if you were convinced that you were legal you wouldn't have done this?
you have then admitted it publicly on a public forum

good luck

Alasdair

 

[bdw]

you admit it by then retrospectively buying a licence - presumably if you were convinced that you were legal you wouldn't have done this?

Unfair.

He or she was forced into this position by Pinsent Mason's threatening letter.

 

[akirk]

Unfair.

He or she was forced into this position by Pinsent Mason's threatening letter.

I might agree with some - but this person's post is so tiggerish in its strong response against Getty / Pinsent Mason, that one must assume that they would have done anything to show / prove that they acted legally...

to instantly respond by buying a back-dated licence is likely to be read (accurately or otherwise) as an admission of guilt - 'oops, caught out, better buy a licence - there now, I am covered you can't touch me...' type of approach...

obviously this is an online forum, we don't know the full details - but I am sure of a couple of things:
a) that is how Pinsent Mason / Getty will read it
b) that Pinsent Mason / Getty will be tracking threads like this
c) they will now match images where they are chasing with people who have bought back licences

their argument is also based on the fact that Picscout found the image in an area not available for public viewing - in which case how did they find it?



Alasdair