Getty Images / Pinsent Masons - Copyright Claim
- Thread starter The Dancer
- Start date
E
Esk247
that's the bit that worries me...how much evidence do you need for each photo you've ever downloaded? a receipt? what..for all 1500 images that you may use as a web designer or graphic designer in a single year? 1500 printed receipts? 1500 records of downloading this information after paying for it?
Upvote
0
ABSOLUTELY !
and not just for images, you should have a provenance document for each job that covers not only images, but coding, text content and anything else that comes from a third party.
Keeping a record of provenance is mission critical these days, otherwise it is needle in a hastack time should someone come calling.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
My business generates much more than 1500 receipts for parking in a year. Lets say an average of £3 each. That is £4500 I couldn't claim against tax if I didn't have the little bits of paper. Paperwork is all part of the job.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I think that BDW and OWG have never used the small claims court to chase money. Before you do it is a requirement to issue a 'Letter before Action'. The letter is a threat that if the person does not pay up you will go to court. You then have a choice whether to proceed or not. I still haven't seen any direct evidence that Getty have done more than this.
If you really want to know what harassment is like try not having a TV.
Upvote
0
Only problem here is that this doesn't go through the small claims court does it, it goes through the high court.
best not to get into the 'are they acting within the letter and the spirit of the law', as we have done this many times previously, however, a court is likely to decide that sometime soon.
I have cited the various acts of parliment and legal guidelines etc, it is up to people affected to persue them under those laws.
Upvote
0
B
bdw
It would be extremely easy to present evidence that their speculative invoicing process followed by several threats has been used many thousands of times without any further action. I believe that any reasonable court would see this as strikingly clear evidence that they have no real intention of taking anyone to court.
This is also conclusive proof of "a threat or information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender".
Upvote
0
B
bdw
There are thousands of cases where Getty have followed up their original speculative invoice with more threats, some of these issued up to two years after the original claim.
After three or four years of involvement I still have not seen any direct (or even indirect) evidence that Getty has any intention of carrying out their threats.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
I think this is getting silly now with talk of police etc.
the law is clear on what can and can't be done, and I would say that if the courts see that getty have sent 5000 letters threatening court action immediately if no payment is made, and they have in fact taken ONE person to court, it is fair to say that they are not abiding by the guidelines, and i would defy anyone to argue otherwise.
There are many different pieces of legislation here, the harrassment claim holds water if (as many have) you have told getty clearly that you have no intention of paying their speculative invoice, no wish to negotiate on the matter and that they should only contact you again via the court system. IF after you have told them that, they make future contact with anything other than a court summons issued via the court system, then they are possibly guilty of harrassment. At that point they have broken the law, the solicitor will have breached the code of conduct also, if they make telephone calls they will have breached the wireless and telphony act regarding harrassment if they have been told that all contact is to be in the written format only.
Now please tell me I am wrong with this regard and i will gladly hold my hands up.
My belief is that too many people have been lambs here when they should be lions and fight the big corporation. SOME have to pay, some have no defence, some have licences, ALL deserve to be treated within the various laws, and with the respect that the SPIRIT of the law requires.
The judge in the ACS (not comparable other than speculative invoicing) was MOST annoyed at how they had flouyted the spirit of the law. I believe this might be the case here also if it can be brought to court.
the law is clear on what can and can't be done, and I would say that if the courts see that getty have sent 5000 letters threatening court action immediately if no payment is made, and they have in fact taken ONE person to court, it is fair to say that they are not abiding by the guidelines, and i would defy anyone to argue otherwise.
There are many different pieces of legislation here, the harrassment claim holds water if (as many have) you have told getty clearly that you have no intention of paying their speculative invoice, no wish to negotiate on the matter and that they should only contact you again via the court system. IF after you have told them that, they make future contact with anything other than a court summons issued via the court system, then they are possibly guilty of harrassment. At that point they have broken the law, the solicitor will have breached the code of conduct also, if they make telephone calls they will have breached the wireless and telphony act regarding harrassment if they have been told that all contact is to be in the written format only.
Now please tell me I am wrong with this regard and i will gladly hold my hands up.
My belief is that too many people have been lambs here when they should be lions and fight the big corporation. SOME have to pay, some have no defence, some have licences, ALL deserve to be treated within the various laws, and with the respect that the SPIRIT of the law requires.
The judge in the ACS (not comparable other than speculative invoicing) was MOST annoyed at how they had flouyted the spirit of the law. I believe this might be the case here also if it can be brought to court.
Upvote
0
Ok nice one 
I should have said prove to me that I am wrong. Lots of people here argue it, I have posted clear citations and arguments, yet the argument from others seems to be "you are wrong, that isn't how it is" but not a single citation or counter argument.
I got a company done for harrassment under the wireless and telephony act over a single phone call made after i served notice!
One call is 1 too many under this act
I should have said prove to me that I am wrong. Lots of people here argue it, I have posted clear citations and arguments, yet the argument from others seems to be "you are wrong, that isn't how it is" but not a single citation or counter argument.
I got a company done for harrassment under the wireless and telephony act over a single phone call made after i served notice!
One call is 1 too many under this act
Upvote
0
B
bdw
Graham you know as well as I do that this is not a police issue and why do you think you should be able to convince me without presenting any evidence? All you have done is to speculate on what youthink may happen.
I have detailed the relevant part of the harassment act that I think could apply. I will summarize the parts that I believe are relevant.
Getty's letters ...
- contain a threat to the recipient
- contain information that they know is false (saying that they will take people to court in seven days or whatever)
- are clearly designed to cause distress or anxiety.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
B
Beardeye11
I would love to fight this but it is not only my money at stake and i have to take the decisions of others into account as well.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
My own opinion is that there is no defence against copyright infringement. Especially bringing in red herrings.
Your best solution, for peace of mind is to negotiate. To negotiate you will need to know how imaging licencing works in some detail. If The Resolver is already in contact with Getty over negotiated settlements it would seem a good idea to approach him for help.
Upvote
0
I appreciate you said 'in your opinion there is no defence against copyright infringement' I would argue of course there are innocent cases, such as when you don't comtrol the domain content for example (i could buy a domain put up a site for a competitor, use stolen imagry, report it to getty and then what? ) , or if the image was used as a result of hacking. lets not be silly here there are cases of innocent infringement a forum avatar for example is a classic case, yet getty are going after that as well, chasing forum owners for content they have no control over. UGC will transform the copyright laws, it has to otherwise the social web collapses, and the BIG businesses (that make getty look like a corner shop) will not put up with that.
The resolver is not dealing with getty, he is dealing with Pincent Masons, this letter isn't from Pm it is from the new bunch.
The resolver is not dealing with getty, he is dealing with Pincent Masons, this letter isn't from Pm it is from the new bunch.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
A big factor in asking for NDAs will be the 'Google Factor' as described below from http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty
Punishment by Google
A substantial hidden cost turns out to be the potential for damage to the reputation of the company, a small family-based firm for whom integrity is an irreplaceable asset in a competitive market. Their representative would only speak about the subject on condition that neither he nor the company were explicitly named here. Google is the reason. If any customer or potential client were to Google the company name, reports of a court case might raise eyebrows : could this company really be trusted? That alone might sway them toward a competitor.
Upvote
0
Yes I do know because I also am saying it is not a police issue but for different reasons as to why you make that statement.
Let me clarify. The offence you refer to (and by the way it is not the '(Protection from ) Harrassment Act' as you refer to it,and extracts from which you have quoted a couple of pages back, but the Malicious Communications Act ) is a criminal offence. If you feel Getty has committed the offence and to thousands of people, then it is a matter for the police. That's what they do. Of course you can take out a private prosecution but I'm sure that is not what you meant by saying its not a police matter and, anyway, if the evidence is as clear cut as you claim then the police would take that action. My view is that the evidence is not so clear cut.
Of course, you can reference a criminal offence within civil proceedings but that would mean Getty had done what you claim is at the heart of the MCA offence, i.e they had no intention of issuing proceedings.
But I acknowledge you feel very strongly about this so the sensible course of action would be to go and talk to the police and report here what they say.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
And the Act has this to say...................
(2)A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows
(a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds]; and
(b)that he believed , and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
Added to which one has to add how the local police set the bar concerning proof and evidence. Some police will require 3 separate instances reported to them while others will not take action unless the instances are very persistent. The nuisance phone calls I get at the same time every day will never be investigated by anyone.
(2)A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows
(a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds]; and
(b)that he believed , and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
Added to which one has to add how the local police set the bar concerning proof and evidence. Some police will require 3 separate instances reported to them while others will not take action unless the instances are very persistent. The nuisance phone calls I get at the same time every day will never be investigated by anyone.
Upvote
0
B
bdw
Will it? Once again this is not a fact but an opinion and one, which was written by the admin on that forum. It is a photographer's forum and heavily biased towards that community's interests so it is not surprising that he holds these views, which are no more valid than those you read in here.
That particular article was written in 2009 and despite all the forecasts of a copyright armageddon being dealt out at that time there has not been a single addition to the list. JA Coles remains the only recorded case in the UK.
Incidentally on that forum someone seriously slandered me as a result of my involvement in the FSB forum at that time. I contacted the admin person who wrote this piece and being a reasonable person he did remove the comments.
.
Upvote
0
I should also add that the Act gives a clear defence were "the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds; and
(b)that he believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
Oops sorry Atmosbob - you got there before me!
(b)that he believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
Oops sorry Atmosbob - you got there before me!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
B
bdw
Come on Graham, I think you know (or should do) that that's just daft.
What do you think the police would say if I (who have had no communications from Getty) walked into the local police station and tried to get them to do something about this? Let's keep the discussion on a sensible plane.
Here's a suggestion for you. No doubt as someone who has been active on the Internet for a few years you will have had many emails attempting to scam money from you. Take one of them to the police, ask them to investigate it and see what they tell you.
Upvote
0
As they say on the radio
"what we gonna do right here is go back, WAY back"
Getty have unilaterally decided who the guilty party is in all cases.
can we agree that? i.e. getty have been notified by piscout that a website is using an image and the contact details are xyz. so what we have so far is nothing more than an accusation. (forget about whether or not copyright has been breached, that is a seperate matter), at this point we are agreeing that an image has been found on a website, and an accusation has been leveled at the person named on the website. Therefor we have Getty believing there is a possibility of IP misuse, and them having levelled an accusation at an individual or company.
lets say the accused guilty party replies "hey, go away I don't accept what you are saying, I admit no liability DO NOT contact me further I am happy to go to court on this matter, and any further contact from yourself other than to serve court documents will be deemed harrassment"
at this point getty have three possible actions
1. go to court
2. do nothing and let the case lay
3. ignore the statement and continue to make accusations
Can we agree on that simple statement here, that those are the two options they have?
3. could be deeemed as harrassment, as they have made an offer to settle, the accused has said not interested, stop hassling me we will deal with this through the courts.
-------------------------------
Ok now lets look at another element here.
Getty demand you provide documentary evidence of a valid licence to use the image,
you reply
Hey getty please can you prove that you have the right to ask for this money and information?
getty reply
"we need only provide this information at the time of issuing court papers"
NOW THEN, we have a mexican stand off.
WHY is it that people believe that GETTY have the right to demand YOU provide documentary evidence of right to USE an image, yet YOU do NOT have the right to demand documentary evidence of THEIR right to demand the information in the first instance. getty are arguing that it costs money so what, add it to the bill Joe!
Personally I would dig my heels in and let them waste their money BECAUSE. their argument is that they don't have to provide proof of rights management until they go to court. My argument would be 'you either provide me with your right to persue this matter or you have no chance of getting me to do anything. THEY will not provide the evidence as they say it cosrts time but THEY expect you to spend your time and money providing them with the information. When they get to court the judge will likely say 'this matter could have been dealt with easily enough had the required documentry right been provided.
"what we gonna do right here is go back, WAY back"
Getty have unilaterally decided who the guilty party is in all cases.
can we agree that? i.e. getty have been notified by piscout that a website is using an image and the contact details are xyz. so what we have so far is nothing more than an accusation. (forget about whether or not copyright has been breached, that is a seperate matter), at this point we are agreeing that an image has been found on a website, and an accusation has been leveled at the person named on the website. Therefor we have Getty believing there is a possibility of IP misuse, and them having levelled an accusation at an individual or company.
lets say the accused guilty party replies "hey, go away I don't accept what you are saying, I admit no liability DO NOT contact me further I am happy to go to court on this matter, and any further contact from yourself other than to serve court documents will be deemed harrassment"
at this point getty have three possible actions
1. go to court
2. do nothing and let the case lay
3. ignore the statement and continue to make accusations
Can we agree on that simple statement here, that those are the two options they have?
3. could be deeemed as harrassment, as they have made an offer to settle, the accused has said not interested, stop hassling me we will deal with this through the courts.
-------------------------------
Ok now lets look at another element here.
Getty demand you provide documentary evidence of a valid licence to use the image,
you reply
Hey getty please can you prove that you have the right to ask for this money and information?
getty reply
"we need only provide this information at the time of issuing court papers"
NOW THEN, we have a mexican stand off.
WHY is it that people believe that GETTY have the right to demand YOU provide documentary evidence of right to USE an image, yet YOU do NOT have the right to demand documentary evidence of THEIR right to demand the information in the first instance. getty are arguing that it costs money so what, add it to the bill Joe!
Personally I would dig my heels in and let them waste their money BECAUSE. their argument is that they don't have to provide proof of rights management until they go to court. My argument would be 'you either provide me with your right to persue this matter or you have no chance of getting me to do anything. THEY will not provide the evidence as they say it cosrts time but THEY expect you to spend your time and money providing them with the information. When they get to court the judge will likely say 'this matter could have been dealt with easily enough had the required documentry right been provided.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I know you do not believe anything that photographers say but NDAs in copyright settlements were almost unheard of before that blog post was widely reported. Now they are commonplace.
5 minutes ago I put the phone down to a photographer friend who told me of another favourable settlement. No details because the infringer demanded a NDA.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I'm not quite sure what lawyers call cantankerous defendants but I have experienced three. The problem one then faces is how do you get them to play by the rules. Spending time and money on people who don't provide basic information like a licence to use an image, or to get them to admit they used it without a licence is a big hurdle. Quite why a cantankerous defendant should think they can ask expensive to answer questions when they won't do the simple task of producing their permission to use a picture is beyond me.
Upvote
0
Sorry I meant to say that in the case of having a licence, the defendant would (IMO) be within their rights to simply say 'I have the right to use the image, show me your right to ask for the information. Why should someone go to time and expense to provide information to a company who will not provide the required documentation?
Say I bought the image from xyz.com, then what gives getty the right to demand a copy (or even information) about that image when they are not able 9or not willing) to provide the documentation. if a business has a licence with another company, then it is of no business of getty unless they can prove they have an exclusive licence. Hell they could be fishing for competitive pricing for all I know
the argument here is why should one party over another have the unilateral right NOT to provide proof? the law is meant to be fair to all, so if an image house can refuse, the defendant can refuse. It is then a matter for the courts.
Say I bought the image from xyz.com, then what gives getty the right to demand a copy (or even information) about that image when they are not able 9or not willing) to provide the documentation. if a business has a licence with another company, then it is of no business of getty unless they can prove they have an exclusive licence. Hell they could be fishing for competitive pricing for all I know
the argument here is why should one party over another have the unilateral right NOT to provide proof? the law is meant to be fair to all, so if an image house can refuse, the defendant can refuse. It is then a matter for the courts.
Upvote
0
B
bdw
Why on earth would it cost Getty time and money to offer proof of ownership? That does not make sense. As I understand it much of the process is automated. Part of that process is for Picscout to compare images from Getty's database with copies of that image that they find on the Internet. The data is there and available so it would be a doddle to include it.
I think it may be more likely that Getty just does not know if they own the exclusive rights to many of their images, because so many photographers have submitted them to two or more distribution channels.
.
Upvote
0
Come on Graham, I think you know (or should do) that that's just daft.
What do you think the police would say if I (who have had no communications from Getty) walked into the local police station and tried to get them to do something about this? Let's keep the discussion on a sensible plane.
Yes I know its daft to expect the police to take action - but because no offence has taken place. That's the whole point. You are the one who has claimed that a criminal offence has taken place on a grand scale. Anybody can report a crime not just the victim. I am just saying you are wrong but if you think you are right then the police are the people to approach. Who else ? What would you propose people should do? As I have explained its not a defence to a claim.
Upvote
0
B
bdw
Here we go again. Two possibilities here, you are either not paying attention or you are deliberately posting misinformation. I never once claimed that a "grand scale" criminal offence has taken place. All I did was suggest that an offence was a possibility.
What I actually said was ...
...and the italics were also on the original post. If you must attribute anything to me I would be grateful if you could ensure that it is accurate.
.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
But you are suggesting that the Getty-Picscout evidence is not sufficient.
Proof of ownership has several standards. OWG keeps on mentioning court action. To satisfy a court would take one, or most likely two, expert witnesses. At about £150 per hour each plus travel exes for a day in court would be very expensive. To satisfy a cantankerous defendant who knows what it would take.
AFAIK Getty have a contract which does not allow submitting to other outlets. They, and Corbis, get an affidavit from the photographer to that effect before taking action. If a photographer is found to be breaking their contract terms the contract is terminated.
Upvote
0
by
my point entirely, it has come out that in at least one case, the image was offered for sale elsewhere. which THEN begs the question, by not carrying out comprehensive due dilligence afforehand, are Getty obtaining money by deception? Have people paid getty when there is no need? Have getty had money for someone els's work?
Surely they should have this proof BEFORE issuing requests for payment?
my point entirely, it has come out that in at least one case, the image was offered for sale elsewhere. which THEN begs the question, by not carrying out comprehensive due dilligence afforehand, are Getty obtaining money by deception? Have people paid getty when there is no need? Have getty had money for someone els's work?
Surely they should have this proof BEFORE issuing requests for payment?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Please quote the case. AFAIK there have only been 3 cases. None of these showed that the image was obtainable elsewhere.
The 'proof' is available on a photographer contract. You can beat around the bush as much as you like but I don't see that Getty are doing anything wrong.
Upvote
0
B
bdw
No I am not.
I am merely suggesting that if Getty know they own the images then it should not be beyond them to prove it to those they are demanding money from for their use.
I am not going to go searching but I can tell you that during the last five years there have been several cases cited where the imaging companies got it wrong and had to backtrack.
.
Upvote
0
what are you talking about 'there have been only 3 cases'? there have been 10's of thousands of cases created by Getty, as each letter is a case. Are you talking about cases that have been brought to court? if so then you are barking up the wrong tree with regard my statement.
Do you REALLY think that everyone involved in this matter posts their details on a forum for the enemy to read? Do you think that everyone is as dumb as getty believe them to be?
Rest assured there are plenty of cases just waiting in the wings, ready to throw a spanner or two into the cash cows legs.
Talk about mixed metaphors
Upvote
0
S
SickofGetty
Hi everyone,
Well you can add us to the list of people being chased by Getty, small family retail business with a tiny website
which apparently had 2 of their images on a secondary page...
Here is a copy of my letter back to them after having taken advice from people on UKBF and the FSB forums (**** for
redacted info):
Re: Your letter dated 9th June 2011 reference 7****** 1******
We confirm receipt of your letter in which you inform us that the copyright for two of the images used on our website 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 licensed from another Web Developer/SEO firm in India for our royalty-free use for this sole purpose.
We are currently investigating the licensing agreement and will have all the details in the next 7 days.
If indeed, the images in question belong to you and have 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 images from our website
and from all relevant archives. No copies of these images remain in our possession.
It may also be reiterated that even if the said images were used on our site, without our knowledge, the same were
not being offered for sale, nor were we making any commercial gains from the same. The website generates no income
and is in fact a loss-making web presence for a small family business which is on the verge of insolvency. We are
therefore not liable to render any charges, profits or gains on any account to you.
The said images 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 goodwill, and mustn't be taken advantage of.
To enable us to properly assess the validity of your claim please provide the following information within 14 days
of the date of this letter:
1. Please identify the copyright holder(s), whether that is Getty Images itself, or contributing photographer(s).
2. Please confirm that Getty Images has either copyright holder status or exclusive-licensing status with regards
to said images.
3. Please provide the dates when the images were first licensed.
4. Please provide us with evidence of the period of usage for which you are claiming we require both a start-date
for when you became aware of said images being in use, and also confirmation from you that said images were removed
immediately upon receipt of your letter, on 13th June 2011.
5. Please identify the types of license fees Getty Images charges for said images, along with the terms of any alternative options.
I note that from your letter that Getty Images is committed to protecting the intellectual property rights and
livelihood of the artists whose work you license. If this is the case I would also like to know why there is a
large number of concerned small business people who believe that Getty is not even taking elementary protective
measures to inhibit the proliferation of un-licensed images (such as disabling right-click saves on their website,
for example), and is rather, allowing said proliferation which then results in an income stream being generated
from legal threats to un-licensed, unknowing, end users of imagery?
We look forward to your substantive response to the points raised above and will not respond to a computer-
generated stock letter which ignores our reasonable request for further information to enable us to properly
assess the validity of your claim.
Please note that the only means of communication we will accept is in the written form, should you attempt to make
contact via the telephone we will take action under the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and the Malicious
Communication Act 1997.
Yours sincerely,
*******
Will keep you all updated as to how this progresses
TheResolver - any further news on your attempt to set up a mediation scheme?
Well you can add us to the list of people being chased by Getty, small family retail business with a tiny website
which apparently had 2 of their images on a secondary page...
Here is a copy of my letter back to them after having taken advice from people on UKBF and the FSB forums (**** for
redacted info):
Re: Your letter dated 9th June 2011 reference 7****** 1******
We confirm receipt of your letter in which you inform us that the copyright for two of the images used on our website 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 licensed from another Web Developer/SEO firm in India for our royalty-free use for this sole purpose.
We are currently investigating the licensing agreement and will have all the details in the next 7 days.
If indeed, the images in question belong to you and have 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 images from our website
and from all relevant archives. No copies of these images remain in our possession.
It may also be reiterated that even if the said images were used on our site, without our knowledge, the same were
not being offered for sale, nor were we making any commercial gains from the same. The website generates no income
and is in fact a loss-making web presence for a small family business which is on the verge of insolvency. We are
therefore not liable to render any charges, profits or gains on any account to you.
The said images 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 goodwill, and mustn't be taken advantage of.
To enable us to properly assess the validity of your claim please provide the following information within 14 days
of the date of this letter:
1. Please identify the copyright holder(s), whether that is Getty Images itself, or contributing photographer(s).
2. Please confirm that Getty Images has either copyright holder status or exclusive-licensing status with regards
to said images.
3. Please provide the dates when the images were first licensed.
4. Please provide us with evidence of the period of usage for which you are claiming we require both a start-date
for when you became aware of said images being in use, and also confirmation from you that said images were removed
immediately upon receipt of your letter, on 13th June 2011.
5. Please identify the types of license fees Getty Images charges for said images, along with the terms of any alternative options.
I note that from your letter that Getty Images is committed to protecting the intellectual property rights and
livelihood of the artists whose work you license. If this is the case I would also like to know why there is a
large number of concerned small business people who believe that Getty is not even taking elementary protective
measures to inhibit the proliferation of un-licensed images (such as disabling right-click saves on their website,
for example), and is rather, allowing said proliferation which then results in an income stream being generated
from legal threats to un-licensed, unknowing, end users of imagery?
We look forward to your substantive response to the points raised above and will not respond to a computer-
generated stock letter which ignores our reasonable request for further information to enable us to properly
assess the validity of your claim.
Please note that the only means of communication we will accept is in the written form, should you attempt to make
contact via the telephone we will take action under the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and the Malicious
Communication Act 1997.
Yours sincerely,
*******
Will keep you all updated as to how this progresses
TheResolver - any further news on your attempt to set up a mediation scheme?
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
