Getty Images / Pinsent Masons - Copyright Claim

[madmanbean]

I have a client who uploaded, unknowingly, a minute Getty image and who has subsequently been plagued with the Getty scam letters which they have ignored.

In all my research I have yet to read of anyone who has actually been taken to court by Getty here in the UK or even worldwide. I am sure such details would be of interest to all those reading this forum.

 

[Esk247]

Just out of curiosity, I found an image on the Getty site that I could use on one of my sites, half a page - uk only (although how on earth that works on the net) for a year on a secondary page - £670! Maybe photograhy for the web is the place we should all be working!

that's what i mean...i don't have a problem paying for images but the prices of the stock photos that are downloaded hundreds of times a year..they're just too hefty a price for what they are.

for £670 you could have a photo shoot set up yourself from a pro photographer (if they're local) and get some images that are totally unique to you. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

that's what i mean...i don't have a problem paying for images but the prices of the stock photos that are downloaded hundreds of times a year..they're just too hefty a price for what they are.

for £670 you could have a photo shoot set up yourself from a pro photographer (if they're local) and get some images that are totally unique to you. It makes no sense to me.

Not all stock images are downloaded hundreds of times. Those that are can often be bought for a very modest fee. Many companies prefer to have images which are much more unique. For £670 you can normally negotiate a semi exclusive use of an image.

 

[hazeleigh]

Hi
I have had a huge amount of experience in dealing with Getty
Ask lawyers for a copy of the license agreement ie the author of the work will have licensed the work to Getty
See what their response is?
Michael

 

[bdw]

AFAIK the imaging companies have consistently refused to offer provenance of the images in question. They have always said that they would only do so in court but as we all know they don't take anyone to court.

If someone has asked them for proof of ownership before payment and they have refused to offer such proof would a judge not be sympathetic to the person being pursued?

.

 

[hazeleigh]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html
See para 77
Good luck
Michael
Http://www.lawdit.co.uk<link removed by mod>

 

[madmanbean]

For the benefit of others reading this forum I copy below para 77

The purpose of s102 is obviously related to the purpose of CPR r19.3. Parties with related rights must be part of the action so that the outcome of the case is binding on all of them. This prevents another case starting up a second time in which the same issues are argued out. It is not simply that the court's resources should not be used up a second time, the point is about finality in litigation. The winner knows that they have indeed won and the case is the end of the matter.

This issue has already been mentioned din this forum under post 102

I cannot quite see the relevence here as this was relating to the deliberate distribution of pornographic material via peer to peer networks rather than the unknowing use of an image in a website.

It is also of interest that ACS Law have ceased tading after the owner was fined for malpractise. BBC News stated
Andrew Crossley, the controversial solicitor who made money by accusing computer users of illegal file sharing, has been fined £1,000.
The penalty has been imposed for a data breach which saw the personal details of 6,000 computer users, targeted by his firm, exposed online.
Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said that the severity of the breach warranted a heavier fine.
But he added that Mr Crossley was not in a position to pay.
"Were it not for the fact that ACS:Law has ceased trading so that Mr Crossley now has limited means, a monetary penalty of £200,000 would have been imposed, given the severity of the breach."
A spokeswoman for the ICO told the BBC that it did not have the power to audit people's accounts but said that Andrew Crossley had provided a sworn statement on the state of his finances.
The security breach occurred following a denial-of-service attack by members of the hacktivist group Anonymous, who were unhappy at the tactics being used by Mr Crossley and his law firm.
"Sensitive personal details relating to thousands of people were made available for download to a worldwide audience and will have caused them embarrassment and considerable distress," said Mr Graham.
As well as exposed peoples' names and addresses, a list of pornographic films they were accused of illegally downloading was also made available.

Your post seem to do little for this forum save for an understandable plug for your services!

 

[hazeleigh]

responding to the last post and the comments

"Your post seem to do little for this forum save for an understandable plug for your services!"

Forgive me but I was running around all morning did not have the time. I forget that some people may not have the time to read and digest the reference so apols.

The point of this case and the Judge's comments is that Getty must produce a licence to show they are a licensee. If they don't then it would be incredulous for the lawyers to issue claim and you would not be penalised. They must produce the licence if they issue a claim so they will produce prior to issue a claim. If they cannot do it before then don't pay anything if they can produce it then negotiate a reasonable payment.

Good luck
M
<link removed by mod>

 

[madmanbean]

Dear Michael

Thankyou for your clarification of that point. I, fortunately, am not in the position of being chased by Getty but I do have two clients who are, having uploaded images to thier respective websites. It would seem that your organisation may well be a good first legal call for those who need help and advice.

We are all aware that what they are doing is not good but sound advice such as yours is invaluable.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The point of this case and the Judge's comments is that Getty must produce a licence to show they are a licensee. If they don't then it would be incredulous for the lawyers to issue claim and you would not be penalised. They must produce the licence if they issue a claim so they will produce prior to issue a claim.

The Getty/Photographer contract is available to read on the web. Getty do not need to produce a licence from the photographer because the contract gives them the right to pursue infringers on the photographers behalf. Any one who thinks this is a 'get off scot free ploy' is sadly mistaken. Anecdotal evidence from many photographers with Getty and Corbis contracts have said that they are additionally asked to sign affidavits before legal action confirming the exclusive nature of the contract relating to the specific images in question.

If you want to know how much it could cost to believe what you read on the web about ignoring Getty read the link which has been mentioned before.

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty

 

[hazeleigh]

The point I am making is that a generic licence unexecuted will not suffice
Getty is not the owner of the work. It must produce the signed licence with the photographer at court and therefore it must do so accordance with pre action protocol. I see no problem with an exclusive licensee doing this and you can move on to damages and how much. Each case must treated independently and therefore a seperate licence agreement ought to be produced
If you have downloaded the work then expect to have to pay damages but only until such time as Getty disclose the licence
Michael Coyle

 

[madmanbean]

The Getty contract may well be there to read but unfortunately most people have purchased these images from elsewhere and had no idea that Getty had a claim on them! I do not think that anyone would knowingly steal an image if they thought that a copyright existed on it!

Getty actually encourages the distribution of it's images so that they can catch people out! Even the owners of the photos do not know of their actions and I would'nt mind betting that, if a claim is paid, those photographers to not even get a penny!

 

[madmanbean]

Just read again the last few posts on this forum and it seems that most posts are now revolving around subtle plugs for their own businesses or websites rather than the subject under discussion!

I make special reference to the post linking to copyright action which is total scaremongering by not a poster but someone called admin in this forum owned suprisingly enough by Editorial Photographers Uk Ltd

What is very sad if the fact that seem to support Getty's actions whilst not realising that those photographers whose work is at the root of these lettres do not get a penny from Getty in the highly unlikely event of a case being proved in court.

The post does not mention any tracable refernce and simply uses excuses to justify the inability to pos real facts. If thies really happened then let's see the details of the court case!

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I make special reference to the post linking to copyright action which is total scaremongering by not a poster but someone called admin in this forum owned suprisingly enough by Editorial Photographers Uk Ltd

What is very sad if the fact that seem to support Getty's actions whilst not realising that those photographers whose work is at the root of these lettres do not get a penny from Getty in the highly unlikely event of a case being proved in court.

The post does not mention any tracable refernce and simply uses excuses to justify the inability to pos real facts. If thies really happened then let's see the details of the court case!

Dear Madman Bean

I know the author of the article and I can assure you that it is entirely genuine. He was approached by the Mr X in the case. The author has no connection with Getty and if you look through the website you will find other articles he has written which are critical of Getty.

Your assertion that photographers do not get a penny from Getty's actions is untrue. I know that photographers are paid their contractual share of any settlement.

I received this email from a photographer friend in California........

"I too have had infringements show up in Getty sales reports. One was for over $5K, about three times the price calculator rate for
the given usage.

Commission is always at the agreed rate for the license model as per the
contract.

ds"

Here is a reference for you http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367

Whatever your beliefs your best bet is to go to a specialist copyright lawyer for advice.

 

[bdw]

Getty do not need to produce a licence from the photographer because the contract gives them the right to pursue infringers on the photographers behalf.

Yes, but that's Getty's contract with their photographers. I doubt that it would be recognised by a UK court in these circumstances.

Look, it is totally reasonable and logical for anyone who is being pursued by Getty to ask for proof of ownership before making any payment. I also believe that any UK judge would agree that it is reasonable for anyone to request this proof before making any settlement and that Getty are wrong to refuse to provide this proof.

.

 

[bdw]

If you want to know how much it could cost to believe what you read on the web about ignoring Getty read the link which has been mentioned before. http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the...-sued-by-getty

My point above is also why you must persist in dragging up this single unverified and largely irrelevant instance. It is still the only one that you have so you continue to quote it as though it was somehow important. It is not and you are once more just scaremongering.

To anyone who is reading this for the first time, the case referenced yet again by Atmosbob above, was not a straightforward one like those we are discussing in here.

It was an isolated case, the only one recorded in the UK where Getty got close to taking anyone to court. It happened two years ago and it was settled out of court. We must also bear in mind that the reference to it is on a photographers copyright forum. As one would expect, much of it is opinion, speculation (like this discussion), based on hearsay and very biased towards the photographers interests.

After what (four or five years of this?) Getty have not had the b@lls to take a single person in front of a UK judge. That is they have not followed up on the hollow threats they have made to any of the thousands of people involved. Many observers who are looking at this objectively agree that they are scared to do so because they know that their process is ethically and some say legally wrong. Many people believe that it would be tossed out of court by a UK judge.

.

 

[kulture]

This thread is trying to go for the record as the longest thread. It seems that much of the arguments have been covered repeatedly.

The basic points are that for any image used on your web site, make sure you know where it came from and that you have the right to use it. Ignorance is no excuse. If you use an image that does not belong to you you run the risk of the likes of Getty harassing you for money.

Prevention is better than anything else posted here. Just make sure you do not infringe copyright and IP and you will not have to worry about the Getty Gestapo.

 

[bdw]

Prevention is better than anything else posted here.

The thread is about Getty's speculative invoicing system, so I don't think prevention comes into it. You cannot lock the gate after the horse has bolted but there is no need to warn anyone in here about copyright law. They are all only too well aware of it.

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Recent cases including the ACS law ones where the judge went nuts at the claimant for not following basic tenets of law, such as having the right to make the claim for instance. and later ensuring that the right by BOTH parties to rest assured that this would be a full and final settlement at the time of judgement.

Read that little gem at the end there because it really is a little gem.

let's look at this for a moment.
1. people have used the image without knowing or recalling the provenance of the imge
2. getty/corbis make a claim

Now if the person can't recal where they got it, and getty refuse to prove they have the sole right, then how in the name of FAIR PLAY (justice) can they agree to a settlement?

there have been many cases that have not proceeded, has anyone thought that maybe this is because the photographer didn't provide an afidavit to the affect of the image only ever having been used by getty? possibly because THEY THEMSELVES, don't have accurate records.

Asking for proof and confirmation that all the material facts are in place is IMO paramount to making a claim.

can anyone who has paid confirm whether or not Getty issue an indemnity against further legal action with regard the use of this image with regard the period it was used. i.e. to the point of settlement. If Getty refuse to do this, then why settle

 

[kulture]

The thread is about Getty's speculative invoicing system, so I don't think prevention comes into it. You cannot lock the gate after the horse has bolted but there is no need to warn anyone in here about copyright law. They are all only too well aware of it.

.

Yes, all true. BUT if you did not use a questionable image in the first place, then you would never fall foul of the speculative invoicing.

Now I agree that if you do get one of these fishing invoices you should indeed question it and request that they prove their case. As OldWelshGuy has so succinctly put it, it is not reasonable to pay Getty just because they claim IP, they need to demonstrate that they actually have the IP.

All I am saying is if you are careful about your web site and ensure you have proper permission to use every image on it, then you will never get an invoice from Getty that you would then worry about and ignore.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

All it takes is a spreadsheet that is uploaded to the hosting that has the provenance of all the elements used. copywriter, designer, images etc. Walk in the park then if the IP plod come knocking. When a site is signed off, burn everything to cd and also hard drive back up, and you are sorted. Why try to remember?

 

[kulture]

All it takes is a spreadsheet that is uploaded to the hosting that has the provenance of all the elements used. copywriter, designer, images etc. Walk in the park then if the IP plod come knocking. When a site is signed off, burn everything to cd and also hard drive back up, and you are sorted. Why try to remember?

Great idea. Simple and effective. Whilst it is a worthwhile exercise to prove the provenance of your site, it is annoying that you need to do so to avoid the IP police.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Great idea. Simple and effective. Whilst it is a worthwhile exercise to prove the provenance of your site, it is annoying that you need to do so to avoid the IP police.

I do not understand the sniping that goes on over copyright owners trying to get paid when businesses use images without paying for them. You have to keep paperwork for many other parts of a business why not paperwork for purchases? For inland revenue and VAT purposes you have to keep all papers for 6 years which is, in effect 7. Your purchase invoices should be neatly filed away and can be produced when needed.

Employee insurance certificates must be kept for 30 years but we never hear that complained about.

 

[kulture]

I have no problem keeping receipts for my purchases. I have no problem paying photographers and designers for their images. The only problem I have is with organisations like PRS/PPL and now Getty who are over aggressive in chasing for outrageous "fines" without proving their right to said fees in the first place.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I do not understand the sniping that goes on over copyright owners trying to get paid when businesses use images without paying for them.

WRONG! in many cases the business owners you accuse HAVE paid for them in good faith.

You have to keep paperwork for many other parts of a business why not paperwork for purchases?.

Again, many of these images have been obtained from free image sites, so how are they supposed to produce an invoice?

For inland revenue and VAT purposes you have to keep all papers for 6 years which is, in effect 7. Your purchase invoices should be neatly filed away and can be produced when needed.

Employee insurance certificates must be kept for 30 years but we never hear that complained about.

people HAVE produced invoices, but the specualtive invoicers have simply ignored them all.

Bob, let me ask you this.

If someone buys a stolen car in good faith, they are exempt from punishment (other than losing what they paid for the vehicle)

if someone buys stolen flowers in good faith they are exmpt from punishment other than losing what they had paid for the flowers.

If someone bought a stolen painting in good faith, they are exempt from punishment other than losing what they have paid for the painting. they are NOT then charged an IP fee for 'looking' at the painting while the stolen goods were in their posession.

if someone buys a stolen image in good faith, they are immediately pounced on by the IP speculative invoicing brigade who demand they get compensated by somone who in ANY OTHER SITUATION would be immune from prosecution.

Now tell me that this makes sense and is right because even Stevie Wonder and ray Charles could see that this is TOTALLY WRONG.

HOW can someone who has paid a fair price end up being sued? The sooner this is sorted out the better because it flies in the face of justice and everything justice stands for.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

if someone buys a stolen image in good faith, they are immediately pounced on by the IP speculative invoicing brigade who demand they get compensated by somone who in ANY OTHER SITUATION would be immune from prosecution.

HOW can someone who has paid a fair price end up being sued? The sooner this is sorted out the better because it flies in the face of justice and everything justice stands for.

What flies in the face of justice is your scenario.

A wet sunday morning had me spend a couple of hours using the new Google image search feature. Of just one image of mine I found 7 pages of infringements. Of other images I found my images used from vehicle wraps to multi-national software websites. I will take a bet with you that none of the commercial uses I am going after fit into your fanciful idea of innocent 'in good faith' use.

In fact I'm pretty certain that the idea of 'in good faith' scenario you suggest applies to only a tiny fraction of cases.

 

[pete_m]

In fact I'm pretty certain that the idea of 'in good faith' scenario you suggest applies to only a tiny fraction of cases.

On what basis?

I've produced websites for clients, and have been responsible for providing images. All were legit, as far as I know - they were solely bought from reputable image libraries. But how did my clients know this? I know there are enough web designers out there who are ignorant of the law, or who simply don't care.


I've also been on the receiving end of one of the Getty Images letters. In our case, we had a blog that featured websites within a particular niche. One website owner asked us to add their company logo to the page, which we did.

Unfortunately the logo included part of an image that Getty claimed as their own, and decided to send us one of their infamous letters - claiming £500 in this case. In the end we decided to settle for half the amount, as, to be honest, I needed the £250 less than I needed the stress.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

What flies in the face of justice is your scenario.

A wet sunday morning had me spend a couple of hours using the new Google image search feature. Of just one image of mine I found 7 pages of infringements. Of other images I found my images used from vehicle wraps to multi-national software websites. I will take a bet with you that none of the commercial uses I am going after fit into your fanciful idea of innocent 'in good faith' use.

In fact I'm pretty certain that the idea of 'in good faith' scenario you suggest applies to only a tiny fraction of cases.

Why do you say that my scenario flies in the face of justice? Bob you are really good at using quasi insulting behaviour, just trashing the opinion of others and without justification I have to say.

Yet you are happy that they be punished in the same way?


You have trashed my statement and your is full of waffle.

I have used valid scenarios in law of handling stolen goods.

There have been people within this thread who have valid invoices from designers they trusted.

Explain to me how you feel it is justified to treat even a 'tiny fraction' of innocent people in the same way as those who have shown total disregard?

How do we know that it is not the photographers themselves feeding their images to free image sites in order to get a return immorally? We don't, which is why it needs to come into line with other laws.

 

[bdw]

I do not understand the sniping that goes on over copyright owners trying to get paid when businesses use images without paying for them.

No, we are well aware that you don't understand. You have made that perfectly clear often enough.

You keep rattling on about the rights of photographers don't you? Well I can tell you that my written works and reports are copied on a daily basis by infringers. I have had to spend good money on Copyscape for years trying to keep on top of this and still it happens.

I don't however run around crying to mummy when it happens and so far I have not taken anyone to court. The worst I have done is have someone's website shut down for infringing my material. Wake up and smell the coffee. It's 2011! This stuff happens and will continue to happen. You better get used to it.

.

 

[bdw]

You have to keep paperwork for many other parts of a business why not paperwork for purchases?

Provenance, eh? That old chestnut again.

Look, copyright applies to many places and I would bet that you have offended someone's copyright more than once without realising that you have done so. I would also be happy to bet that you have listened to illegally copied or downloaded music in the past.

Regarding record keeping, the fonts that we use on a daily basis on our websites and documents are subject to copyright in the same way that images are. I assume that, if asked, you could prove that you are entitled to use all of the fonts you have used over the years? I assume that each time you create a document or put some text on your images you document which fonts you used and your ownership of them? I also take it that you have retained paperwork to prove that you have either purchased these fonts or that you are otherwise entitled to use them?

Would I be correct in making these assumptions?

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

all of the fonts[/i] you have used over the years? I assume that each time you create a document or put some text on your images you document which fonts you used and your ownership of them? I also take it that you have retained paperwork to prove that you have either purchased these fonts or that you are otherwise entitled to use them?

Would I be correct in making these assumptions?

.

Yes. I can prove that I have paid for all the fonts I have used over the years. I only keep legal copies of fonts on my computers. I can remember perfectly the 2, and only 2, that were available as free downloads. I remember them because I will only use them for the clients concerned.

I retain full flight info on everything that goes to press.

 

[fisicx]

If you read the T&C for your operating system you will see that many of the fonts cannot be used for commercial purposes so you may well have unwittingly contravened copyright.

The general points made in this thread are that Getty are making unreasonable claims without proving provenance. If someone came up to your house and claimed your front door was an illegal copy of a design would you pay up without proof?

 

[bdw]

Yes. I can prove that I have paid for all the fonts I have used over the years.

Without accusing you of lying I find this extremely hard to believe but if we give you the benefit of the doubt and you can actually do this then this in itself may tell its own story.

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Without accusing you of lying I find this extremely hard to believe but if we give you the benefit of the doubt and you can actually do this then this in itself may tell its own story.

.

Dear Brian

I resent your implication.

You might not think that a mere photographer would know much about fonts but you know very little about me. I have been married since 1968 to an ARCA graphic designer. Probably at the time the top qualification for graphics professionals available in Europe. When I 1st started producing work on a computer I used another designer who was one of the country's top typographers. Back in 1990 the only way to get the best fonts to satisfy her demanding standards was to buy them. I've paid between £48 and £92 for the ones I use commercially. (My 1st book was among the earliest ever produced by full colour DTP).

Ironically, one of the companies I found infringing my copyright last Sunday is a company from whom I have bought fonts.

 

[bdw]

You might not think that a mere photographer would know much about fonts but you know very little about me.

Yes, you're right. I know very little about you and I have formed my opinion of you based on what you have posted in here. I am afraid that I still think there are few people who do online work who have never once (intentionally or otherwise) infringed someone's copyright in some way. I used fonts as an example. There are many others.

I think it is very likely that you have infringed too and just like the unsuspecting Getty victims you are not aware of having done so. I would also be very surprised if you have never listened to an illegal copy of a video or sound recording, inadvertently or otherwise.

.

 

[hazeleigh]

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_roo...=../articles/9203-copyright-in-a-typeface.htm
Useful article on fonts

 

[screwedbygetty]

well...i guess i'm the n'th person that is currently now in trouble with getty.

background: set up small business in Aug 2010. stupidly used 3 images i found on the internet (all not watermarked). i have no idea about copyright infringement at that point. i do now, of course! i received 3 letters from getty since april 2011 (£1800) and now 1 from their appointed solicitor, Simons Muirhead & Burton (£2200).

after doing some internet research, i have not been in touch with getty nor the solicitors so far. i am just getting worried with the fact that getty have now passed on the case to the solicitors

there are a few things in my mind at the moment:
1. keep ignoring these unregistered posts
2. write a letter to getty or the solicitors asking for detailed ownership proof of the images and tell them to take me to court
3. pay-up

to be honest, i am swayed to option 3 at the moment. it's been a very distressing 7 months for me (since april 2011). i get worried everytime the post comes through the door - on a daily basis

the £2200 will be a big blow to my new, small business. but what really annoys me is the fact that getty is doing this to so many people out there, causing so much distress, and getting away with it.

if there's anyone here that has any advice to help me decide on what to do next, please reply or send me a message. all will be greatly appreciated. i have been given 21 days by the solicitors to settle

thanks
ben K

 

[InPrintImaging]

Lets be honest, the situation here is this. In days gone by (and by this we mean as little as 10 years ago or less), people would use photogaphs in print (say for magazine adverts, pamphlets, posters etc) and would pay the licence fee to use them. These licence fees were the output (sales) of the photographic industry. The value of these sales was based on the value that the image generated from the useage eg if you use it for an advertisement it generates revenue, brings customers through the door, encourages them to spend more.

In the modern era, much print advertizing has disappeared in favour of the web. Is it not rather bizzarr that people seem to think that although the useage of the pictures is very similar, and the value again is similar, that for some reason they should not have to pay for them simply because the useage is now electronic rather than paper? That is not logical, nor is it fair, when the value to the users of the pictures is the same (generation of customer interest and sales). The photographic industries revenue streams have dried up catastrophically due to a mass surge of people after "freebies", in order to add to their own bottom lines.

In the UK, copyright is arises automatically on creation, and for recent works, lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator. It exists in the same way that rights over physical possessions exist, not knowing about it is irrelevant, this is someone elses property, not yours. That means no excuses. If its on the net and it looks fairly modern, you almost certainly have no right to use it what so ever - so don't.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

there are a few things in my mind at the moment:
1. keep ignoring these unregistered posts
2. write a letter to getty or the solicitors asking for detailed ownership proof of the images and tell them to take me to court
3. pay-up

to be honest, i am swayed to option 3 at the moment. it's been a very distressing 7 months for me (since april 2011). i get worried everytime the post comes through the door - on a daily basis

the £2200 will be a big blow to my new, small business. but what really annoys me is the fact that getty is doing this to so many people out there, causing so much distress, and getting away with it.

if there's anyone here that has any advice to help me decide on what to do next, please reply or send me a message. all will be greatly appreciated. i have been given 21 days by the solicitors to settle

thanks
ben K

Dear Ben

Firstly your name "Screwedbygetty' is incorrect. You screwed 3 photographers represented by Getty.

My advice is to make a reasonable offer as soon as possible. It will have to be an amount which the lawyers will accept.

You should be aware that there is a new small claims IP court which will start operating next year. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/press-release-20111115.htm Getty have six years from the date of the 1st letter to bring it to court.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

dear Bob,

you are assuming the claim to be correct, and that getty do indeed have the rights to these images.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Surely it is acceptable to request definitive documentary evidence of rights to claim payment?