Getty Images £750 for image used for 2 weeks by ex-employee

[SunshineSheila]

I've received a letter & e-mail from Getty about an image which by that time had alresdy been removed from our website (it was a seasonal image)
They want £750, I haven't replied as I don't really know what to do, the image was loaded up by an ex-employee, who was only with me for 5months, and did have some experience with websites, and had offered to tweak & update some areas, add a couple of pages etc.
From what I can see he's found the image through Google search, and its on the first page, 3 lines down. After clicking the image it takes you to a national newspaper, and its a general article about 'things to do to celebrate' (i'm being a little vague incase they are on these forums )
Where do I stand? I have the ex-employees details. But they aren't going to care that he has left? They are still going to come for me, even though I had no idea the image had been used, that it was a copyrighted image, or there should have been a cost, until after the event & removal.
Any help/advice would be greatly received.

Thank you

 

[Chris Ashdown]

I would find the image on the web and buy a licence to use it and then do nothing and see what happens at least then you may done something to have limited the damage

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Despite what Chris Ashdown says, retrospective licences are not legal. Getty wouldn't like you being devious either.

There are loads of threads about Getty on here. The advice generally is to be reasonable and make a quick offer of between 1/3rd and one half of the claimed amount. That way you wont be getting reminders and chasing letters for years to come.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

I understood that they can only claim for the loss and their costs so buying a licence at least limits the amount of time it was used

So many conflicting items on this subject seems few if any uk companies have got hammered but big in the states

 

[Annoying Donkey]

It's my understanding that it's Intellectual Property, so damages are punitive and not just restricted to loss... However, I haven't seen anything that is clear and unambiguous either...

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I understood that they can only claim for the loss and their costs so buying a licence at least limits the amount of time it was used

Please read the Banier judgement to see just what Justice Lightman thought of retrospective licences.

 

[Alan]

In any case the licence would be through Getty images ( they are not stupid they can't claim these fees if they don't charge them) and would cost you around that a medium resolution image on a website home page for global consumption for 3 month is £770 on their pricing form for an image I picked at random http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/530058899

Phone them up, plead and make an offer.

Or find the image, and price your actual usage using their pricing form, see if that helps.

 

[SunshineSheila]

So I need to take action, and they are going to want £100s. I really don't know if we can afford that at the moment, its a tough time of year. But if it went to court I understand it would be more.
From their website, even 2weeks usage was still £750. Just wish I'd known it had been uploaded, I thought he'd just used a stock image we already had! Does it make any difference it wasn't downloaded from their website? Just taken from Google?

 

[Gecko001]

It does not matter how you come by it, if you are using it without the permission of the copyright owner, then you are breaching copyright.

If you have not actually taken the picture yourself or have not obtained the written permission of the copyright owner to use the picture, assume that you are breaching copyright if you use it on a website.

 

[Newchodge]

No difference whatsoever, and no difference that it was an ex-employee. You are responsible for the actions of your employee, done for your company.

 

[makeusvisible]

We have had a couple of customers who have had this exact issue in the past, so I can speak from a little experience on the topic.

Firstly someone above advised to buy a license now. That would effectively be a waste of money, Getty will want to see written evidence that you owned a license at the time of publication.

The systems Getty use are huge, and complex....they will have a screenshot of your website, their image and a time-stamp, so there is little or no denying it.The person responsible is the owner of the website, be that a company or individual.... it wont matter to them who uploaded the image.

The bad news is that this wont go away by ignoring it.

The good news is it will probably go away by making them a fair offer for the use of the image.

My advice is to phone them, advise them of your circumstances, make your apologies, and see if they will write it off for £250. Again I'm basing this figure on experience, and finding a balance between making the problem go away, and paying a not to extortionate price for the use of an image.

Best of luck.

 

[Alan]

One of my clients had the same issue, they were charity, and they phoned, explained and paid nothing. Not saying you will get away with nothing, but it seems the people on the phones are human.

Phone, explain, give sob story at nearly going bust ( so they know court isn't viable) and start with a low offer ( £50? ) on the basis you can pay that right now. Worth a shot.

 

[fisicx]

There was a thread on here a while back bu OWG where he suggested challenging their claim to ownership of the image. All you have is a letter asking for £750. What you don't have is proof that the image on your site was theirs and to justify the amount. Can't find the thread now but it was a good one.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Just out of interest
If you have a company run build and host a website for your company Who is liable if Getty or other images are used without licence
I would say the company running the site

 

[fisicx]

If the domain name is registered in your name you are liable. It matters not one jot who built or hosts the site, if your name is above the door then it's your website.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

If the domain name is registered in your name you are liable. It matters not one jot who built or hosts the site, if your name is above the door then it's your website.

Thanks a good lesson there for those that don't wish to do the work themselves !

 

[fisicx]

It's why I always get the client to go buy the images themselves. If I buy them they get registered in my name which is of no use to the client.

 

[MikeJ]

If the domain name is registered in your name you are liable. It matters not one jot who built or hosts the site, if your name is above the door then it's your website.

Surely you'd have a claim against the builder though? Getty claim against you, you claim against the person that caused the damage.

Problem is Getty's lawyers are bigger than yours....

 

[Alan]

Most ( proper ) web design contracts make it clear that the client is responsible for ensuring that they have the rights to images where ever they are provided from ( even from the web designer ), its not difficult to ask the web designer for proof of licensing.

On another note, don't assume that if you pay a photographer to take a photo that you have the rights to use it in anyway you like, even on a second site. By default, unless contract says otherwise, rights stay with the photographer, and many photographers do this, I think it is historic and harks back to non digital days.

 

[Alan]

If I buy them they get registered in my name which is of no use to the client.

Well, sort of, most licences allow you to use the images in your work for clients.

What clients may fail to understand is, if you licence an image and use it in a Fisix site for the client it is OK. But they decide they want now to refresh their site and go to another web dev, or create a brochure and they take the image from the site you built they are infringing copyright.

 

[paulears]

The best advice here is simply to mitigate - call them and ask. Explain, and see what the deal is - then pay it. It is so simple now to use the on-line IP court system, and as so many are doing it, the courts are well aware of the value and cost of licensing. Is it really worth the hassle and potential entry on the public dodgy list?

 

[Alan]

Yes, please come back and update us after your call.

Thanks

 

[Deleted member 59730]

There was a thread on here a while back bu OWG where he suggested challenging their claim to ownership of the image. All you have is a letter asking for £750. What you don't have is proof that the image on your site was theirs and to justify the amount. Can't find the thread now but it was a good one.

As a photographer I have chased many infringers for damages. P******g me off by making me prove ownership only makes me more determined to dig my heels in. The only question you should ask is "Do I have a Licence?"

If you are too ignorant to understand copyright what would make me think that you would understand my proof of ownership?

 

[SunshineSheila]

Thank you, I will try the phone call option, i'm away this week but will update when I am back and do this.

Website is hosted by Scoot.

We can log in and add bits, as this guy nagged me to do to show off his 'skills' and costing me money

 

[fisicx]

As a photographer I have chased many infringers for damages. P******g me off by making me prove ownership only makes me more determined to dig my heels in. The only question you should ask is "Do I have a Licence?"

If you are too ignorant to understand copyright what would make me think that you would understand my proof of ownership?

The point was Getty need to show they have ownership of that particular image. It's not ignorance of copyright, it's Getty making claims for images they don't have exclusivity over.

 

[CW Legal Services]

We have come across this before.
We always advise to write a letter and set out the parameters of what you did and state that 750.00 pounds is excessive and you do not feel it is correct. If, as you state, someone used it accidentally and you removed it then I doubt Getty Images will wish a test case in court as it will see it as precedent.
Usually their letters are computer generated fishing expeditions. The law is on their side. The law of common sense is on yours.
Offer nothing except your apology and a promise never to do it again..

 

[fisicx]

Website is hosted by Scoot.

Well you need to escape that prison ASAP. Scoot are useless. Go get your own hosting and regain control of your website.

 

[BusyVids]

About 6 years ago we had a similar problem. Our web designer had bought a cheap package of images and the one he used on our website was claimed by Getty as theirs. They demanded £1500 for its use and asked us to remove it immediately. We did and then consulted a solicitor who advised us to ask Getty for proof of ownership of the image. We sent them a letter and never heard another thing about it. I think I still have a copy of the letter somewhere so if you want it, let me know.