Getty Images / Pinsent Masons - Copyright Claim

[Deleted member 59730]

Thanks for the heads up on the IP court, wonder if it's for us photographers as the press release mentions up to 150 companies could benefit.
I know loads of photographers (myself included, I've currently around 11 infringements with an IP lawyer and 2 going through court) who have there images used without permission and are looking for a quick and easy way to chase for payment.
The rest of us haven't go the funds like Getty.

Dear Edward

It won't help those whose fee structure is low. I doubt it will work for demands under £100 because the fee is rumoured to be £80.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Surely a court of law would not award getty with £2000 for an image worth £100 or less!

What is an image worth? In one case a photographer allowed a newspaper FREE use of an image of a very sensitive subject on the condition that he controlled the wording of the story to treat the subject of the photo with respect. Another paper in the same group used the image without asking for a licence. It reputedly had to settle after a court case for £50,000 plus their very hefty legal costs.

So the answer is that the courts would award a photographer a high fee.

If you want to look it up its called the Banier Judgment and it established many pieces of legal precedent.

 

[bdw]

Surely a court of law would not award getty with £2000 for an image worth £100 or less!

Absolutely correct!

The fact that Getty and the other imaging companies have had tens (hundreds?) of thousands of these cases outstanding for years and have done nothing about it is a clear indication of the confidence they have in our courts to award in their favour. There have been other similar cases here in the UK where the judge has demonstrated his ire at the "plaintiffs" for making such unreasonable claims. This is almost certain to happen again, hence the imaging companies reluctance to test it.

I have been saying this for the last four or five years and I have yet to be proved wrong. Throughout this period our photographer friends have been warning of all sorts of catastrophes that are going to befall the infringers and they have yet to be proved right. That is an unassailable fact whatever way you cook it.

.

 

[Esk247]

Edit: not getting involved in a silly UKBF argument.

 

[david.duncan]

Consult chambers and partners before you do anything: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/

The write a report eveyr year on the best law firms in the world and which ones are better in what fields.

Good luck

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I have now asked others including a solicitor and 2 copyright experts and the advice is roughly this:

Both sides need to behave in a reasonable manner. Much is made of the word reasonable.

If in the first letter I make clear my authorship and rights to the image in question I will have behaved reasonably. If the infringer then makes a reasonable offer he has behaved reasonably. The offer should be at least what I would have charged had the image been bought properly in the first place. I, and many other photographers, have a two tier pricing structure described in our T&Cs. (Mine is £250 for a limited period licence with the condition that the image keeps the IPTC data intact and that I am credited as the photographer. Without credit my fee is £500 for a one year licence.) As most infringers strip the IPTC data and give no credit their fee is at least £500. For very high profile uses I will charge more.

When the infringer has agreed to pay £500 per image they can then reasonably ask for an affidavit confirming my exclusive rights to deal with the matter. They can ask their lawyer to prepare a form of words which will satisfy them and I will sign it.

It is unreasonable for the infringer to make demands before agreeing to settle for a reasonable and acceptable sum.

According to one of the experts there is no legal requirement to go to extra proof beyond the first letter until court proceedings. If the infringer wants to 'play poker' with the case its up to him.

If the infringer has knowledge that I am not the legitimate rights holder they must act reasonably and inform me of their evidence straight away. This is why I always include the line "Should I, or any of my agents, have granted a licence to use this image can you please provide me with a copy of your licence agreement." I do this even when I am 100% certain that the image in question has never been with an agent. Believe it or not some infringers believe that Google Images are an agent for free images!

I have described my approach which as far as I know is the correct legal path to follow. I do not think we have had a statement from anyone who settled in full with Getty that they, Getty, would NOT sign a document saying they had exclusive rights. I do know that Corbis and Getty do ask photographers to sign an affidavit over and above the exclusive contract terms.

This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

HI Bob, then we are in agreement, it was just my cakhandedness with phrasing that caused the issue, plus maybe your reading from a different angle. it appears we both agree then.

I posted a couple of posts above that all action has to be fair to both parties, in order for it to be legal. What I was saying was that if I said i was happy to pay with the proviso you rpovide the documentation I asked for (which you say you do, then we have a deal. is fair and reasonable. for a contract to be formed (whicjh is what settling does), the terms of the contract should be the same as your original offer to similar clients. i.e if you charge £500 for the stripped down version, and are asking £700 with £500 for the image and £200 costs, then it is not unreasonable to clarify the terms of the contract we are entering into.

At ALL times I have stated that people who just take images should pay, that is beyond question in my mind. Asking for clarification on the settlement, is also fair and reasonable.

So we are pretty much agreed on this issue.

Hopefully now we will see an end to the speculative invoicing fiasco that Getty and others have been running, because IMO it is very close to a scam and bordering on extortion (using the threat of punitive costs as a stick to force settlement), I know that in some cases Getty have ignored statements of 'take me to court of leave me alone' and there is a growing mass of people who are in a position to wipe the floor with the image houses who have ignored this and invaded the rights of individuals. *that is another story).

With regard the refusal to confirm sole rights, getty have point blank refused this, stating that they are under no legal obligation to do so until such time as they server documents to the court (which is correct).

However (there is always a however), if it later transpires that getty had easy access to this information, and simply refused to provide it, then a court would likely find that behaviour to be UN-reasonable, and that would of course not bode well for getty. if OTOH it was reasonable for them to refuse, the courts would side with getty.

 

[bdw]

I know that in some cases Getty have ignored statements of 'take me to court of leave me alone' and there is a growing mass of people who are in a position to wipe the floor with the image houses who have ignored this and invaded the rights of individuals.

Absolutely!

People have been doing this for several years now. The fact that Getty, Corbis and the others are being allowed to make these threats without following them up amounts to harrassment in UK law. It is shocking that they have not been stopped.

What they are doing is far worse than some unwitting person who uses an image without knowing that they have no right to do so. That this is still being allowed to happen after several years is the real concern.

.

 

[davetee]

Probably best in future to purchase the images and give them to your web design company to use, but if they are as unethical as yours seemed to be some other poor sod would probably end up getting sued as I'm sure they would re-use them. I have photos with Getty and they once contacted a forum and threatened them with legal action because I had some of my images posted there and I had to intervene..they are really hot on image piracy.

Always best to ask the design company where they sourced the photographs and whether they are licensed.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Probably best in future to purchase the images and give them to your web design company to use, but if they are as unethical as yours seemed to be some other poor sod would probably end up getting sued as I'm sure they would re-use them. I have photos with Getty and they once contacted a forum and threatened them with legal action because I had some of my images posted there and I had to intervene..they are really hot on image piracy.

Always best to ask the design company where they sourced the photographs and whether they are licensed.

This is the argument, getty claim exclusive rights, when often they don't have them. had you signed an exclusive deal with them for the images? I buy all of mine from Istock, if someone comes knocking i will simply send them to getty to sort out

 

[davetee]

This is the argument, getty claim exclusive rights, when often they don't have them. had you signed an exclusive deal with them for the images? I buy all of mine from Istock, if someone comes knocking i will simply send them to getty to sort out

Yes they have exclusive rights...but once I explained to them that I want to promote my own material on forums they were ok. They are looking after my interests so I can't complain. They do have a tendency to go in with guns blazing sometimes, instead of communicating first to determine whether it's a real infringement.