Getty Images / Pinsent Masons - Copyright Claim
- Thread starter The Dancer
- Start date
As a photographer I would be delighted to be paid £500 for an image. I have images for sale on stock libraries and so far the best image commands about £25 a throw, and they are very good images. forgetting the "premium headline images" that Getty sells, look at the prices for just about everything else
Here are some things to dwell on
- contracts - I have a contract with the libraries, and other photographers have a different one - will they disclose the agreement with you?
- costs - is the fee disproportionate
- juristiction of invoice - just what country is the invoiced raised and taxed applied?
- provanance - read below
I shoot 20000 commercial images a year. 1000 make it into the libraries, this has been going on for years. I have both mutually exclusive and non exclusive contracts with different libraries. I also have moved images en-masse from one library to another due to lack of performance
So, if you asked me, the photographer about a shot of a bucket of paint i took 10 years ago, has that image been exclusively in the same place - I couldn't answer the question, unless the image was very memorable or specifically commissioned. On top of that. I have had images in small micro stock libraries who ave been brought out multiple times, and ended up at Getty
For Getty to prove the image you are using is solely thiers relies on them involving the photographer, and because the contracts are very gaurded, they are not going to do that. Besides that, unless the image is a really special one, the photographer will struggle to remember the exact history of sales, licensing etc.. for the images. Getty know this and thats why I have never had a call from Getty asking me about the provenance of an image that they feel someone else has infringed
Here are some things to dwell on
- contracts - I have a contract with the libraries, and other photographers have a different one - will they disclose the agreement with you?
- costs - is the fee disproportionate
- juristiction of invoice - just what country is the invoiced raised and taxed applied?
- provanance - read below
I shoot 20000 commercial images a year. 1000 make it into the libraries, this has been going on for years. I have both mutually exclusive and non exclusive contracts with different libraries. I also have moved images en-masse from one library to another due to lack of performance
So, if you asked me, the photographer about a shot of a bucket of paint i took 10 years ago, has that image been exclusively in the same place - I couldn't answer the question, unless the image was very memorable or specifically commissioned. On top of that. I have had images in small micro stock libraries who ave been brought out multiple times, and ended up at Getty
For Getty to prove the image you are using is solely thiers relies on them involving the photographer, and because the contracts are very gaurded, they are not going to do that. Besides that, unless the image is a really special one, the photographer will struggle to remember the exact history of sales, licensing etc.. for the images. Getty know this and thats why I have never had a call from Getty asking me about the provenance of an image that they feel someone else has infringed
Upvote
0
of late (last year or two) my understanding is that they use encrypted data within the images, but older images are not always the same.
Also gettuy have taken a mountain of images from the national archive (free for everyone), altered them slightly, in some cases only dropping them by a fraction, and running an auto enhance script across them, and are now treating them as new works of their own.
Stinks!
Also gettuy have taken a mountain of images from the national archive (free for everyone), altered them slightly, in some cases only dropping them by a fraction, and running an auto enhance script across them, and are now treating them as new works of their own.
Stinks!
Upvote
0
today I put the image on Getty for sale
Yesterday the image wasn't for sale
4 years ago, I had it with another library who sold the image to a template designer. That library went out of business
Tomorrow Getty chase you who innocently brought the template 2 years ago. To help matters they also take the image off-line (before you have the chance to check, and wont divulge any contract details between myself and them to you. Getty sell my image for $20, and pay me $10 but meanwhile chase you for £2000
Upvote
0
fine - I respond with where I bought it and send them the receipt - end of case - I see very little evidence of people having that as a defence - Getty aren't silly, they are not going to chase where there is considerable doubt - they could end up in a bad place - they chase where they have reasonable belief or stronger that it is their image - and that seems fair.
what is happening is...
Getty sell party A an image
party B see it on their website and pinch it for their own use
Getty chases party B
in all these cases on the internet the person being chased seems to have a defence of -I didn't realise that I had to buy a licence - well, they have learned the hard way that photos / graphics are the same as any other property, if you don't buy it you don't own it - and taking it without buying it is stealing as it would be for a loaf of bread in Tescos.
regarding the charge - if you steal a loaf of bread in Tescos and get taken to court you may well end up with fines / court costs / etc. - certainly more than the cost fo the bread, and more than Tescos paid the mill / farmer for the raw ingredients... so the price the photographer is paid is irrelevant...
you obviously have a number of photos bringing in an income stream - would you want them all given away free?
I speak as an end user (design company) but also as a pro photog. and the owner of an image library.
Alasdair
Upvote
0
Looks like we both are in a similar position - photography/design seeing both sides of the coin
Thing is is that over time, images get copied, distributed, re-distributed.. sometimes with the blessing of the original photographer, sometimes without. Sometimes the original photographer stuffs up, sometimes the designer does, sometimes the client does. While I see and agree with exactly what you are saying, it ignores the obvious
- I get 20 + serious web enquiries a week from total loosers, with no budget, no business comprehension. they all either do the site themselves or find a muppet (the demand is there)
- there are 1000's of "free image websites where starting out photographers post anything and everything including Flickr, (where incedentally Getty are now getting a retrospective foothold) - the supply is there
- If any of these phootgraphers get better or then re-submit to Getty, sloppy housekeeping from either the photographer or designer or site owner will mean that eventually someone will get a bill
Realistically, can all designers show the provenance of all graphics, images, logo's, photographs, codes they use on a hour to hour basis?
Realistically can all photographers remember the historical usage of all the images in their library for sale?
What doesn't change though is the disproportionate weight and size of the sledgehammer that Getty then wield
Last week I had an enquiry - can you sort my site out, it has a virus
Here were the obstacles
- domain registered in web designers name
- web designer AWOL
- company owner unsure of admin password
- no control panel access
We have all seen this common scenario. I have another client not wanting any input at all on his site.. push client B to webdesigner A and all sorts of problems crawl out 4 years down the line
Upvote
0
I agree with all you say...
but at the end of the day, Getty have to show evidence that their photo has been used, and they are aware that some of the photos in their library are not their exclusive shots (I have had this discussion with them in the past), however they have been digitally watermarking their images for a long time:
https://www.digimarc.com/media/release.asp?newsID=107 is 13 years old.
so, while a competent photographer could recreate many of the shots on Getty - and certainly little difficulty with stock shots on places like iStock etc. which they own and which is full of simple shots - if the image on the website contains a Getty digital watermark then it will have come from Getty at some point so needs a licence - they can be pretty sure that it is their image.
my stock library is only released as watermarked thumbnails / licenced images on tight licences - so if I were to find one being used inappropriately I would know exactly who was at fault - it is not difficult to do...
so yes, maybe Getty are being forceful, but I would guess that an image where there is doubt is not chased - plenty of others where they have no doubt at all...
Alasdair
but at the end of the day, Getty have to show evidence that their photo has been used, and they are aware that some of the photos in their library are not their exclusive shots (I have had this discussion with them in the past), however they have been digitally watermarking their images for a long time:
https://www.digimarc.com/media/release.asp?newsID=107 is 13 years old.
so, while a competent photographer could recreate many of the shots on Getty - and certainly little difficulty with stock shots on places like iStock etc. which they own and which is full of simple shots - if the image on the website contains a Getty digital watermark then it will have come from Getty at some point so needs a licence - they can be pretty sure that it is their image.
my stock library is only released as watermarked thumbnails / licenced images on tight licences - so if I were to find one being used inappropriately I would know exactly who was at fault - it is not difficult to do...
so yes, maybe Getty are being forceful, but I would guess that an image where there is doubt is not chased - plenty of others where they have no doubt at all...
Alasdair
Upvote
0
F
fourblankwalls
I have dealt with Getty and i have made a claim for usage of my images. I think it is fair for them to ask you to pay a certain fee for the use of their image but a judge will want it to be a fair amount. You used the image online in a website?
You therefore need to checkout their costs for single use on a website for that image. You should then add costs of their solicitors and court costs if it has gone that far.
You will definately lose the case but it is not certain how much you will have to pay. This is not the end of the world as you will have about 1 month to settle the amount in payment before a CCJ is issued at any rate. You don't have to end up with a CCJ.
This is what i would do.
I would contact getty images and make a few suggestions to them.
Firstly state that you did not steal that image.
Secondly state that your web designers are responsible and their address is.......
Tell them that you do not have the funds but you are willing to pay XXX amount to them as shown on their website.
The court will want to see that you have acted reasonably and making an offer of XXX might go in your favour.
If all fails, tell them that you do not have funds and that you will go into receivership. You will however pay them xxx funds if they settle out of court.
If i were them and i was faced with that, i would take the lesser amount.
You should get onto the web company that made your site. You can sue them. Doesn't matter if they are in another company or not.
At the end of the day tho, you are responsible as it is your website and you should immediately take down the image and accept responsibility. This is quite a rife thing on the net and businesses do lose a lot of money from this.
I would expect that if you ignore them, they will go after you.
You therefore need to checkout their costs for single use on a website for that image. You should then add costs of their solicitors and court costs if it has gone that far.
You will definately lose the case but it is not certain how much you will have to pay. This is not the end of the world as you will have about 1 month to settle the amount in payment before a CCJ is issued at any rate. You don't have to end up with a CCJ.
This is what i would do.
I would contact getty images and make a few suggestions to them.
Firstly state that you did not steal that image.
Secondly state that your web designers are responsible and their address is.......
Tell them that you do not have the funds but you are willing to pay XXX amount to them as shown on their website.
The court will want to see that you have acted reasonably and making an offer of XXX might go in your favour.
If all fails, tell them that you do not have funds and that you will go into receivership. You will however pay them xxx funds if they settle out of court.
If i were them and i was faced with that, i would take the lesser amount.
You should get onto the web company that made your site. You can sue them. Doesn't matter if they are in another company or not.
At the end of the day tho, you are responsible as it is your website and you should immediately take down the image and accept responsibility. This is quite a rife thing on the net and businesses do lose a lot of money from this.
I would expect that if you ignore them, they will go after you.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
If they are professionals of course they can!
I don't have to remember. I just look up my sales database.
Easy Peasy!
Upvote
0
I agree. However a lot of professionals started out doing it for pin money and spread images wide and far in the early days. With the advent of Digital, anyone and everyone is popping up and selling images. The issue is that Getty & co cant discriminate one from the other, which meas the image purchaser cant either
Last edited:
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Perhaps I know the wrong sort of professionals. In the early days we did it for real money. That was in the 1970s in my case.
AFAIK the Getty exclusive contract means just that. The images are exclusive to Getty. If you sign and then supply non-exclusively you are liable for any costs when things go wrong. Also AFAIK Getty, and certainly Corbis ask the photographer to sign an affidavit to confirm that the specific images are exclusive before issuing court papers.
Upvote
0
You are right - nowadays half cocked "professionals" are passing images to microstock libraries, Getty, and anyone who will sell them, often at 1 pound a throw. The are pleasantly surprised when once a year they make a fiver
Down the line the libraries get sold, and sold again, and some of the images end up at Getty or Cobis etc.. even though they started at 123stock etc..
Also, these "professionals" are not really shooting assignments, they are just riffeling through the 1000 images they shot this week and sending up the 10 good ones. As time passes, they wont remember if they sent them to 123stock or 321stock
The Getty contracts are a mixed bag. If you are a recognised pro they may even commission you. If you are extreemly good, they will single your work out, if you are Joe average, your work is just in the mix. The contracts reflect this. On top of this, there have been so many mergers and acquisitions, that the previous contracts need to be respected too.
Dont get me wrong - I am on neither side here
The thieving gits who lift images are just as bad as Getty, who come in and hammer people tho have "allegdly offended" with a price that any photographer would dream about being paid for a single mediocre image (infact, I would be please with 1/10th of the prices they come in at on thier very heavy invoices).
Do they issue a cease and desist notice - NO
Do they ask "where did you get the image" - NO
Do they ask "who was responsible for supplying the image" - NO
Do they "pluck a figure out of the air" - yes
Will they attempt to contractually prove provenance - NO
Why all thus sucks is the case of the Wordpress template that someone basically nabbed a few stock images and then sold in the 1000's for about £5.00. 100's of legitimate businesses, charities and individuals then fell foul of the weight of the Getty solicitors. Who knows how many paid, but the person that dint pay was the designer who made the template - he was nowhere to be seen
Down the line the libraries get sold, and sold again, and some of the images end up at Getty or Cobis etc.. even though they started at 123stock etc..
Also, these "professionals" are not really shooting assignments, they are just riffeling through the 1000 images they shot this week and sending up the 10 good ones. As time passes, they wont remember if they sent them to 123stock or 321stock
The Getty contracts are a mixed bag. If you are a recognised pro they may even commission you. If you are extreemly good, they will single your work out, if you are Joe average, your work is just in the mix. The contracts reflect this. On top of this, there have been so many mergers and acquisitions, that the previous contracts need to be respected too.
Dont get me wrong - I am on neither side here
The thieving gits who lift images are just as bad as Getty, who come in and hammer people tho have "allegdly offended" with a price that any photographer would dream about being paid for a single mediocre image (infact, I would be please with 1/10th of the prices they come in at on thier very heavy invoices).
Do they issue a cease and desist notice - NO
Do they ask "where did you get the image" - NO
Do they ask "who was responsible for supplying the image" - NO
Do they "pluck a figure out of the air" - yes
Will they attempt to contractually prove provenance - NO
Why all thus sucks is the case of the Wordpress template that someone basically nabbed a few stock images and then sold in the 1000's for about £5.00. 100's of legitimate businesses, charities and individuals then fell foul of the weight of the Getty solicitors. Who knows how many paid, but the person that dint pay was the designer who made the template - he was nowhere to be seen
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Why the H*** should they issue a cease and desist? What part of the Copyright Act has ever suggested such a silly idea?
It matters nought where you got the image, only that you are using it.
The infringer is the one using the image. If they have a problem with the supplier they should sort it out with them.
No, they use their standard online calculator which often gives figures of £650 or over.
If you are caught with something you are using without a licence why should Getty prove provenance? I know 2 expert witnesses who appear in trials to prove provenance. If the infringer disputes provenance it will cost him/her close to £1,000 in court.
Upvote
0
It is all a load of tosh if you ask me!!
We were involved in an "Infringement" debacle once, many moons ago, with an Icelandic photographer.
We had been contacted by a firm who sold images of particular scenery from particular countries. We picked the batch of images we wanted, we were quoted a price for commercial use, agreed exclusivity for a certain period and were sent discs of hi-Res images.
3 or 4 months down the line, after selling these images in various print forms, we were contacted by said Icelandic photographer, with a court letter from a firm in Iceland demanding about 10 grand for damages, completely made up figure, that equated to about 4 times what we had sold them for.
Subsequent research found that she was a Flickr "star" and had a huge following of wannabees and "Nice Photo" fans, so we were subjected to a torrent of abuse for a few weeks, with emails threatening our lives etc.
Anyway, a quick visit to a IP specialist at a local solicitors armed with our discs, Invoice and the letter from her Lawyers, resulted in him telling us to just stop using the images and ignore any subsequent correspondance.
The upshot being, that whilst we had a great case, the logistics of going to court with someone from Iceland would not benefit either of the parties financially come the end. The firm we bought the images from, had since folded and started again(I think they did, just wasn't 100 percent sure it was the same people).
Anyway, as a result of her Flickr rants against us,she has since become a big "star" in Icelandic terms and has worked for Toyota and a few more, taking photos.
So whatever she thinks about the outcome of our little "battle", she has certainly got more out of it than she ever would have done going to court to get nothing!
Image rights over the internet will have no future soon, too many blaggers out there. Watermark/digimark them if you like, but the cost soon outweighs the benefits.
Just think think of it as flattery....
We were involved in an "Infringement" debacle once, many moons ago, with an Icelandic photographer.
We had been contacted by a firm who sold images of particular scenery from particular countries. We picked the batch of images we wanted, we were quoted a price for commercial use, agreed exclusivity for a certain period and were sent discs of hi-Res images.
3 or 4 months down the line, after selling these images in various print forms, we were contacted by said Icelandic photographer, with a court letter from a firm in Iceland demanding about 10 grand for damages, completely made up figure, that equated to about 4 times what we had sold them for.
Subsequent research found that she was a Flickr "star" and had a huge following of wannabees and "Nice Photo" fans, so we were subjected to a torrent of abuse for a few weeks, with emails threatening our lives etc.
Anyway, a quick visit to a IP specialist at a local solicitors armed with our discs, Invoice and the letter from her Lawyers, resulted in him telling us to just stop using the images and ignore any subsequent correspondance.
The upshot being, that whilst we had a great case, the logistics of going to court with someone from Iceland would not benefit either of the parties financially come the end. The firm we bought the images from, had since folded and started again(I think they did, just wasn't 100 percent sure it was the same people).
Anyway, as a result of her Flickr rants against us,she has since become a big "star" in Icelandic terms and has worked for Toyota and a few more, taking photos.
So whatever she thinks about the outcome of our little "battle", she has certainly got more out of it than she ever would have done going to court to get nothing!
Image rights over the internet will have no future soon, too many blaggers out there. Watermark/digimark them if you like, but the cost soon outweighs the benefits.
Just think think of it as flattery....
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It is all a load of tosh if you ask me!!
We were involved in an "Infringement" debacle once, many moons ago, with an Icelandic photographer.
We had been contacted by a firm who sold images of particular scenery from particular countries. We picked the batch of images we wanted, we were quoted a price for commercial use, agreed exclusivity for a certain period and were sent discs of hi-Res images.
3 or 4 months down the line, after selling these images in various print forms, we were contacted by said Icelandic photographer, with a court letter from a firm in Iceland demanding about 10 grand for damages, completely made up figure, that equated to about 4 times what we had sold them for.
Subsequent research found that she was a Flickr "star" and had a huge following of wannabees and "Nice Photo" fans, so we were subjected to a torrent of abuse for a few weeks, with emails threatening our lives etc.
Anyway, a quick visit to a IP specialist at a local solicitors armed with our discs, Invoice and the letter from her Lawyers, resulted in him telling us to just stop using the images and ignore any subsequent correspondance.
The upshot being, that whilst we had a great case, the logistics of going to court with someone from Iceland would not benefit either of the parties financially come the end. The firm we bought the images from, had since folded and started again(I think they did, just wasn't 100 percent sure it was the same people).
Anyway, as a result of her Flickr rants against us,she has since become a big "star" in Icelandic terms and has worked for Toyota and a few more, taking photos.
So whatever she thinks about the outcome of our little "battle", she has certainly got more out of it than she ever would have done going to court to get nothing!
Image rights over the internet will have no future soon, too many blaggers out there. Watermark/digimark them if you like, but the cost soon outweighs the benefits.
Just think think of it as flattery....
Flattery that someone steals a photographers living, lost for words...:| So can I come into your business and take what I want...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I suppose I forget to add that if someone plasters the Internet with everything they have ever shot, then expect them to be plagarised.
Not someone that takes particular shots for a particular purpose.
Let's put it this way, if I leave my office door open for a few days and I come back and everything is gone, then it is my own fault for not being more careful with things I need to make a living!
I'd expect everyone that takes photos seriously and for a living, to be quite candid in where they display them. If they don't, and they are good enough, they will get nicked, simple. It is the way of the world.
And lets be honest, 99% percent of photos on the internet aren't worth nicking!
Cheers Will
Upvote
0
Oh dear oh dear. once again another getty IP thread on the internet descends into farce.
This is a serious situation, people can not just take and use images or other content, and getty Corbiss etc can not simply make up numbers and harrass peopel into paying for them.
The recent loss of 5 cases by ACS law will go someoway towards ensuring the ip hoders play by the rules. also lots of other procedural changes being made to prevent the IP representative insisting on a high court hearing (which makes it more economical to settle than argue).
This is a serious situation, people can not just take and use images or other content, and getty Corbiss etc can not simply make up numbers and harrass peopel into paying for them.
The recent loss of 5 cases by ACS law will go someoway towards ensuring the ip hoders play by the rules. also lots of other procedural changes being made to prevent the IP representative insisting on a high court hearing (which makes it more economical to settle than argue).
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Most of what you say is fair, but the last bit is not
Alasdair
AFAIK Getty provide details of the image from their website. If the infringer thinks that Getty do not have rights to pursue on behalf of the photographer it is up to them to do the research and prove Getty wrong.
I have read a lot of these Getty/Corbis threads and I don't think I have yet seen anyone who would know what provenance would look like to satisfy all legal eventualities. I don't think there has been a case in the UK where ownership was argued since the arrival of digital files. The case law concerns a strip of film and was nearly 20 years ago in a £45,000 case.
Upvote
0
Yes but...the ACS Law cases were P2P file sharing cases. Quite apart from being based on a totally different issue , ie whether the defendants had indeed downloaded the copyright files (their only evidence was an IP address which is not sufficient evidence alone against the person registered to that address) whereas there is no dispute in the Getty etc cases that the subject images were used, ACS Law lost because they fouled up in their court papers in the way they set out their case.
The relevance of the ACS Law history to this thread is in the ongoing complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority based on allegations of professional misconduct in that their correspondence, it is claimed, amounted to unprofessional bullying. I have previously raised concerns at the appropriateness within the professional rules of conduct of solicitors for image licensors seeking fixed legal costs at a time when no proceedings have been issued (and thus no right to claim costs has arisen) rather than just making the point that IF a claim goes to court costs may be ordered against the infringer.
Of more relevance is your marker of future procedural changes in the law. Certainly the Ministy of Justice is under Coalition orders to heavily cut back on the costs of running the court system (its the lowest hanging fruit in the Government's budget slashing orchard) and we are, as a result, moving closer to the system in other countries (USA, Australia, Canada,Spain, various South American countries etc) whereby a form of mediation discussion becomes compulsory before a claim can be dealt with by a court and all parties will be under penalties for taking an unreasonably adversarial approach.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
And in the same way if the rightful owner finds you've nicked them and comes after you for money and it costs you thousands to settle its just 'the way of the world.'
Almost all the infringements I found last year of my images were scanned from printed pages. Like books with my name on the cover.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Look up Tineye and Picscout. They'll find images even when reversed, cropped, made into B&W and montaged with others.
Upvote
0
Another non-creative's view of the world. Because someone leaves their door open does not diminish the fact that it is still theft.
And you have come to the conclusion that I am non-creative by what means?
.Please define non-creative.I know it doesn't stop it becoming theft, but it doesn't mean I will spend the remainder of my life searching for my gear, I get new stuff and get on with it.
Upvote
0
The people that are likely to go around nicking photos for sites etc are hardly the sort to worry about a letter.Fold, start again!
The photo types will soon cotton onto the fact that unless you are Lindley or Testino(sic), your photos are worthless in the scheme of things.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
No. The sort of people who nick photos are everybody. I've claimed against one of the biggest corporations in the world last year. I also claimed against the UK's most successful news magazine, Private Eye.
Copyright infringement is a serious problem and costs photographers 100s of million worldwide every year.
Try this to see the sort of people who steal pictures and what it might cost them.
http://tinyurl.com/2cb6lcr
Upvote
0
Hear what you are saying - but we still have this general concept in UK law of having to be proven guilty - we are not yet fully at a place of having to prove yourself innocent
so it is up to Getty to prove that they are their photos, not the user prove innocence... in cases where Getty have digitally watermarked the photos (which as I linked to earlier they have been doing for 13 years - the majority life of the internet) then that proof is simple...Alasdair
Upvote
0
Well yes and no There was also a statement by the judge that he refused to hear some cases because ACS law were not the representatives of the Ip holder. He stated that ONLY the IP holder or their sole eclusive rights holder can bring action. That statement now means that if anyone other than the sole rights or the IP holder themselves is making contact the person being contacted has a legal right to bring an action for illegal harrassment doesn't it? After all if they can't legally bring action, then it follows that it is illegal to threaten it.
I appreciate that you kind of covered it in your statement alluding to bullying, but it needs to be stated more black and white. Am I correct in stating that it is illegal to threaten an action that you can not legally take, or that you have no intention of taking (The latter ebign almost impossible to prove of course, although it can be used to force the hand of the other party, I.E. put up or shut up, contact me no more)
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Hear what you are saying - but we still have this general concept in UK law of having to be proven guilty - we are not yet fully at a place of having to prove yourself innocent
Alasdair
Dear Alasdair
But copyright law, at this level, is not to do with guilt or innocence; its to do with using someone elses property. If you don't have permission you are infringing, period. There is no 'innocent' defence in copyright cases. (Except one exception which is so rare to have only appeared in theory books.)
If someone goes to court with a defence that the image is not a Getty image how do they establish otherwise?
Upvote
0
Hear what you are saying - but we still have this general concept in UK law of having to be proven guilty - we are not yet fully at a place of having to prove yourself innocent
Alasdair
Is it?
- I purchase an image from Getty properly
- I pop it on my website
- Some git nicks it from my website
- Same git pops it on a $0.99 a fling stock site
- You buy the image from there
- You use it on your site
Some time passes...
- You get a massive bill 2 years later.
- The library you brought the images from isnt about any more
- Neither is the git that nicked the image
---
- a web dev buys some images from Getty
- images incorporated in template
- template is syndicated
- the web dev dindt realise or find out the complete usage restrictions
- you buy the template from the syndicated seller that is making a few pence a throw
- the original webdev gets real job and pulls his site
some time passes....
you get a massive bill from Getty, and are left holding the baby, because the place you brought the template from has vaporised, and you cant trace the developer
Upvote
0
exactly... but what happens in reality is the person/business/charity gets a damn nasty letter in the post, threatening them with this that and the other whilst demanding a fortune... and a lot of them just pay up, because they are scared shitless
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I think that there is a misunderstanding here - I am stating that Getty have to initially prove that it is their image - not arguing about whether innocent / guilty of theft once that ownership is shown; but the starting point is that Getty have to prove ownership first, then they can pursue copyright
you can't pursue copyright if you haven't first shown that you own the image...
so the burden of proof is:
1) on Getty to demonstrate ownership
2) (assuming 1 is proven) on the user to show purchase
you can not expect 2 without 1, therefore step 1 is a burden of proof on Getty - without that the user is innocent...
my point originally is that Getty know this - know that they can prove ownership (they digitally watermark / have other methods) and therefore pursue...
the arguments above have included folks claiming that Getty can't pursue as the user could have bought the image from elsewhere - hence my comments about step 1 being required... the folks at Getty are not fools - they pursue where they can win - and they are global leaders in stock imagery / know how to protect their images / pursue those in breach...
so - step 1 is Getty's need to prove ownership - after that I agree with you - the user has to prove... however there seem to be some folks arguing that step 1 is somehow not required hence my comments
Alasdair
Upvote
0
as above - this is about step 2 - where indeed, the end user may get caught out - I am discussing step 1 though...
Alasdair
Upvote
0
Alasdair, while I agree with you that that is how it SHOULD be, sadly the law differs.
In law, you have to accept the word from Getty that they own the rights to the image. demanding proof isn't a legal requirement. They will write back and say 'we confirm we have the sole rights to this image. please do xyz etc.
the ONLY time they are legally required to provide definitive documentary evidence, is when going to court. By which time it will have cost the alleged infringer a lot of money in legal costs.
IF someone says to you that your images are theirs, then all you have to do is tell them where you bought them. Where is the problem with that?
To go back a step this is the procedure.
1. piscout etc find image on site and notify image rights owner.
2. image rights owner sends letter asking for licence for image
3. image user sends licence detail
4. matter closed.
Can you explain to me why anyoen would refuse to provide the proof of aquisition of image and opt for the high risk strategy of refusing to provide evidence? The only reason I can see for doing this is illegality or incompetence, both of which end up with the same outcome, they have no paper trail for the image and as such, no defence.
Assume then that it runs thus.
1. piscout etc find image on site and notify image rights owner.
2. image rights owner sends letter asking for licence for image
3. image user requests proof of sole rights.
4. image rights owner confirms in writing that they hold sole rights
5. Alleged infringer demands a copy of the document
6. Image rights holder says 'we do not have to provide this to you at this point, we only have to file the document with the court'.
7. alleged infringer says 'bugger off'.
8. rights owner continues to try to settle, in vain
9. rights owner goes to court and claims for costs for everything done in the run up to court action.
Why would anyone in their right mind NOT provide the proof?
I have helped people to draft letters explaining what happened, showing the provenance as they believed it to be in good faith. And the cases have been dropped.
This is civil law, not criminal law, in civil law we talk about balance of probablities, and not beyond all reasonable doubt.
In law, you have to accept the word from Getty that they own the rights to the image. demanding proof isn't a legal requirement. They will write back and say 'we confirm we have the sole rights to this image. please do xyz etc.
the ONLY time they are legally required to provide definitive documentary evidence, is when going to court. By which time it will have cost the alleged infringer a lot of money in legal costs.
IF someone says to you that your images are theirs, then all you have to do is tell them where you bought them. Where is the problem with that?
To go back a step this is the procedure.
1. piscout etc find image on site and notify image rights owner.
2. image rights owner sends letter asking for licence for image
3. image user sends licence detail
4. matter closed.
Can you explain to me why anyoen would refuse to provide the proof of aquisition of image and opt for the high risk strategy of refusing to provide evidence? The only reason I can see for doing this is illegality or incompetence, both of which end up with the same outcome, they have no paper trail for the image and as such, no defence.
Assume then that it runs thus.
1. piscout etc find image on site and notify image rights owner.
2. image rights owner sends letter asking for licence for image
3. image user requests proof of sole rights.
4. image rights owner confirms in writing that they hold sole rights
5. Alleged infringer demands a copy of the document
6. Image rights holder says 'we do not have to provide this to you at this point, we only have to file the document with the court'.
7. alleged infringer says 'bugger off'.
8. rights owner continues to try to settle, in vain
9. rights owner goes to court and claims for costs for everything done in the run up to court action.
Why would anyone in their right mind NOT provide the proof?
I have helped people to draft letters explaining what happened, showing the provenance as they believed it to be in good faith. And the cases have been dropped.
This is civil law, not criminal law, in civil law we talk about balance of probablities, and not beyond all reasonable doubt.
Upvote
0
I think that we are saying the same...
My point is that - should it come to court (the only point at which Getty can force you to pay...) then step 1 is that Getty will have to prove ownership - in court you are innocent until proven guilty and the start point of proving you guilty is that Getty have to show they own the photo - if they can't then the case would be thrown out...
Getty know that, and therefore - in my view they only chase images where they can show sufficiently in court (through eclusive licensing / ownership of the photo library / digital watermarking / etc.) that they own the photo...
I was saying all of this as a reposte to other posters who argue that Getty may not be able to demonstrate proof of ownership - I believe that they can - or at least that they believe that they can!
so we are arguing the same I think...
I am probably in a unique position on this forum:
I own three active businesses and some in set-up:
- Misc. new which are end users to the design business...
- Designtoo - web / design company - end agent user of stock photography
- Harrow Photos - 80,000 strong stock library
- Snipe Photos - photography business - producer of photos
so, I own production / distribution / end agent / end user segment businesses (though ironically have no images which go from my production -> stock library or stock library -> my end agent / end use)
I would guess that I am probably the only person here who owns businesses in all 4 stages of the process (if anyone else does - say hello!)
I have a good overview of the feelings / emotions / habits / etc.
- I totally understand the frustration from the point of view of the photographer / stock library - the reuse of images not owned is theft and hits the bottom line very painfully.
- I understand the perspective from the end user - image use is expensive (for personal use / for my clients) not just photos, but graphics / icons / backgrounds / etc. - cheaper to buy stock than to create new - but still adds up...
- I also understand that though we only get our stock as end user from reputable organisations (primarily istock / getty - both of which of course are getty), we have no way of guaranteeing validity of the images...
so - I do appreciate the emotions on both sides - however...
I do feel sorry for those caught out unintentionally... if you buy a counterfeit pair of levis from a reputable store / deposit a counterfeit £20 note at the bank - which you got in change from a reputable source (such as another bank / store) then you might lose the goods if discovered - but you are unlikely to be prosecuted - prosecution would normally be reserved for the counterfeiter... If though you buy the levis behind a shed somewhere / get 10 £20 notes for a £50 down the pub - then you are also culpable...
so with photos / images - if you contract a reputable design company to do your work - you are probably fine - let them sort it out - however if you go and find an image and copy it / use a 'more amateur' design company - then you must share culpability...
there is no simple answer to this - other than ensuring that you know the origin of your photos - direct from the photographer (contracting a photographer can be cheaper than buying a lot of stock), or from a reputable stock library... and keep the paperwork.
yes, Getty might be seen to be a bit heavy-handed, but... any less heavy-handed does no good - and at least, while they may not be loved as a result, this kind of discussion shows people the issues and warns them to be cautious - if there was only a softly softly approach from Getty then people wouldn't worry - to worry about the consequences might mean that more people are cautious and ensure legality...
Alasdair
Last edited:
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: