Getty Images / Pinsent Masons - Copyright Claim

[OldWelshGuy]

Seems like we are fighting out of the same gym

To answer your question, yes, Getty do get the photographer to sign a sworn affidavit that they have never submitted the image elsewhere, and without it will not proceed.

Sadly people believe that if it is on the web it is free if you can get it. A mistake that has cost many dearly .

 

[ORDERED WEB]

actually I am closer to both ends than you think - I buy a lo of stock images, I shoot a lot of stock images

I do feel that getty view this as a numbers game. from the outset, they are not 100% sure.. but they issue the heavy handed ultimatum. Some people roll over, some dont

It's almost a total rarity this ever gets to a court - and a lot of people dont pay. If Getty were so sure, they would pursue it. Bottom line is that the heavy-handed letter either wins or it doesn't for them... its almost a business model

 

[OldWelshGuy]

actually I am closer to both ends than you think l

That is a given, because I have not given you a second thought. I have debated what you have written

I do feel that getty view this as a numbers game. from the outset, they are not 100% sure.. but they issue the heavy handed ultimatum. Some people roll over, some dont

It's almost a total rarity this ever gets to a court - and a lot of people dont pay. If Getty were so sure, they would pursue it. Bottom line is that the heavy-handed letter either wins or it doesn't for them... its almost a business model

Again another given. There is absolutely no question aboute this. They refuse to take anything other than cast iron guaranteed wins to court for fear of killing the golden Goose. and THIS is what we have been fighting for. The moment this gets directed to local courts, the gravy train gort getty and the rest of them stops. Until that time the sun is shining and they are making hay.

 

[MASSEY]

Look up Tineye and Picscout. They'll find images even when reversed, cropped, made into B&W and montaged with others.

If i take an image and rename it then take it to photoshop and mix it with a few other images and again rename it, i fail to see how this technology will trace it. I think you may be over egging their powers?

 

[cmcp]

I think technology has moved on from renaming images. If I'm not mistaken, image recognition is not exactly new. Look at sites like what the font that scan the pattern to match an image. Google Goggles is a good example of pattern scanning.

I'd imagine no matter what meta info is contained on an image file, it would be possible to prove a match.

 

[akirk]

As an example - it may be that certain areas of the photo have exact matches - like fingerprints - enough exact matches and you are into high probability of the same photo - it will be algorithm based...
in addition images are watermarked using digimarc or equivalent - amazing what you can hide in images... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography look at the tree and cat - that cat image was hidden in the tree image - (strange really, cats are always getting stuck up trees )

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

He stated that ONLY the IP holder or their sole eclusive rights holder can bring action.

Correct save that the judge did not use the word 'sole' just 'exclusive'. This may seem a bit of hair splitting but it is important since, whilst Getty's terms give them 'exclusive' licence, (and contractually a licence that is exclusive is intended to be to that person/body alone, ie 'sole') they do not have to prove that the photographer did effectively give them that i.e. did not breach their licence by giving rights,('exclusive' or not) to others (whether by placing into the databases of other image licensing sites or just giving to others) . The effect is:-

1. So far as their entitlement to issue proceedings is concerned, that 'exclusive' licence is adequate even if the image is, in fact, available elsewhere.

2. IF,as a fact, the image is available elswhere and the defendant can show he acquired it legitimately from the photgrapher/other rights holder, then the claim should fail with the claimant company entitled to claim loss from the photographer for breach of the terms of the exclusive licence.

So seeking out other sites offering the image (how much do picscout charge for a single image search?) or the photographer himself can be a useful strategy.

The actual wording of HH Judge Birss was :-

"A copyright case can be brought by the owner of copyright or an exclusive licensee (see s101 and 102 of the 1988 Act) but the Particulars of Claim does not allege the claimant is either of those. The allegation is that the claimant "represents" such persons."

So you can see that this failed more throgh incompetence on the part of the solicitor in the drafting of the pleadings. The claims also failed because of the solicitor failing to correctly claim for an injunction and for claiming judging by default when the 'default judgment' rules were clearly not satisfied. The solicitor in these cases was a sole practitioner. The firms dealing with the image claims are large major IP firms who are less likely to make fundamental errors.

Let me get to your main point, OWG:-

Am I correct in stating that it is illegal to threaten an action that you can not legally take

Not illlegal as such, where the reason you 'cannot take' the action is a point of law and evidence, but it can be, in extreme cases, a potential breach of professional rules and standards. Most cases decided in court show that one party or the other had no case to take or defend but it would destroy access to justice for the losing party to be held as acting illegally.

I don't see these image case letters as an extreme case. My claim to potential breach of professional rules relates to the claim for fixed costs before any legal proceedings have commenced.

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)

In theory this can also be a breach of professional rules, but as you point out almost impossible to prove. It is very legitimate to threaten to issue with the primary and dominant intent being to pressure the other party into a negotiation.

 

[The Resolver]

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...r

As OWG pointed out, these are civil proceedings not criminal and, whilst there is a burden of proof of sorts on the Claimant to 'prove' their case, the failure to defend wins the case for the Claimant by default. So the 'innocent until proven guilty ' line does not apply here.

A civil court can, in principle, find for the Claimant on the mere statement of a witness of what he believes to be the case without providing other proof to support his statement. Onbviously this would be in the absence of a statment by the Defendant that he acquired it legitimately. But if the defendant says he does not know/recall or bought from someone he cannot recall the name of, whereas the Claimant has full records etc the judge is entitled to find for the Claimant. In the case of Getty or Corbis etc, a judge will look at their website and see they are a substantial and well resourced business in the image licensing business and conclude, in the absence of evidence from the defedendant as to where he acquired the image from, decide it is more likely than not (i.e 51% plus) that it was not lawfully licensed. Why should he decide for a Defendent who offers no explanation at all? Who is more likely to be right?

Guilt or innocence is for the criminal courts to decide on laws designed to protect society as a whole. This is why the burden of proof of guilt in such court is set so high ('beyond all reasonable doubt' ie 95% plus) The civil court, however, is just there to provide an optional forum to help parties who cannot resolve a private dispute between themselves. Getting it 'right' is not as much a requirement as it is for the criminal court rather than just producing for the parties a result one way or the other.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

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...

Dear Alisdair

I think there are 2 things here. In the first all Getty have to do is make a simple statement that they are acting for the copyright owner. In practice that is enough. During an out of court settlement I had with one of the biggest law firms in the country they only thought of asking for a signed affidavit at the final stage before paying a settlement cheque.

The second instance is if someone is stupid enough to argue the case in court. This requires two expert witnesses, one for each side, at about £150 per hour, two barristers at goodness what cost per hour and all the other court costs. Unless the infringer really does believe, and have clear evidence, that Getty do not have the rights he is on an expensive hiding to nothing.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Dear Alisdair

I think there are 2 things here. In the first all Getty have to do is make a simple statement that they are acting for the copyright owner. In practice that is enough. During an out of court settlement I had with one of the biggest law firms in the country they only thought of asking for a signed affidavit at the final stage before paying a settlement cheque.

The second instance is if someone is stupid enough to argue the case in court. This requires two expert witnesses, one for each side, at about £150 per hour, two barristers at goodness what cost per hour and all the other court costs. Unless the infringer really does believe, and have clear evidence, that Getty do not have the rights he is on an expensive hiding to nothing.

And if he provides this at an early stage history shows that getty back off.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

And if he provides this at an early stage history shows that getty back off.

And in two cases I've heard of the photographer loses their very lucrative contract with Getty.

 

[akirk]

Dear Alisdair

I think there are 2 things here. In the first all Getty have to do is make a simple statement that they are acting for the copyright owner. In practice that is enough. During an out of court settlement I had with one of the biggest law firms in the country they only thought of asking for a signed affidavit at the final stage before paying a settlement cheque.

The second instance is if someone is stupid enough to argue the case in court. This requires two expert witnesses, one for each side, at about £150 per hour, two barristers at goodness what cost per hour and all the other court costs. Unless the infringer really does believe, and have clear evidence, that Getty do not have the rights he is on an expensive hiding to nothing.

I don't disagree with this

the point I am making is that Getty know that should the case go to court then they may be having to show evidence that the photo is theirs to pursue... (assuming that the defendant claims to show otherwise)...

which means that they are likely to have a way of doing that...

which is most likely to be within the image itself - i.e. watermarking / etc.

the rest is fluff around the process - the core to it is that Getty will have to have an initial reason for the action - that will be based on evidence they have (to a level which makes them convinced it is their image) that the image was produced / watermarked by them...

therefore the fact that they have taken action is likely to show that at some point the image was theirs...

all of this discussion from me was in answer to an earlier statement that a photog. might have sold the image to a number of libraries and therefore how could Getty show it was their image - the response is that they can...

as to the rest of it - I was making no point regarding that...

I am not entirely sure that the Getty approach is one I would take (there has been some good discussion about that here), however I do firmly support chasing payment for images used without payment and I suspect that the only way of succeeding is the Getty approach.

I mentioned above the unique position I am in by owning companies in each sector of the process, however I don't sell stock in quite the same way so my stock photos are historic / only online as watermarked thumbnails / the library aims to sell the originals primarily... so I have yet to chase in the way Getty does - but I can see why I might take the same approach... I would hope not to have to, but in reality it is probably the only way...

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

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.

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.

All this is correct in principle but there is a key point missing in this scenario.Under the Civil Procedure Rules, both parties have to co-operate with each other to ensure they are both "on an equal footing" (CPR 1.1.(2)) and that court time is not wasted. Further to this there is a Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct to which Annexe A paragraph 5 states that all documenst relied upon in the case should be specified by the proposed Claimant in its Letter Before Action and that if the proposed Defendant asks in reply to see a document :-

"The claimant should provide the documents requested by the defendant within as short a period of time as is practicable or explain in writing why the documents will not be provided."

If one party b recahes these rules or otherwise fails to co-operate in an extreme way which leads to court time being taken up that might otherwise, with more co-operation, have been avoided, then the court have powers to punish that party by disallowing costs that would otherwise be awarded to them on succeeding with the case. The court could even order a winning party to pay some of the legal costs fo the losing party.

When a case is based on rights in a document, it is blatantly un-co-operative and a breach of the CPR and the above Practice Direction to refuse to reveal a copy of the document when requested before proceedings are issued.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

exactly how many of these Getty claims have ever ended up in court, in the UK?

 

[The Resolver]

As a number of people have been asking me privately for assistance, I have decided to run a one hour webinar on the 12th January 2011 at 8pm (UK) on the subject of how to evaluate and respond to the image copyright claims by Getty, Corbis, Masterfile and others. This is for those who wish to represent themselves and not instruct lawyers, although lawyers are welcome to participate.


To avoid the image library 'spies', I do require evidence of a letter to you from the image library or their lawyers and some proof of your identity. However lawyers and others advising those alleged to have breached image rights will also be welcome on the basis they can satisfy me that they are not acting for any of the image libraries.


The webinar will include a presentation by myself with slides and websites displayed under desktop sharing (you sit back and hear me and see my screen) as well as questions and answers from participants.


I will cover the following:-

1. How to investigate whether the library is able to establish rights in the image sufficient to justify proceedings in court.
2. How to assess whether or not you are liable for damages.
3. How to asses whether you are at risk of being liable for the other party's legal costs.
4. How to limit any potential liability for the other party's legal costs even if unsuccessful at court.
5. How to, and where to, gather in evidence in support of your defence/denial.
6. How to assess how much a court would likely award against you if they sued and were successful.
7. How to negotiate with the library or their lawyers.
8. How to consider whether you have a claim on other parties e.g. web developers for providing the image.
9. How to bring other parties into the negotiation.
10. What action to take against third parties.
11. How to respond to court proceedings including the forms and documents to submit.
12. Alternatives to litigation (e.g online mediation, adjudication etc) and how to encourage (or, if they refuse, put pressure on) the library to pursue them with you.
13. How to asses whether there has been a breach of professional rules by the lawyers acting for the library (harassment, unreasonable claims etc)
14. Comparative strategies and levels of co-operation including analysis of a totally non-co-operative strategy and potential outcomes.

The webinar will provide materials to all taking part being template letters and model procedures to follow. The presentations will be available for download (subject to my copyright!!). There will be a question and answer session and those enrolling will be able to continue to raise questions on a private forum. To cover my preparation and webinar time and post- webinar Q&A time, there is a charge of £35 for entry.


If interested please email me for details of how to register. If you have already written to me, apologies for the delay, but I will be responding today to you all.


In order to ensure everyone has an opportunity to raise questions I am limiting the numbers to the first 10. I already have 4 who I am in touch with and for whom I will reserve a first option.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

To avoid the image library 'spies', I do require evidence of a letter to you from the image library or their lawyers and some proof of your identity. However lawyers and others advising those alleged to have breached image rights will also be welcome on the basis they can satisfy me that they are not acting for any of the image libraries.

Perhaps you will then follow with a seminar for those photographers whose work is ripped off. Those photographers whose property it is that has been misused but which you now think it a good idea to 'help' the infringers.

Talk about ambulance chasing!

PS In 2009, total infringement case volume reported by PicScout clients increased more then 3 times over 2006 levels, which demonstrates the ongoing explosion of the use of digital imagery and its non-legitimate use. The amount lost by photographers ran to just under $70 million worldwide in 2006 so we are looking at over $200 million in lost revenue annually today. That is just RM sales. Infringement of RF images could be even greater.

 

[The Resolver]

Perhaps you will then follow with a seminar for those photographers whose work is ripped off. Those photographers whose property it is that has been misused but which you now think it a good idea to 'help' the infringers.

Talk about ambulance chasing! .

I think these comments are unfair. Most of the infringers I have spoken to are people who did so innocently, ie paying others to build a website etc or otherwise believing they were not infringing anyone's rights. I am happy to exclude blatant infringers but I guess they are hardly likely to tell me.

I did not, by the way, say photographers are not welcome. I prefaced my restriction by saying "To avoid the image library 'spies'". I was just excluding the libraries. The reason is to avoid people prejudicing themselves in front of those acting for the libraries.

Now you mention it I see no reason to deny photographers. Of course I see the injustice of infringement.

Incidentally, I am not ambulance chasing as I have retired from practice and thus will not be taking on a case representing anyone. I think my record on UKBF shows how much time I spend helping with advice.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I think these comments are unfair. Most of the infringers I have spoken to are people who did so innocently, ie paying others to build a website etc or otherwise believing they were not infringing anyone's rights.

Please point to where in the Copyright Act 1988 people 'believing' that they were not infringers means that they are 'innocent'?

The answer to the people you have spoken to is very simple. Ask the website builder to pay them the money.
Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co. is the precedent on this.

 

[The Resolver]

Please point to where in the Copyright Act 1988 people 'believing' that they were not infringers means that they are 'innocent'?

I have already explained that guilt and innocence are not terms that relate to liability in civil proceedings. It is, however, common terminology to use the word 'innocent' to refer to those who infringe without knowing that they have infringed. I am well aware,and have already stated, that ignorance is no defence to liability, hence my use of the term 'infringers', but these people do need help to understand their position and exposure. If you prefer a better adjective to 'innocent' then by all means suggest one.

 

[The Resolver]

The answer to the people you have spoken to is very simple. Ask the website builder to pay them the money.
Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co. is the precedent on this.

This only applies to those who acquired the images in that way. But oyu will see that I have in fact covered this in items 8 to 10:-
"

1. How to consider whether you have a claim on other parties e.g. web developers for providing the image.
2. How to bring other parties into the negotiation.
3. What action to take against third parties."

Its not the full solution because liability neverthless remains with the developer's client who remains exposed for so long as he cannot comtact the developer or persuade him to pay.

 

[UKSBD]

What I don't get is,
I have read photographers say by having someone else using the image it means the value of the image is lost because it is no longer exclusive.
If so, how can they attempt to charge everyone using it the exclusivity rate?

 

[alistaird]

Hi
I can see how stressful this is for you.
You certainly need representation and closing the company down can also create additional headaches with other creditors.
Feel free to contact me for an alternative quote.
Regards

Alistair

 

[ORDERED WEB]

What I don't get is,
I have read photographers say by having someone else using the image it means the value of the image is lost because it is no longer exclusive.
If so, how can they attempt to charge everyone using it the exclusivity rate?

As a photographer - I dont get this either, via stock agencies I have sold 1 exclusive image and 1000's of non exclusive ones. I'm not a crap photographer, and the exclusive image was comparatively weak

 

[akirk]

What I don't get is,
I have read photographers say by having someone else using the image it means the value of the image is lost because it is no longer exclusive.
If so, how can they attempt to charge everyone using it the exclusivity rate?

without looking I would guess that there is a default position in their terms stating that the de facto cost is the equiv. of the exclusive price...

Alasdair

 

[Deleted member 59730]

What I don't get is,
I have read photographers say by having someone else using the image it means the value of the image is lost because it is no longer exclusive.
If so, how can they attempt to charge everyone using it the exclusivity rate?

The fee is what I say it is. There is no obligation on me to licence images cheaper to infringers than legitimate purchasers. Quite the opposite.

Getty's average web fee 2 years ago for legitimate sales was $650 in the USA and slightly more in the UK.

I've lost substantially over lost exclusivity. Up in the several thousands.

 

[The Resolver]

What I don't get is,
I have read photographers say by having someone else using the image it means the value of the image is lost because it is no longer exclusive.
If so, how can they attempt to charge everyone using it the exclusivity rate?

I may have misunderstood the question but I would imagine what photographers are referring to is the exclusivity for the end user licensee of the image. I will pay more for an image if I can be assured no-one else will be able to use the same image. That is different to the exclusivity given to the distributor library which is given the exclusive rights to distribute but can sub-licence to as many people as they wish.

The high charges sought by libraries like Getty are not based on giving exclusive rights to the end user licensees but are high because they obviously find people are prepared to pay more than they might have to pay elsewhere, usually those who do not fund the fee out of their own pocket - eg employees in design firms acting for larger clients still guided by the pre-recession line that 'nobody got fired buying IBM'. One could also add to the list infringers who pay up reluctantly out of fear. It would be interested to ascertain comparative revenues between customers and infringers as the suspicion is that the Picscout led campaign may have affected the business model.

Does anyone know whether those libaries who do not watermark used to and , if so, when they ceased to do so?

 

[akirk]

Does anyone know whether those libaries who do not watermark used to and , if so, when they ceased to do so?

Are there libraries now who don't watermark? Watermarks may not be visible...

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

I meant visible watermarks rather than metadata.

 

[akirk]

ahh - as far as I know no library watermarks visibly the images they sell - people are buying an image, not an image plus the library's branding - so we have never bought a visibly watermarked image - plenty of digimarc / other markings in images though

Alasdair

 

[Edward Moss]

Alamy watermark all of their images.

 

[The Resolver]

ahh - as far as I know no library watermarks visibly the images they sell - people are buying an image, not an image plus the library's branding - so we have never bought a visibly watermarked image - plenty of digimarc / other markings in images though

Alasdair

I am talking about watermarks added to the images displayed on the library website for selection rather than invisable metadata (fingerprinting) . Many do that and pre-picscout I think they all did. It was the way to prevent people just taking a screenshot to copy. 123rtf still do. Of course they all remove them when you download on purchase.

This is important because most people would not be able to remove the watermark and still have a workable image and also if they did use it in some way it made it near impossible, unless they acquired it second hand from someone with that skill, to claim to be an 'innocent infringer'. It would be like stealing an item from a shop and removing the electronic tag.

The interesting question is why libraries would prefer to incur the larger cost of paying picscout and lawyers and losing images that picscout do not locate rather than just watermarking to begin with. There is surely only one answer ;-)

 

[akirk]

I am talking about watermarks added to the images displayed on the library website for selection rather than invisable metadata (fingerprinting) . Many do that and pre-picscout I think they all did. It was the way to prevent people just taking a screenshot to copy. 123rtf still do. Of course they all remove them when you download on purchase.

This is important because most people would not be able to remove the watermark and still have a workable image and also if they did use it in some way it made it near impossible, unless they acquired it second hand from someone with that skill, to claim to be an 'innocent infringer'. It would be like stealing an item from a shop and removing the electronic tag.

The interesting question is why libraries would prefer to incur the larger cost of paying picscout and lawyers and losing images that picscout do not locate rather than just watermarking to begin with. There is surely only one answer ;-)

Apologies - I think that this is a misunderstanding here...

As far as I know all libraries visibly watermark when displaying their images (perhaps not the thumbnails - but certainly the comps (medium size images) - Getty do / istock do / etc.)

but this is not where there is an issue...

once they have sold that image to punter A - the visible watermark is removed as a part of that sale - punter A who is a genuine customer is paying £1 - £600 - £??? for the image and doesn't want the stock library watermark visible anymore once paid for...

so the image they download at the end of the sales process no longer has a visible watermark...

punter A then uses that image on his website - as he is entitled to... without the watermark

at this point the image re-enters the internet, but not watermarked...

now is the issue
- punter B finds the image through google image search and takes a copy
- designer for punter B does the same
- stock library no 2 with no morals finds it and copies it / puts it up for sale again
- punter c buys it from stock library no 2 - actually buying stolen good but doesn't realise it (no defence - but reason it happens)

so - the problem isn't at the point of purchase / display by the original stock library - it is later...

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

Apologies - I think that this is a misunderstanding here...

As far as I know all libraries visibly watermark when displaying their images (perhaps not the thumbnails - but certainly the comps (medium size images) - Getty do / istock do / etc.)

Getty place a small watermark of their name in the largely redundant top left hand corner of their images. In most cases , this is easily removed without damaging the image itself. The proper way to watermark, if you really wanted to prevent theft at source, is to place it fairly centrally albeit as a transparency. Once you register in Getty even that small watermark is removed for full size image.

Now with registration you would expect at least some proof of validity of the email address (so that address may in future amount to evidence of unlicensed use - eg on a website asssociated with, or on a domain registered to, that email address, but their system does not require confirmation. The watermark is removed even if you have never opened an account ie bought from them. So [email protected] can register and access immediately unwatermarked, reasonably sized, images. My question is why?

I agree with your helpful scenario that many unlicensed images are taken from licensed copies and then sold on the black market.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I had a client approached by Getty about an image, they sent the licence and getty wrote back saying 'thanks, matter closed'. I am not sure what the validity of an email address has to do with anything.

I am not sure if getty digimark images with the licence number or not though.

 

[akirk]

I don't think that email can work - I use one email address to buy stock for 100s of sites - any design agency would...

key for them is that they can prove that they own the image and if you are not recorded as a purchaser (eta - or linked to a relevant purchase) then they will chase you...

Alasdair

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I don't think that email can work - I use one email address to buy stock for 100s of sites - any design agency would...

key for them is that they can prove that they own the image and if you are not recorded as a purchaser then they will chase you...

Alasdair

Not quite true in exact terms, I have bought licences for clients, Getty have confirmed to me in writing that this practice is acceptable.

ADDED: please don't think I am being pedantic, but if the designer bought a licence for the client then they may well be covered (provided he has bought a licence exclusively per usage )

 

[akirk]

Not quite true in exact terms, I have bought licences for clients, Getty have confirmed to me in writing that this practice is acceptable.

ADDED: please don't think I am being pedantic, but if the designer bought a licence for the client then they may well be covered (provided he has bought a licence exclusively per usage )

no problem - you are right - above edited.
the difficulty though is that Getty will not know this - so they may still chase you - that is when responding with the licence is a simple solution...

Alasdair

 

[The Resolver]

I am not sure what the validity of an email address has to do with anything..

Not a lot but better than nothing. I am simply saying that its surprising they do not require verification of email address before allowing anyone to access watermark free images because if they did then at least there is some possibility they could end up with evidence not simply of unlicensed usage but infringement that was blatant and direct from their site (because you had registered with them) and therefore liable to greater damages. You may use a number of email addresses but they all serve as potential , one way or another y linkeage to your net activities generally, , to identify who you are.

 

[akirk]

Not a lot but better than nothing. I am simply saying that its surprising they do not require verification of email address before allowing anyone to access watermark free images because if they did then at least there is some possibility they could end up with evidence not simply of unlicensed usage but infringement that was blatant and direct from their site (because you had registered with them) and therefore liable to greater damages. You may use a number of email addresses but they all serve as potential , one way or another y linkeage to your net activities generally, , to identify who you are.

true, but maybe more profitable to just then chase for higher payment

Alasdair

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Not a lot but better than nothing. I am simply saying that its surprising they do not require verification of email address before allowing anyone to access watermark free images because if they did then at least there is some possibility they could end up with evidence not simply of unlicensed usage but infringement that was blatant and direct from their site (because you had registered with them) and therefore liable to greater damages. You may use a number of email addresses but they all serve as potential , one way or another y linkeage to your net activities generally, , to identify who you are.

This assumes that infringers are using images from the Getty site. This is rare. Most infringements are by copying an image already bought by someone else which does not have a watermark.

Getty have stated that they don't chase legitimate clients for infringements.

I have had an infringement case where the watermark was intact.