Getty Images / Pinsent Masons - Copyright Claim
- Thread starter The Dancer
- Start date
Hi there,
this is my first post but hopefully it will help regarding this issue with Getty Images. I was in exactly the same position where a web developer had used an image that had not been licensed from Getty Images (I had no idea that they had done this) and tried to pinpoint them as the offender by asking my web host to tell me when the image had been uploaded and by whom but in my haste to try and rectify the situation with Getty I had erased the image already and along with it the trace to the developer who denied all knowledge to it! I finally got a solicitor to draw up a response to Getty's solicitors which did the trick and they stopped chasing me for payment.
I've attached it for you to use if you wish and hope it brings you the same luck!
The letter was as follows-
To [xxx]
This is with reference to your fax / email dated [xxx] whereby you have informed us that the copyright to one of the images used on our website [xxx] in fact belongs to you.
We may inform you that the website had been designed by an independent web designer and the images used on the website were provided by the same designer as a part of the contract.
If indeed, the image in question belongs to you and has been used without obtaining a valid and legal license or release from you, then without prejudice to our rights, we have already removed the said image from our website and from all relevant archives.
Since the image was provided by the independent web designer, whose details have been already provided to you, and had not been independently procured or used by us, we disclaim any and all legal liability for the use of the same.
We have, in good faith, and without prejudice to our rights, already offered GBP 45.90 in lieu of the licensing fee for an entire year. This offer still stands and is to demonstrate our good faith and desire to settle this amicably. We do not desire the use of your image, even if you were to accept the said sum of money.
Despite our best efforts to resolve this amicably, we are saddened to find that you are trying to saddle us with expenses and costs that we deem unacceptable and undeserved. We may reiterate that if the image indeed belongs to you, then your remedy lies against the designer who has used it without your approval and not against us who have had no role in the selection or use of the said image.
Since the i mage was used without our knowledge regarding copyright and in ignorance thereof, and especially since there is no contract explicit or implied between you and us, we do not feel that we are liable to pay the punitive charges / damages that you have demanded.
You may therefore kindly withdraw your mandate to your collection agency and drop all related proceedings and action against us. In case you decide to keep demanding any money from us on any account, we shall be compelled to retain legal counsel and to seek an appropriate injunction at your expense.
It may also be reiterated that even if the said image was used on our site, without our knowledge, the same was not being offered for sale, nor were we making any commercial gains from the same. We are therefore not liable to render any charges, profits or gains on any account to you.
The said image having been removed immediately on receipt of notice from you, and without even querying your title to the same, must be taken as a gesture of our honest intention and mustn't be taken advantage of. This was at worst a case of "Innocent Infringement" alone.
We may also add that you have not provided any evidence of registration of the image, since it is claimed to be of US origin and which registration is mandatory before an infringement suit can be filed. Without providing documentated evidence of registration of the copyright in the said image, you must of course be aware that you would only be entitled to an award of actual damages etc.
In the event, our offer to pay GBP 45.90, without prejudice or admission of any sort, and in complete settlement of this issue is most appropriate and shall remain valid for a period of 15 days. Should you be willing to settle on these terms, you may kindly convey your consent. In the alternative, you shall be responsible for any and all legal and allied expenses incurred in defending ourselves from any action that you may initiate or take on the issue.
Sincerely
[xxx]
this is my first post but hopefully it will help regarding this issue with Getty Images. I was in exactly the same position where a web developer had used an image that had not been licensed from Getty Images (I had no idea that they had done this) and tried to pinpoint them as the offender by asking my web host to tell me when the image had been uploaded and by whom but in my haste to try and rectify the situation with Getty I had erased the image already and along with it the trace to the developer who denied all knowledge to it! I finally got a solicitor to draw up a response to Getty's solicitors which did the trick and they stopped chasing me for payment.
I've attached it for you to use if you wish and hope it brings you the same luck!
The letter was as follows-
To [xxx]
This is with reference to your fax / email dated [xxx] whereby you have informed us that the copyright to one of the images used on our website [xxx] in fact belongs to you.
We may inform you that the website had been designed by an independent web designer and the images used on the website were provided by the same designer as a part of the contract.
If indeed, the image in question belongs to you and has been used without obtaining a valid and legal license or release from you, then without prejudice to our rights, we have already removed the said image from our website and from all relevant archives.
Since the image was provided by the independent web designer, whose details have been already provided to you, and had not been independently procured or used by us, we disclaim any and all legal liability for the use of the same.
We have, in good faith, and without prejudice to our rights, already offered GBP 45.90 in lieu of the licensing fee for an entire year. This offer still stands and is to demonstrate our good faith and desire to settle this amicably. We do not desire the use of your image, even if you were to accept the said sum of money.
Despite our best efforts to resolve this amicably, we are saddened to find that you are trying to saddle us with expenses and costs that we deem unacceptable and undeserved. We may reiterate that if the image indeed belongs to you, then your remedy lies against the designer who has used it without your approval and not against us who have had no role in the selection or use of the said image.
Since the i mage was used without our knowledge regarding copyright and in ignorance thereof, and especially since there is no contract explicit or implied between you and us, we do not feel that we are liable to pay the punitive charges / damages that you have demanded.
You may therefore kindly withdraw your mandate to your collection agency and drop all related proceedings and action against us. In case you decide to keep demanding any money from us on any account, we shall be compelled to retain legal counsel and to seek an appropriate injunction at your expense.
It may also be reiterated that even if the said image was used on our site, without our knowledge, the same was not being offered for sale, nor were we making any commercial gains from the same. We are therefore not liable to render any charges, profits or gains on any account to you.
The said image having been removed immediately on receipt of notice from you, and without even querying your title to the same, must be taken as a gesture of our honest intention and mustn't be taken advantage of. This was at worst a case of "Innocent Infringement" alone.
We may also add that you have not provided any evidence of registration of the image, since it is claimed to be of US origin and which registration is mandatory before an infringement suit can be filed. Without providing documentated evidence of registration of the copyright in the said image, you must of course be aware that you would only be entitled to an award of actual damages etc.
In the event, our offer to pay GBP 45.90, without prejudice or admission of any sort, and in complete settlement of this issue is most appropriate and shall remain valid for a period of 15 days. Should you be willing to settle on these terms, you may kindly convey your consent. In the alternative, you shall be responsible for any and all legal and allied expenses incurred in defending ourselves from any action that you may initiate or take on the issue.
Sincerely
[xxx]
Upvote
0
I had the same issue in 2007 when a web developer used a Getty Image on one of my websites without buying the license. I didn't know this and when I received the first demand I thought they were trying it on but the demands became more fierce so I sought legal advice and was given the following letter to send which worked a treat! Please see attached and if you choose to use it I hope you have the same luck too!
As follows:
To [xxx]
This is with reference to your fax / email dated [xxx] whereby you have informed us that the copyright to one of the images used on our website [xxx] in fact belongs to you.
We may inform you that the website had been designed by an independent web designer and the images used on the website were provided by the same designer as a part of the contract.
If indeed, the image in question belongs to you and has been used without obtaining a valid and legal license or release from you, then without prejudice to our rights, we have already removed the said image from our website and from all relevant archives.
Since the image was provided by the independent web designer, whose details have been already provided to you, and had not been independently procured or used by us, we disclaim any and all legal liability for the use of the same.
We have, in good faith, and without prejudice to our rights, already offered GBP 45.90 in lieu of the licensing fee for an entire year. This offer still stands and is to demonstrate our good faith and desire to settle this amicably. We do not desire the use of your image, even if you were to accept the said sum of money.
Despite our best efforts to resolve this amicably, we are saddened to find that you are trying to saddle us with expenses and costs that we deem unacceptable and undeserved. We may reiterate that if the image indeed belongs to you, then your remedy lies against the designer who has used it without your approval and not against us who have had no role in the selection or use of the said image.
Since the i mage was used without our knowledge regarding copyright and in ignorance thereof, and especially since there is no contract explicit or implied between you and us, we do not feel that we are liable to pay the punitive charges / damages that you have demanded.
You may therefore kindly withdraw your mandate to your collection agency and drop all related proceedings and action against us. In case you decide to keep demanding any money from us on any account, we shall be compelled to retain legal counsel and to seek an appropriate injunction at your expense.
It may also be reiterated that even if the said image was used on our site, without our knowledge, the same was not being offered for sale, nor were we making any commercial gains from the same. We are therefore not liable to render any charges, profits or gains on any account to you.
The said image having been removed immediately on receipt of notice from you, and without even querying your title to the same, must be taken as a gesture of our honest intention and mustn't be taken advantage of. This was at worst a case of "Innocent Infringement" alone.
We may also add that you have not provided any evidence of registration of the image, since it is claimed to be of US origin and which registration is mandatory before an infringement suit can be filed. Without providing documentated evidence of registration of the copyright in the said image, you must of course be aware that you would only be entitled to an award of actual damages etc.
In the event, our offer to pay GBP 45.90, without prejudice or admission of any sort, and in complete settlement of this issue is most appropriate and shall remain valid for a period of 15 days. Should you be willing to settle on these terms, you may kindly convey your consent. In the alternative, you shall be responsible for any and all legal and allied expenses incurred in defending ourselves from any action that you may initiate or take on the issue.
Sincerely
[xxx]
As follows:
To [xxx]
This is with reference to your fax / email dated [xxx] whereby you have informed us that the copyright to one of the images used on our website [xxx] in fact belongs to you.
We may inform you that the website had been designed by an independent web designer and the images used on the website were provided by the same designer as a part of the contract.
If indeed, the image in question belongs to you and has been used without obtaining a valid and legal license or release from you, then without prejudice to our rights, we have already removed the said image from our website and from all relevant archives.
Since the image was provided by the independent web designer, whose details have been already provided to you, and had not been independently procured or used by us, we disclaim any and all legal liability for the use of the same.
We have, in good faith, and without prejudice to our rights, already offered GBP 45.90 in lieu of the licensing fee for an entire year. This offer still stands and is to demonstrate our good faith and desire to settle this amicably. We do not desire the use of your image, even if you were to accept the said sum of money.
Despite our best efforts to resolve this amicably, we are saddened to find that you are trying to saddle us with expenses and costs that we deem unacceptable and undeserved. We may reiterate that if the image indeed belongs to you, then your remedy lies against the designer who has used it without your approval and not against us who have had no role in the selection or use of the said image.
Since the i mage was used without our knowledge regarding copyright and in ignorance thereof, and especially since there is no contract explicit or implied between you and us, we do not feel that we are liable to pay the punitive charges / damages that you have demanded.
You may therefore kindly withdraw your mandate to your collection agency and drop all related proceedings and action against us. In case you decide to keep demanding any money from us on any account, we shall be compelled to retain legal counsel and to seek an appropriate injunction at your expense.
It may also be reiterated that even if the said image was used on our site, without our knowledge, the same was not being offered for sale, nor were we making any commercial gains from the same. We are therefore not liable to render any charges, profits or gains on any account to you.
The said image having been removed immediately on receipt of notice from you, and without even querying your title to the same, must be taken as a gesture of our honest intention and mustn't be taken advantage of. This was at worst a case of "Innocent Infringement" alone.
We may also add that you have not provided any evidence of registration of the image, since it is claimed to be of US origin and which registration is mandatory before an infringement suit can be filed. Without providing documentated evidence of registration of the copyright in the said image, you must of course be aware that you would only be entitled to an award of actual damages etc.
In the event, our offer to pay GBP 45.90, without prejudice or admission of any sort, and in complete settlement of this issue is most appropriate and shall remain valid for a period of 15 days. Should you be willing to settle on these terms, you may kindly convey your consent. In the alternative, you shall be responsible for any and all legal and allied expenses incurred in defending ourselves from any action that you may initiate or take on the issue.
Sincerely
[xxx]
Upvote
0
Picscout (one of the major image tracers used by the image libraries) have a free download called ImageExchange.
It sits in the background while you browse and will try to identify any images on websites you visit that are rights managed and then list them and link you to the licensors. Whilst I do not know how comprehensive it is (are the licensors only those signed up as clients - anyone know?) I have come across images with more than one licensor. This tool is thus useful to identify if anyone else is licensing the same images that are the subject of a Getty (or other library) claim. If so this may be relevant to whether the images were properly licensed from another licensor (whether that is in breach of exclusivity is another matter).
Whilst ImageExchage is a useful tool for designers who want to trace licensors so they can buy a licence for images they come across , I imagine, as users browse the web, it also serves, in the background, to feed into Picscout's database of websites identifying where images are being used. So ImageExchange users also are part of the internet trawl and become unwitting digital detectives for Picscout's clients. I would check your own website's images before using it!
Whatever people think about the tactics of the libraries and their lawyers, we have to take our hats off to Picscout.
It sits in the background while you browse and will try to identify any images on websites you visit that are rights managed and then list them and link you to the licensors. Whilst I do not know how comprehensive it is (are the licensors only those signed up as clients - anyone know?) I have come across images with more than one licensor. This tool is thus useful to identify if anyone else is licensing the same images that are the subject of a Getty (or other library) claim. If so this may be relevant to whether the images were properly licensed from another licensor (whether that is in breach of exclusivity is another matter).
Whilst ImageExchage is a useful tool for designers who want to trace licensors so they can buy a licence for images they come across , I imagine, as users browse the web, it also serves, in the background, to feed into Picscout's database of websites identifying where images are being used. So ImageExchange users also are part of the internet trawl and become unwitting digital detectives for Picscout's clients. I would check your own website's images before using it!
Whatever people think about the tactics of the libraries and their lawyers, we have to take our hats off to Picscout.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Graham - thanks - interesting...
What concerns me most about this of course is that the general pattern for website design is:
- design agency buys (I hopes!) images from a stock library
- design agency uses them for client's website - cost is passed on directly, or within the cost of the work.
- client has therefore paid / there is a legal line linking purchase and use, but I fail to see how automated software can tell what that link is...
it has got to be therefore that this can only apply to RM imagery (rights managed) as royalty free is exactly that - once a design company buys a royalty free image they can use it 10,000 times if they wish - so how can anyone tell whether or not it is in use legally?
It can only therefore be RM imagery which they are interested in - and that makes sense - no-one is going to bother chasing down a 200px version of iStockPhoto artwork worth 79p - whereas a Getty RM image costing £600 is worth chasing...
The whole question of royalty free / RM is an interesting one - with RM imagery you can hold rights way beyond the normal copyright period (life of phtoographer + 70 years), so for example, my photo library of images from the 1860s - 1970s some of it is theoretically out of copyright - however as the images have never been released other than with a restrictive licence, the licencing rules, not the copyright laws... so even though an image may be out of copyright - the only people who have the images have them on the basis of no copying, so the restriction carries forwards... it is a very legally constructed way of selling photos - but ultimately far more commercial.
OWG - thanks for that - totally irrelevant of course, but absolutely fascinating...
Alasdair
What concerns me most about this of course is that the general pattern for website design is:
- design agency buys (I hopes!) images from a stock library
- design agency uses them for client's website - cost is passed on directly, or within the cost of the work.
- client has therefore paid / there is a legal line linking purchase and use, but I fail to see how automated software can tell what that link is...
it has got to be therefore that this can only apply to RM imagery (rights managed) as royalty free is exactly that - once a design company buys a royalty free image they can use it 10,000 times if they wish - so how can anyone tell whether or not it is in use legally?
It can only therefore be RM imagery which they are interested in - and that makes sense - no-one is going to bother chasing down a 200px version of iStockPhoto artwork worth 79p - whereas a Getty RM image costing £600 is worth chasing...
The whole question of royalty free / RM is an interesting one - with RM imagery you can hold rights way beyond the normal copyright period (life of phtoographer + 70 years), so for example, my photo library of images from the 1860s - 1970s some of it is theoretically out of copyright - however as the images have never been released other than with a restrictive licence, the licencing rules, not the copyright laws... so even though an image may be out of copyright - the only people who have the images have them on the basis of no copying, so the restriction carries forwards... it is a very legally constructed way of selling photos - but ultimately far more commercial.
OWG - thanks for that - totally irrelevant of course, but absolutely fascinating...
Alasdair
Upvote
0
M
MrMichael
It may not be mandatory to register, however there do appear to be certain benefits to registration as explained in the link below from the USPTO's website. I'm not certain whether this is the case for Canada though.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/copyright/copyrightrefresher.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/copyright/copyrightrefresher.htm
Upvote
0
Hi There
I am a commercial photographer who gets images published in international magazines on occasion.
I wish to state that if I sent a letter to any unauthorised user of any of my images in that tone I would expect them to tell me to FO. They should pay a commercial rate and that's all they would offer. This is why publications sometimes publish images and only p y when challenged over it's use. The only other option is send a cease and deist
They are using scare tactics.
There is no basis for punitive damages under UK law. The only liability will be for the published rate for a given image. Not very much.
That's why Microsoft and other copyright holders do not sue for damages for unauthorised use of their software or music in the UK. The maximum they would get would be the retail value of the product. They would not get their legal costs back. US law is diffreent. (I am not a lawyer by the way)
Have we heard of UK case with any of the above. NO (unless someone knows different!!)
I am a commercial photographer who gets images published in international magazines on occasion.
I wish to state that if I sent a letter to any unauthorised user of any of my images in that tone I would expect them to tell me to FO. They should pay a commercial rate and that's all they would offer. This is why publications sometimes publish images and only p y when challenged over it's use. The only other option is send a cease and deist
They are using scare tactics.
There is no basis for punitive damages under UK law. The only liability will be for the published rate for a given image. Not very much.
That's why Microsoft and other copyright holders do not sue for damages for unauthorised use of their software or music in the UK. The maximum they would get would be the retail value of the product. They would not get their legal costs back. US law is diffreent. (I am not a lawyer by the way)
Have we heard of UK case with any of the above. NO (unless someone knows different!!)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have been the target of Getty's legalised extortion attempts for the last nine months. Our web designed used an image which was part of a package he bought from a firm in Germany which in turn sourced it legitimately. Getty's demands started around £600 and are now up to £1600. I have today reported Pinsent Masons to Strathclyde Police for extortion on their own part plus aiding and abetting extortion by Getty, plus attempting to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception. I have also reported them to the Law Society of Scotland. I have reported Getty to the Metropolitan Police in London and the FBI in Washington DC for violations of RICO, mail fraud and wire fraud.
As you can probably gather, I really don't appreciate gangsters trying to operate a protection racket at my expense. This is the start of the Get Getty campaign!
As you can probably gather, I really don't appreciate gangsters trying to operate a protection racket at my expense. This is the start of the Get Getty campaign!
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Can you please be clear on this. Your web designer bought a package in Germany which included rights to use in the UK? Or did the rights of the package only apply to Germany? Were the rights your web designer bought specifically English language rights?
Upvote
0
regardless of the above, gatty by law are not allowed to ignore a legitimate request 9as this is the case). By choosing to completely ignore the request for reply, they have overstepped the mark, and are now in all probablility acting illegally via harrassment. it could even be argued 9as is here) that they are now attempting to obtain money with menace.
Upvote
0
Here's what our webbie got:
From: Arthur Konze
Sent: 20 May 2010 11:04
To: (Our web design firm)
Subject: AW: Arthur Konze Webdesign: User filled in Contact Us form!
Hi,
all images I used were from the website [whose url ends with .sxc.hu/ but I can't post it as this is only my second post. however i am sure you can work it out.] This is a website for royalty free images. Therefore please contact them to clearify things.
The site states:
Welcome to Stock.XCHNG,
the leading FREE stock photo site!
Getty appear to have bought this site about 4 years after our site was built. We bought a package from a guy who sourced it legitimately from this site at the time. In my business, ascribing an inflated value to a commodity is the kind of offence that puts you in jail. I aint paying anyway - they can go away in jerky movements!
From: Arthur Konze
Sent: 20 May 2010 11:04
To: (Our web design firm)
Subject: AW: Arthur Konze Webdesign: User filled in Contact Us form!
Hi,
all images I used were from the website [whose url ends with .sxc.hu/ but I can't post it as this is only my second post. however i am sure you can work it out.] This is a website for royalty free images. Therefore please contact them to clearify things.
The site states:
Welcome to Stock.XCHNG,
the leading FREE stock photo site!
Getty appear to have bought this site about 4 years after our site was built. We bought a package from a guy who sourced it legitimately from this site at the time. In my business, ascribing an inflated value to a commodity is the kind of offence that puts you in jail. I aint paying anyway - they can go away in jerky movements!
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Before Getty bought the site Stock.xchng had T&Cs which stated, AFAIR, that all uses should be cleared with the photographer in advance, that the photographer should be credited and that a credit line gave a link back to the site. If your web designer did not do these things you are likely in breach of the licence terms and have not sourced it legitimately.
Do you have a paper trail to show that you kept to the terms of the T&Cs?
Upvote
0
Hi atmosbob.
I don't intend going into specifics because there's nothing to prevent Pinsents reading this thread and I don't intend signalling too many of my punches. Suffice it to say I've got a file two inches thick documenting legitimate sourcing and also how Getty have ignored my reasonable requests for evidence that they actually own the image in question. I've asked Pinsents to take me to court, and I hope they will. I will be a litigant in person. All they can do is sue me in the small claims court where damages are limited anyway. However, I don't expect to lose. Here's hoping they sue me.
I don't intend going into specifics because there's nothing to prevent Pinsents reading this thread and I don't intend signalling too many of my punches. Suffice it to say I've got a file two inches thick documenting legitimate sourcing and also how Getty have ignored my reasonable requests for evidence that they actually own the image in question. I've asked Pinsents to take me to court, and I hope they will. I will be a litigant in person. All they can do is sue me in the small claims court where damages are limited anyway. However, I don't expect to lose. Here's hoping they sue me.
Upvote
0
Royalty Free is not FREE
It simply means that once paid for, within the terms of the licence, you can use it as much as you wish - v. royalty based, or rights managed images where you pay each time specifying the particular use.
Alasdair
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Indeed and many royalty free images are limited to non-commercial use. Still sounds like the poster has a 2 inch thick folder to hit Getty around the head with. Be interested in finding out what happens.Royalty Free is not FREE
It simply means that once paid for, within the terms of the licence, you can use it as much as you wish - v. royalty based, or rights managed images where you pay each time specifying the particular use.
Upvote
0
E
Esk247
shouldn't getty be making it more difficult for people to access the photos? watermarks could be used, not much just small and faint ones.
They do make the sxc.hu website look like a free site to download though.Sign up and they let you click on any image you want to download it, until you read the tiny print at the bottom, you wouldn't have a clue.
They do make the sxc.hu website look like a free site to download though.Sign up and they let you click on any image you want to download it, until you read the tiny print at the bottom, you wouldn't have a clue.
Upvote
0
That isn't the issue. Across various sites I have hundreds of istock (getty ) images, why should I be expected to watermark my images, that is to say images I have licenced. If some clown wants to come and take my images then that is their lookout. Getty will ask them for a valid licence, and what will they say? " go away, i didn't take it from you, I took it from a little website in abercwmbackwater wales".... Oddly enough that IS the defence many use. "found it on google"
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
As I understand it the site mentioned was http://www.sxc.hu/. This was originally set up for amateurs who know little about copyright to display their work and get some recognition. To get that recognition sxc were asking for links to each photograph. There is a big problem with many of these 'free' and 'cheap' photo sites and that is that their T&Cs are written as if they are giving away a lot when in fact there are often restrictions buried in the small print. One restriction seems to suggest that a download cannot be transferred to another which seems to suggest that this is not for web designers working on behalf of a client unless the client himself downloads the image.
Another well known cheap images site which describes their images as RF stipulate that it is only for each person handling the image. So, if you ask one designer to make a website and another to create a printed flyer you have to pay twice.
There is also another problem when the image rights are granted only while the image is actually on the site and offered under that licence.
I can remember traveling on the New York subway a few years back having a discussion with someone about image rights. He was yelling in my ear, "I love RF because its a wild west out there. There is no agreed licence like RM. I can tell the client whatever I like to get the sale."
Upvote
0
E
Esk247
well i didn't mean watermark your images, i meant why don't Getty or Sxc watermark their own images like Istock seem to do?
when you download it, then the watermark isn't there of course.
doesn't solve the problem mentioned above of relicensing for each stage of the design process. to me, it's all open to how you intepret the terms.
there needs to be clearer guidelines for those who are looking to download images for commercial or private use. It's simply too confusing and open to abuse.
Upvote
0
That is a discussion which comes up many times...
The basic issue is that people seem to believe that photos are free and do not belong to anyone - I have never understood that mentality... it is basically theft however it is wrapped up - taking something that doesn't belong to you, without payment...
as I have mentioned before, I am owner of:
- Design company (user)
- Photography company (producer)
- Stock Photo Library (intermediary / rights holder)
so see this argument from all sides - the simple fact is that a photo is a commodity as any other - it has taken effort to produce and it has a value within the market - some people may choose to give it away, but in the majority of cases it is necessary to assume that it is not free, and therefore should be paid for...
to not pay is theft.
so, while I don't know much about, nor necessarily condone or otherwise the approach by Getty - I do understand that it makes sense to pursue people who have stolen their product.
There seems to be continual outrage here and elsewhere about Getty / Pinsent / etc. - but why?
- the approach? - okay, know little about that, but assume that they are legal in what they are doing
- the concept - seems fair, if they have no record of the purchase they will by default assume that it has not been bought - if you can show evidence that it has, no issue.
I had an email the other day from Getty - an image we had purchased for a client had a fixed term licence due to expire - the email listed the purchase details, had my design company listed as purchaser and listed the end use client - they do have accurate records and in this case - I checked with the client whether they still needed the image (they didn't) and we chose not to renew...
when paid for stock imagery is available on the microstock sites from only a few pounds it makes little sense to risk copyright issues - buy images and then you have a track record showing purchase.
The main issue is that person A pays for image from Getty and gets a non-watermarked version which they use (within their paid for rights) on their website...
Person B comes and long and steals image from person A's website... of course it is now not watermarked.
Alasdair
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ther ARE clear guidelines issued by the IPO.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-other-faq/c-other-faq-type/c-other-faq-type-web.htm
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-other-faq/c-other-faq-type/c-other-faq-type-web.htm
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I agree. It would make things easier for everyone. Many photographers do try. We put in much volunteer time to help the industry work better. Pluspacks, http://www.useplus.com/useplus/pluspacks.asp, is an example.
Unfortunately, many people running Royalty Free stock distribution sites have no interest in photography or photographers but see it a a get rich quick scheme.
Upvote
0
[FONT="]I joined this forum just to answer this question. I struggled for 2 years of calls to my home and having threatening letters sent by Getty. My wife was a nervous wreck thinking that they were going to sue us for tone of money we did not have.
They did not respond to our emails so I finally sent a message to the PR group of every one of Getty's offices and asked them to pass it to their CEO. I complained about their tactics and suggested that if the company condoned this way their lawyers treated the public they should perhaps like to explain it to the public through the national press.
I received a call saying that they would stop hassling my family.
They didn't immediately but it slowly stopped.
Do the same, people. This company is a pariah[/FONT]
Prem
They did not respond to our emails so I finally sent a message to the PR group of every one of Getty's offices and asked them to pass it to their CEO. I complained about their tactics and suggested that if the company condoned this way their lawyers treated the public they should perhaps like to explain it to the public through the national press.
I received a call saying that they would stop hassling my family.
They didn't immediately but it slowly stopped.
Do the same, people. This company is a pariah[/FONT]
Prem
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: