Getty Images / Pinsent Masons - Copyright Claim

[Deleted member 59730]

Do you REALLY think that everyone involved in this matter posts their details on a forum for the enemy to read?

Small one man businesses around the world who happen to be photographers are losing massive amounts of money to web and other copyright infringements. Collectively it was estimated to be over $200 million in 2010. And you dare to call the victims of this huge mass theft 'the enemy'?

We now have yet another copyright user who had the money to pay his web designer but somehow didn't pay for 2 of the photographs on the site. And he feels hard done by!

Jesus! When are we going to have a dose of reality around here?

 

[SickofGetty]

...We now have yet another copyright user who had the money to pay his web designer but somehow didn't pay for 2 of the photographs on the site. And he feels hard done by!

Jesus! When are we going to have a dose of reality around here?

I presume you are referring to my post then bob? Just so you know we did purchase a disc of what we were told (and I believe the invoice and contract will substantiate this) were royalty-free images and yet here we are, just like everyone else.

Well I have taken your advice bob, every photo on the website will be taken by my own fair hand from now on - no photographers required here thank you!

 

[olstar]

We had them contact us once.

We told them that they didnt warn us asking to remove it, BEFORE they said we should give them money.

On that basis it was thrown out.

Another customer of ours got stung for £5k though!

 

[olstar]

BTW the "other" customers site wasnt built by us!!

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Small one man businesses around the world who happen to be photographers are losing massive amounts of money to web and other copyright infringements. Collectively it was estimated to be over $200 million in 2010. And you dare to call the victims of this huge mass theft 'the enemy'?

We now have yet another copyright user who had the money to pay his web designer but somehow didn't pay for 2 of the photographs on the site. And he feels hard done by!

Jesus! When are we going to have a dose of reality around here?

Can we stop the theatricals please Bob it is cringingly embarassing

If you had actually read what I have and always have said here 'the enemy' refers to getty and their solicitors NOT the people they claim to represent.

So money is everything is that right?
FORGET the army of one man band small businesses
FORGET the estimated $200m allegedly lost.
And

REMEMBER that as a result of the stress caused by continual harrassment by a debt collection agent, a young businesswoman suffered a miscarriage.

How about a bit of perspective here!

Getty etc could deal with this honestly and in a FAR better manner than they are. They are using bully boy tactyics, and nothing will change until they are hauled into court.

THANK GOD the scourts have come down heavily on specualtive invoicing, with a couple of solicitors recently being hauled over the coles for at the solicitors discipliniary tribunal for this very thing.

 

[BPM-UK]

This morning after not hearing for 18 months have received a Pinsent Mason s letter. Has anyone who has received one of these letters replied to it or has gone to court from it? I will be contacting the web designer who used the images on my site and inform him too as he obtained the images (shall i name and shame?). I cannot afford the massive fee they are asking so I need to understand from others in the same situation what to do next. PM me if you want ...it would be great to have some advice.

If this has appeared somewhere in this thread I apologise.

 

[paulears]

The problem with this one is that despite their tactics, and hounding of people totally unaware they committed any action protected in law, they're on solid ground, legally. The deed was done, they have the evidence, so all people can do is attempt to mitigate their loss. Going to court, as I understand it requires you to plead guilty - as nobody is disputing the images were put on the website. At best you could argue the web designer is responsible and this would then leave you with a counter claim against them - you pay Getty, the designer pays you after another court case! I would expect the court to award damages appropriate to the case - but in these cases, am I correct in assuming that if you agree you did it, then costs are for you to cover - and these may be very expensive.

It's probably useful to do some research on PRS and PPL - two agencies who are currently ramping up their legal actions on music copyight - here again, many consumers of music have no idea they broke the law, and in a similar way to getty, feel strongly it's very unfair being penalised for breaking a law they never even knew applied to them! Here again, unless they can prove they did not use the music, they're guilty - having the same comment - they didn't know about it!

 

[OldWelshGuy]

right to a point Paul, but not as black and white as it appears on the face of it, hence the big fuss.

 

[paulears]

I'd be interested to know if the images, presumably ,jpg files actually contained the getty copyright info in the metadata - I've been experimenting with inserting data into images, posting them on the net then downloading them and seeing if it's still there, when I've cropped and tweaked them? There must be some automated way of searching for their images - manual systems would be far too time intensive, so knowing how they're doing it would be interesting.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Piscout are an Israeli company. The software they use is image recognition software developed for their intelligence community (face recognition initially)., It was developed to the point where it can recognise a tiny fraction of an image even if it has been distorted .

 

[paulears]

Just out of curiosity, I found an image on the Getty site that I could use on one of my sites, half a page - uk only (although how on earth that works on the net) for a year on a secondary page - £670! Maybe photograhy for the web is the place we should all be working!

 

[madmanbean]

I have a client who uploaded, unknowingly, a minute Getty image and who has subsequently been plagued with the Getty scam letters which they have ignored.

In all my research I have yet to read of anyone who has actually been taken to court by Getty here in the UK or even worldwide. I am sure such details would be of interest to all those reading this forum.

 

[Esk247]

Just out of curiosity, I found an image on the Getty site that I could use on one of my sites, half a page - uk only (although how on earth that works on the net) for a year on a secondary page - £670! Maybe photograhy for the web is the place we should all be working!

that's what i mean...i don't have a problem paying for images but the prices of the stock photos that are downloaded hundreds of times a year..they're just too hefty a price for what they are.

for £670 you could have a photo shoot set up yourself from a pro photographer (if they're local) and get some images that are totally unique to you. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

that's what i mean...i don't have a problem paying for images but the prices of the stock photos that are downloaded hundreds of times a year..they're just too hefty a price for what they are.

for £670 you could have a photo shoot set up yourself from a pro photographer (if they're local) and get some images that are totally unique to you. It makes no sense to me.

Not all stock images are downloaded hundreds of times. Those that are can often be bought for a very modest fee. Many companies prefer to have images which are much more unique. For £670 you can normally negotiate a semi exclusive use of an image.

 

[hazeleigh]

Hi
I have had a huge amount of experience in dealing with Getty
Ask lawyers for a copy of the license agreement ie the author of the work will have licensed the work to Getty
See what their response is?
Michael

 

[bdw]

AFAIK the imaging companies have consistently refused to offer provenance of the images in question. They have always said that they would only do so in court but as we all know they don't take anyone to court.

If someone has asked them for proof of ownership before payment and they have refused to offer such proof would a judge not be sympathetic to the person being pursued?

.

 

[hazeleigh]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html
See para 77
Good luck
Michael
Http://www.lawdit.co.uk<link removed by mod>

 

[madmanbean]

For the benefit of others reading this forum I copy below para 77

The purpose of s102 is obviously related to the purpose of CPR r19.3. Parties with related rights must be part of the action so that the outcome of the case is binding on all of them. This prevents another case starting up a second time in which the same issues are argued out. It is not simply that the court's resources should not be used up a second time, the point is about finality in litigation. The winner knows that they have indeed won and the case is the end of the matter.

This issue has already been mentioned din this forum under post 102

I cannot quite see the relevence here as this was relating to the deliberate distribution of pornographic material via peer to peer networks rather than the unknowing use of an image in a website.

It is also of interest that ACS Law have ceased tading after the owner was fined for malpractise. BBC News stated
Andrew Crossley, the controversial solicitor who made money by accusing computer users of illegal file sharing, has been fined £1,000.
The penalty has been imposed for a data breach which saw the personal details of 6,000 computer users, targeted by his firm, exposed online.
Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said that the severity of the breach warranted a heavier fine.
But he added that Mr Crossley was not in a position to pay.
"Were it not for the fact that ACS:Law has ceased trading so that Mr Crossley now has limited means, a monetary penalty of £200,000 would have been imposed, given the severity of the breach."
A spokeswoman for the ICO told the BBC that it did not have the power to audit people's accounts but said that Andrew Crossley had provided a sworn statement on the state of his finances.
The security breach occurred following a denial-of-service attack by members of the hacktivist group Anonymous, who were unhappy at the tactics being used by Mr Crossley and his law firm.
"Sensitive personal details relating to thousands of people were made available for download to a worldwide audience and will have caused them embarrassment and considerable distress," said Mr Graham.
As well as exposed peoples' names and addresses, a list of pornographic films they were accused of illegally downloading was also made available.

Your post seem to do little for this forum save for an understandable plug for your services!

 

[hazeleigh]

responding to the last post and the comments

"Your post seem to do little for this forum save for an understandable plug for your services!"

Forgive me but I was running around all morning did not have the time. I forget that some people may not have the time to read and digest the reference so apols.

The point of this case and the Judge's comments is that Getty must produce a licence to show they are a licensee. If they don't then it would be incredulous for the lawyers to issue claim and you would not be penalised. They must produce the licence if they issue a claim so they will produce prior to issue a claim. If they cannot do it before then don't pay anything if they can produce it then negotiate a reasonable payment.

Good luck
M
<link removed by mod>

 

[madmanbean]

Dear Michael

Thankyou for your clarification of that point. I, fortunately, am not in the position of being chased by Getty but I do have two clients who are, having uploaded images to thier respective websites. It would seem that your organisation may well be a good first legal call for those who need help and advice.

We are all aware that what they are doing is not good but sound advice such as yours is invaluable.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The point of this case and the Judge's comments is that Getty must produce a licence to show they are a licensee. If they don't then it would be incredulous for the lawyers to issue claim and you would not be penalised. They must produce the licence if they issue a claim so they will produce prior to issue a claim.

The Getty/Photographer contract is available to read on the web. Getty do not need to produce a licence from the photographer because the contract gives them the right to pursue infringers on the photographers behalf. Any one who thinks this is a 'get off scot free ploy' is sadly mistaken. Anecdotal evidence from many photographers with Getty and Corbis contracts have said that they are additionally asked to sign affidavits before legal action confirming the exclusive nature of the contract relating to the specific images in question.

If you want to know how much it could cost to believe what you read on the web about ignoring Getty read the link which has been mentioned before.

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty

 

[hazeleigh]

The point I am making is that a generic licence unexecuted will not suffice
Getty is not the owner of the work. It must produce the signed licence with the photographer at court and therefore it must do so accordance with pre action protocol. I see no problem with an exclusive licensee doing this and you can move on to damages and how much. Each case must treated independently and therefore a seperate licence agreement ought to be produced
If you have downloaded the work then expect to have to pay damages but only until such time as Getty disclose the licence
Michael Coyle

 

[madmanbean]

The Getty contract may well be there to read but unfortunately most people have purchased these images from elsewhere and had no idea that Getty had a claim on them! I do not think that anyone would knowingly steal an image if they thought that a copyright existed on it!

Getty actually encourages the distribution of it's images so that they can catch people out! Even the owners of the photos do not know of their actions and I would'nt mind betting that, if a claim is paid, those photographers to not even get a penny!

 

[madmanbean]

Just read again the last few posts on this forum and it seems that most posts are now revolving around subtle plugs for their own businesses or websites rather than the subject under discussion!

I make special reference to the post linking to copyright action which is total scaremongering by not a poster but someone called admin in this forum owned suprisingly enough by Editorial Photographers Uk Ltd

What is very sad if the fact that seem to support Getty's actions whilst not realising that those photographers whose work is at the root of these lettres do not get a penny from Getty in the highly unlikely event of a case being proved in court.

The post does not mention any tracable refernce and simply uses excuses to justify the inability to pos real facts. If thies really happened then let's see the details of the court case!

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I make special reference to the post linking to copyright action which is total scaremongering by not a poster but someone called admin in this forum owned suprisingly enough by Editorial Photographers Uk Ltd

What is very sad if the fact that seem to support Getty's actions whilst not realising that those photographers whose work is at the root of these lettres do not get a penny from Getty in the highly unlikely event of a case being proved in court.

The post does not mention any tracable refernce and simply uses excuses to justify the inability to pos real facts. If thies really happened then let's see the details of the court case!

Dear Madman Bean

I know the author of the article and I can assure you that it is entirely genuine. He was approached by the Mr X in the case. The author has no connection with Getty and if you look through the website you will find other articles he has written which are critical of Getty.

Your assertion that photographers do not get a penny from Getty's actions is untrue. I know that photographers are paid their contractual share of any settlement.

I received this email from a photographer friend in California........

"I too have had infringements show up in Getty sales reports. One was for over $5K, about three times the price calculator rate for
the given usage.

Commission is always at the agreed rate for the license model as per the
contract.

ds"

Here is a reference for you http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367

Whatever your beliefs your best bet is to go to a specialist copyright lawyer for advice.

 

[bdw]

Getty do not need to produce a licence from the photographer because the contract gives them the right to pursue infringers on the photographers behalf.

Yes, but that's Getty's contract with their photographers. I doubt that it would be recognised by a UK court in these circumstances.

Look, it is totally reasonable and logical for anyone who is being pursued by Getty to ask for proof of ownership before making any payment. I also believe that any UK judge would agree that it is reasonable for anyone to request this proof before making any settlement and that Getty are wrong to refuse to provide this proof.

.

 

[bdw]

If you want to know how much it could cost to believe what you read on the web about ignoring Getty read the link which has been mentioned before. http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the...-sued-by-getty

My point above is also why you must persist in dragging up this single unverified and largely irrelevant instance. It is still the only one that you have so you continue to quote it as though it was somehow important. It is not and you are once more just scaremongering.

To anyone who is reading this for the first time, the case referenced yet again by Atmosbob above, was not a straightforward one like those we are discussing in here.

It was an isolated case, the only one recorded in the UK where Getty got close to taking anyone to court. It happened two years ago and it was settled out of court. We must also bear in mind that the reference to it is on a photographers copyright forum. As one would expect, much of it is opinion, speculation (like this discussion), based on hearsay and very biased towards the photographers interests.

After what (four or five years of this?) Getty have not had the b@lls to take a single person in front of a UK judge. That is they have not followed up on the hollow threats they have made to any of the thousands of people involved. Many observers who are looking at this objectively agree that they are scared to do so because they know that their process is ethically and some say legally wrong. Many people believe that it would be tossed out of court by a UK judge.

.

 

[kulture]

This thread is trying to go for the record as the longest thread. It seems that much of the arguments have been covered repeatedly.

The basic points are that for any image used on your web site, make sure you know where it came from and that you have the right to use it. Ignorance is no excuse. If you use an image that does not belong to you you run the risk of the likes of Getty harassing you for money.

Prevention is better than anything else posted here. Just make sure you do not infringe copyright and IP and you will not have to worry about the Getty Gestapo.

 

[bdw]

Prevention is better than anything else posted here.

The thread is about Getty's speculative invoicing system, so I don't think prevention comes into it. You cannot lock the gate after the horse has bolted but there is no need to warn anyone in here about copyright law. They are all only too well aware of it.

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Recent cases including the ACS law ones where the judge went nuts at the claimant for not following basic tenets of law, such as having the right to make the claim for instance. and later ensuring that the right by BOTH parties to rest assured that this would be a full and final settlement at the time of judgement.

Read that little gem at the end there because it really is a little gem.

let's look at this for a moment.
1. people have used the image without knowing or recalling the provenance of the imge
2. getty/corbis make a claim

Now if the person can't recal where they got it, and getty refuse to prove they have the sole right, then how in the name of FAIR PLAY (justice) can they agree to a settlement?

there have been many cases that have not proceeded, has anyone thought that maybe this is because the photographer didn't provide an afidavit to the affect of the image only ever having been used by getty? possibly because THEY THEMSELVES, don't have accurate records.

Asking for proof and confirmation that all the material facts are in place is IMO paramount to making a claim.

can anyone who has paid confirm whether or not Getty issue an indemnity against further legal action with regard the use of this image with regard the period it was used. i.e. to the point of settlement. If Getty refuse to do this, then why settle

 

[kulture]

The thread is about Getty's speculative invoicing system, so I don't think prevention comes into it. You cannot lock the gate after the horse has bolted but there is no need to warn anyone in here about copyright law. They are all only too well aware of it.

.

Yes, all true. BUT if you did not use a questionable image in the first place, then you would never fall foul of the speculative invoicing.

Now I agree that if you do get one of these fishing invoices you should indeed question it and request that they prove their case. As OldWelshGuy has so succinctly put it, it is not reasonable to pay Getty just because they claim IP, they need to demonstrate that they actually have the IP.

All I am saying is if you are careful about your web site and ensure you have proper permission to use every image on it, then you will never get an invoice from Getty that you would then worry about and ignore.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

All it takes is a spreadsheet that is uploaded to the hosting that has the provenance of all the elements used. copywriter, designer, images etc. Walk in the park then if the IP plod come knocking. When a site is signed off, burn everything to cd and also hard drive back up, and you are sorted. Why try to remember?

 

[kulture]

All it takes is a spreadsheet that is uploaded to the hosting that has the provenance of all the elements used. copywriter, designer, images etc. Walk in the park then if the IP plod come knocking. When a site is signed off, burn everything to cd and also hard drive back up, and you are sorted. Why try to remember?

Great idea. Simple and effective. Whilst it is a worthwhile exercise to prove the provenance of your site, it is annoying that you need to do so to avoid the IP police.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Great idea. Simple and effective. Whilst it is a worthwhile exercise to prove the provenance of your site, it is annoying that you need to do so to avoid the IP police.

I do not understand the sniping that goes on over copyright owners trying to get paid when businesses use images without paying for them. You have to keep paperwork for many other parts of a business why not paperwork for purchases? For inland revenue and VAT purposes you have to keep all papers for 6 years which is, in effect 7. Your purchase invoices should be neatly filed away and can be produced when needed.

Employee insurance certificates must be kept for 30 years but we never hear that complained about.

 

[kulture]

I have no problem keeping receipts for my purchases. I have no problem paying photographers and designers for their images. The only problem I have is with organisations like PRS/PPL and now Getty who are over aggressive in chasing for outrageous "fines" without proving their right to said fees in the first place.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I do not understand the sniping that goes on over copyright owners trying to get paid when businesses use images without paying for them.

WRONG! in many cases the business owners you accuse HAVE paid for them in good faith.

You have to keep paperwork for many other parts of a business why not paperwork for purchases?.

Again, many of these images have been obtained from free image sites, so how are they supposed to produce an invoice?

For inland revenue and VAT purposes you have to keep all papers for 6 years which is, in effect 7. Your purchase invoices should be neatly filed away and can be produced when needed.

Employee insurance certificates must be kept for 30 years but we never hear that complained about.

people HAVE produced invoices, but the specualtive invoicers have simply ignored them all.

Bob, let me ask you this.

If someone buys a stolen car in good faith, they are exempt from punishment (other than losing what they paid for the vehicle)

if someone buys stolen flowers in good faith they are exmpt from punishment other than losing what they had paid for the flowers.

If someone bought a stolen painting in good faith, they are exempt from punishment other than losing what they have paid for the painting. they are NOT then charged an IP fee for 'looking' at the painting while the stolen goods were in their posession.

if someone buys a stolen image in good faith, they are immediately pounced on by the IP speculative invoicing brigade who demand they get compensated by somone who in ANY OTHER SITUATION would be immune from prosecution.

Now tell me that this makes sense and is right because even Stevie Wonder and ray Charles could see that this is TOTALLY WRONG.

HOW can someone who has paid a fair price end up being sued? The sooner this is sorted out the better because it flies in the face of justice and everything justice stands for.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

if someone buys a stolen image in good faith, they are immediately pounced on by the IP speculative invoicing brigade who demand they get compensated by somone who in ANY OTHER SITUATION would be immune from prosecution.

HOW can someone who has paid a fair price end up being sued? The sooner this is sorted out the better because it flies in the face of justice and everything justice stands for.

What flies in the face of justice is your scenario.

A wet sunday morning had me spend a couple of hours using the new Google image search feature. Of just one image of mine I found 7 pages of infringements. Of other images I found my images used from vehicle wraps to multi-national software websites. I will take a bet with you that none of the commercial uses I am going after fit into your fanciful idea of innocent 'in good faith' use.

In fact I'm pretty certain that the idea of 'in good faith' scenario you suggest applies to only a tiny fraction of cases.

 

[pete_m]

In fact I'm pretty certain that the idea of 'in good faith' scenario you suggest applies to only a tiny fraction of cases.

On what basis?

I've produced websites for clients, and have been responsible for providing images. All were legit, as far as I know - they were solely bought from reputable image libraries. But how did my clients know this? I know there are enough web designers out there who are ignorant of the law, or who simply don't care.


I've also been on the receiving end of one of the Getty Images letters. In our case, we had a blog that featured websites within a particular niche. One website owner asked us to add their company logo to the page, which we did.

Unfortunately the logo included part of an image that Getty claimed as their own, and decided to send us one of their infamous letters - claiming £500 in this case. In the end we decided to settle for half the amount, as, to be honest, I needed the £250 less than I needed the stress.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

What flies in the face of justice is your scenario.

A wet sunday morning had me spend a couple of hours using the new Google image search feature. Of just one image of mine I found 7 pages of infringements. Of other images I found my images used from vehicle wraps to multi-national software websites. I will take a bet with you that none of the commercial uses I am going after fit into your fanciful idea of innocent 'in good faith' use.

In fact I'm pretty certain that the idea of 'in good faith' scenario you suggest applies to only a tiny fraction of cases.

Why do you say that my scenario flies in the face of justice? Bob you are really good at using quasi insulting behaviour, just trashing the opinion of others and without justification I have to say.

Yet you are happy that they be punished in the same way?


You have trashed my statement and your is full of waffle.

I have used valid scenarios in law of handling stolen goods.

There have been people within this thread who have valid invoices from designers they trusted.

Explain to me how you feel it is justified to treat even a 'tiny fraction' of innocent people in the same way as those who have shown total disregard?

How do we know that it is not the photographers themselves feeding their images to free image sites in order to get a return immorally? We don't, which is why it needs to come into line with other laws.

 

[bdw]

I do not understand the sniping that goes on over copyright owners trying to get paid when businesses use images without paying for them.

No, we are well aware that you don't understand. You have made that perfectly clear often enough.

You keep rattling on about the rights of photographers don't you? Well I can tell you that my written works and reports are copied on a daily basis by infringers. I have had to spend good money on Copyscape for years trying to keep on top of this and still it happens.

I don't however run around crying to mummy when it happens and so far I have not taken anyone to court. The worst I have done is have someone's website shut down for infringing my material. Wake up and smell the coffee. It's 2011! This stuff happens and will continue to happen. You better get used to it.

.