Getty images unauthorised use letter

Discussion in 'General Business Forum' started by Emma Beck, Feb 8, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    3,927 974
    £2 a song? One of the places I look after plays music to far more people than a fitness class, and the tariff, although not cheap, works for 12 hours a day, every day for at least 5 months?

    For fitness, it's Tarrif J I think - which is £1.40 or so - per session - which is normally 50-60 mins. I think you've been vastly overpaying them - it's less than 30p a song!
     
    Posted: May 1, 2016 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  2. Nord20

    Nord20 UKBF Regular Free Member

    511 116
    I meant we end up paying about £2 (PRS and PPL) per class, regardless of whether that is a continual 60 minutes of music or just a single piece (which is what we used to do a lot, at the end of the class).

    £1.40 per class for PRS is right and that may not seem a lot, but it represents a percentage on top of the already not insignificant running costs, before you even get 1 bum on seat.

    I guess I'm just saying that instead of getting something out of me and my getting to play the music I have bought to my customers (win win), I've been priced out of all but 2 classes a week that justify the extra cost (lose lose).

    We're getting a bit off topic here though (on the 27 page thread!).
     
    Posted: May 1, 2016 By: Nord20 Member since: Mar 8, 2011
  3. paulears

    paulears UKBF Big Shot Full Member

    3,927 974
    Well, if you have a music show, with 2 x 60 mins music halves, in a venue holding 1000 people who have paid £25 a ticket, then PRS will take around 1% of your twenty five grand you took at the box office. That's just how much music costs. I appreciate it's another extra cost to add to the electricity, fees, room hires etc. If everybody who used music contributed, maybe the costs would be lower? I don't know, but I do get wound up when I see people cheating.
     
    Posted: May 1, 2016 By: paulears Member since: Jan 7, 2015
  4. Talay

    Talay UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    3,780 787
    Me too but the business model must allow for usage at reasonable cost, not an exorbitant cost and even more extravagant costs for infringement. It must also be easy to be compliant, not difficult or time consuming.
     
    Posted: May 1, 2016 By: Talay Member since: Mar 12, 2012
  5. bharris

    bharris UKBF Regular Free Member

    543 82
    Has anyone tried to apply the same methods Getty do when there your images/content have been used?
     
    Posted: May 2, 2016 By: bharris Member since: Dec 30, 2014
  6. I_DO_MARKETING

    I_DO_MARKETING UKBF Regular Free Member

    399 108
    no.

    I have sent a couple of warning letters and had Google take some pages down, but never been tempted to take it any further than that.
     
    Posted: May 2, 2016 By: I_DO_MARKETING Member since: Oct 24, 2015
  7. obscure

    obscure UKBF Ace Free Member

    2,928 688
    Yes lots of people have. It is standard procedure in cases of copyright infringement. You first write a letter notifying them of the infringement and offering to settle the matter in exchange for £X. If they decline to settle you then decide if it is worthwhile taking them to court. That has become a lot easier over the last few years with the introduction of the IPEC (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) which is a small claims court for IP related disputes. Makes it much cheaper and easier to pursue infringements.
     
    Posted: May 3, 2016 By: obscure Member since: Jan 18, 2008
  8. atmosbob

    atmosbob UKBF Ace Free Member

    3,866 869
    Posted: May 3, 2016 By: atmosbob Member since: Oct 26, 2009
  9. metaphor

    metaphor UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    13 0
    Can you really enforce it?
     
    Posted: May 3, 2016 By: metaphor Member since: May 3, 2016
  10. bharris

    bharris UKBF Regular Free Member

    543 82
    A lot of people on here complain about sellers on Amazon and eBay copying their images and passing them off as their own. Maybe this could be used to discourage this practice. Nor sure how you would reach a value of the image though.
     
    Posted: May 3, 2016 By: bharris Member since: Dec 30, 2014
  11. atmosbob

    atmosbob UKBF Ace Free Member

    3,866 869
    You could try several things. Your invoice for the original photography. The Getty price calculator. The profit the competitor made on Amazon.

    The closest case I know of is this one http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading-room/copyright-case-ipec-damages
     
    Posted: May 3, 2016 By: atmosbob Member since: Oct 26, 2009
  12. Nord20

    Nord20 UKBF Regular Free Member

    511 116
    I suppose this is all really a factor of the 'tangible' versus 'intangible' product.

    Ford makes cars. The first few hundred of a new model will cost Ford an absolute fortune (designing, testing etc, before a single car can be made). After a couple of thousand, every car they produce after that will have a similar production cost, which will be more than zero.

    Software, music, photos, are all intangible products in as much as the very first one to produce carries 100% of the costs of production. There is no additional cost to the manufacturer for producing 100 copies. or 1,000, or 1,000,000.

    People understand when they buy a physical object that there are direct and indirect costs associated with producing that product. They equally understand that there is no marginal cost to producing an extra copy of a song, or photo or software - all costs are indirect.

    And so to not only be charged for buying the product, but then pay a fee every single time the product is used, is just extremely hard for people to accept.

    I have a water fountain and a kettle that our customers can use. Tefal do not charge me every single time I boil the kettle for a customer. Maybe they should? Maybe all products should be 'licensed' rather than sold? But until that happens, people will see and feel annoyed by the repetitive cost of using music in a business environment.

    I do think the problem is confounded many time over by the move to streaming music, rather than purchasing it. People are getting used to not only paying for something over and over again, but not even actually owning it. I have to applaud the coup this represents - it's literally free money, forever, for doing some work once.
     
    Posted: Aug 16, 2018 By: Nord20 Member since: Mar 8, 2011
  13. DavidWH

    DavidWH UKBF Enthusiast Free Member

    1,438 263
    Posted: Aug 16, 2018 By: DavidWH Member since: Feb 15, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.