Getty images unauthorised use letter

[Deleted member 59730]

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000640892&fid=1725

Just adding some info.

I wonder If I'll still get a Christmas card from Picscout?

 

[bdw]

As an infringer you have very few rights to ask for 'evidence'. It is you who is being asked for 'evidence' of a legitimate licence. If you cannot produce a licence you are in the wrong. Period. Asking for further information is not going to help you.

I think you mean "as someone who is being accused of infringement" as opposed to "an infringer" because at that stage nothing has been proven.

Many images are on offer from two or more agencies and many of those who are being accused ask Getty for proof that they hold the rights but they point blank refuse to provide this. Since the identities of the legal rights holders of many images are unclear do you think that it is right to just pay up in these circumstances? Are people not entitled to ask to see proof that the claim is legitimate?

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I think you mean "as someone who is being accused of infringement" as opposed to "an infringer" because at that stage nothing has been proven.

Many images are on offer from two or more agencies and many of those who are being accused ask Getty for proof that they hold the rights but they point blank refuse to provide this. Since the identities of the legal rights holders of many images are unclear do you think that it is right to just pay up in these circumstances? Are people not entitled to ask to see proof that the claim is legitimate?

.

What has not been proven? You use an image. You do not have a licence or permission to use that image. You are an infringer. How can you not be?

 

[bdw]

You are an infringer. How can you not be?

• When the website is purchased from a third party
• When the web designer supplies the images
• When the image is available elsewhere in the public domain
• When the imaging company is mistaken (as they have been before)

Are you suggesting that asking for provenance is unreasonable?

.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

• When the website is purchased from a third party
• When the web designer supplies the images
• When the image is available elsewhere in the public domain
• When the imaging company is mistaken (as they have been before)

Are you suggesting that asking for provenance is unreasonable?

.

If you are not getting proper legal advice so that you understand the proof of ownership I would say that any request is unreasonable and just demonstrating a cantankerous approach.

You well know that if the web designer supplies the images and does not have a licence to do so you are still infringing.

 

[bdw]

If you are not getting proper legal advice so that you understand the proof of ownership I would say that any request is unreasonable and just demonstrating a cantankerous approach.

You are saying that if someone appears out of the ether and tells you that you owe them money for something you are not entitled to ask them to prove it? You really must try to resist promoting such nonsense to make your point. All it does is to further demonstrate the futility of discussing this with you.

You well know that if the web designer supplies the images and does not have a licence to do so you are still infringing.

Yes, of course I do but there are millions of people out there who don't.

After all this time we are all well aware of your entrenched and inflexible attitude to this. We have tried many times in the past to get you to discuss this reasonably and failed miserably to do so. I fully appreciate that we have little hope of doing so now.

Have a nice day.

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

What has not been proven? You use an image. You do not have a licence or permission to use that image. You are an infringer. How can you not be?

Care to reply to my Post then? Because you managed to complety miss it, or completely ignore it, whoknows?

I'm sorry you think it is a grey area because the Copyright Act is really very simple. If you are the one who 'uses' an image without a licence then you are liable. When you pay the copyright owner you then have every right to chase your website designer who got you into the mess to compensate you.

As an infringer you have very few rights to ask for 'evidence'. It is you who is being asked for 'evidence' of a legitimate licence. If you cannot produce a licence you are in the wrong. Period. Asking for further information is not going to help you.

You can negotiate but to do that you need to know about image licencing to know what you are talking about and asking for.

Not as black and white as you suggest though.

e.g. What if I am renting a website? The designer built it, he owns it, he rents it to me. I am unable to add or delete content, the designer is 100% responsible for the content, and the ownership, my telephone numbers and contact details appear on the site.

Now is that Black, or White?

Cheers

OWG

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Care to reply to my Post then? Because you managed to complety miss it, or completely ignore it, whoknows?

Cheers

OWG

I didn't understand it

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Myself, plus the 250 signatories in a petition presented to an MP who has picked up the gauntlet on this.

I am really impressed. How did you find 250 people who had all said they were not going to settle with Getty and then got hassled at home by debt collectors?

When I asked 'victims' to come forward on the FSB forum only one came forward and he had not been hassled. He had asked a UK based web designer to create his website and then paid into an Indian bank to avoid VAT and I assume the designers income tax.

 

[bdw]

When I asked 'victims' to come forward on the FSB forum only one came forward and he had not been hassled.

Why would anyone who is being pursued by an imaging company react to what you told him?

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I didn't understand it

OK I will try to make is as simple as possible:-

you stated

If you are the one who 'uses' an image without a licence then you are liable

I then asked for a simple clarification of who is liable for the 'use' in the following scenario:-
What if I am renting a website? The designer built it, he owns it, he rents it to me. I am unable to add or delete content, the designer is 100% responsible for the content, and the ownership, my telephone numbers and contact details appear on the site.

So what we have is a company, who own a website, but allow leads to come to me. So I have simply asked you in black and white (your words) who is 'using' the image without a licence and is liable?

As for the list of names, care to point out where I stated what you claim. Up to your old tricks again Bobn of making things up and claiming the other person has said them. Unless you stick to what has been said, this thread will get trashed.

So have I explained the scenario clearly enough for you. It should take you a split second to answer because it is 'black and white' (your words)

 

[kulture]

What a long topic. I am guessing that the OP has long gone, and the other interested parties are likewise long gone. In all the heat of the arguments, I seem to see that many posters are in the main in general agreement, but seem to be arguing in any case over details that are not necessarily relevant to the general website owner. Perhaps if I tried to summarise the thread, people can then criticise or agree or expand.

The first thing any web site owner should do is establish that they own or own the right to every image on their site. i.e. pre-empt any problem. Take down any image which you cannot document ownership.

If you receive a letter claiming you have infringed on an image, then try to establish if you have infringed. If you are not the owner/publisher of the web site, then you should let the claimant know this ASAP (after all if you have done no wrong then it should not hurt to make sure you tell them in writing). If you are the owner/publisher then look at the image(s) in question. If you can prove ownership/purchase of a licence then again you should tell the claimant, and definitely dispute their claim.

If you cannot prove ownership, nor purchase of any licence then take the image down and consider your next actions.

Some here say do nothing in the hope it goes away. Others suggest try to negotiate a reasonable settlement to avoid a possible nightmare scenario. The third option is just pay up.

There is some speculation that the law process will change in the future and the nightmare scenario regarding costs will be vastly reduced. There is a suggestion that it may be worth waiting in this hope.

What no-one knows for certain is whether it will ever come to court, or whether the claimant will win. It is also not known how many have settled and how many are sitting doing nothing, and how many are disputing. It is known that Getty and their solicitors have appointed debt collectors who have harassed people. It is less than clear if these debt collectors have been acting legally, but to be honest I bet the victims of the harassment would rather they go away irrespective of the legality.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I have just read that but am not going to agree or disagree as it will smply start another round of he said she said. there are about half a dozen points that I disagree with within your post, but sadly as I say, if I point them out, we will have the photographers here again burying the information in debate. So I will leave my disagreements unvoiced.

Still waiting for Bob to comment on my post above with regard the legal definition of the 'user'

 

[Deleted member 59730]

So what we have is a company, who own a website, but allow leads to come to me. So I have simply asked you in black and white (your words) who is 'using' the image without a licence and is liable?

As for the list of names, care to point out where I stated what you claim. Up to your old tricks again Bobn of making things up and claiming the other person has said them. Unless you stick to what has been said, this thread will get trashed.

So have I explained the scenario clearly enough for you. It should take you a split second to answer because it is 'black and white' (your words)

Assuming the scenario is as you say it is I can't see a problem. Renting or buying or paying by any other means if you are the person who is using the site for your benefit you are liable.

(An analogy would be owning a car or hiring it. When you hire a car you rarely have a choice of the make or colour. If you cause an accident it makes no difference if you own the car or hire it.)

You said that your MP is dealing with this. I have to assume, as this is a thread about Getty and copyright, that the 250 signatures were to do with Getty. Sorry if I got it wrong.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I (and others) completely disagree with your analogy

So you believe the person who is renting it at that time is liable, then he ends the contract. The site owner is also benefiting from the use of the image because he is getting paid to use the site, indeed he is also the person responsible for placing the image and using the image in the first place.

So what then happens when the site renter ends his contract. under your assumption, the new person is also at risk or needing a licence to use the image.

While the site owner (the only constant 'users'/beneficiary, and the person responsible for instigating the breach) walks away without liability ?

The above is an actual case. Getty have been told the position, they have not made any acknowledgement, and the firm belief is that it is for the courts to decide who is liable, but the most likely is the designer, because he is the only constant in the scenario.

It is akin (with your example) for charging someone with vehicle theft, when they have innocently and legitimately hired and paid for the vehicle. Then the police charging every single person who hires that vehicle with theft, while allowing the hire company to remain uncharged.

I am genuinely putting out a case that is not 'black and white' as you believe, and there are many such cases.

The case of a forum owner who had a member use an unmarked getty image as an avatar. Again Getty have not dealt with this case. It flies in the face of all logic, as the forum owner did not upload the image, a member used it , yet getty are going after the forum owner because it is 'her site'.

WRT the MP, I didn't say it was my MP (although I do know Peter) I would not name the individual MP(s) involved, and the names came from various social networks and were a mix of online and offline, driven by those who were involved and knew of others, or maybe in the same lodge/larger group chambers of commerce etc. The presentation also included support by various groups such as chambers.

All I want in this is fair play, and for a company to behave the way some of these companies representatives have, is unnacceptable, it is rogue trading at its worse.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

if you are the person who is using the site for your benefit you are liable.

Meant to highlight this, because this is EXACTLY the greyness I spoke of.

Site owner is using the site for his/her nbenefit and he/she is the person who placed the offending image(s) in situ.

Site renter has no prior knowledge of alleged breach, has no way of putting right the breach, and is only a temporary licencee, who had no reason to believe the item he/she rented was not fit for purpose.

Surely you must see this as a gray area?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Sorry, I obviously am still misunderstanding the scenario. I know that there are some web design companies who, instead of charging a huge fee upfront, charge by the month, or year, to provide a website for a client. It is no different to owning a site outright. I thought this was what you meant.

 

[UKSBD]

Sorry, I obviously am still misunderstanding the scenario. I know that there are some web design companies who, instead of charging a huge fee upfront, charge by the month, or year, to provide a website for a client. It is no different to owning a site outright. I thought this was what you meant.

What would happen if someone registered a domain name, put your contact details on the pages, then uploaded a load of getty images and made it look as though you were selling them?

Would Getty come after you, the person the domain is registered to, or both?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Sorry, I obviously am still misunderstanding the scenario. I know that there are some web design companies who, instead of charging a huge fee upfront, charge by the month, or year, to provide a website for a client. It is no different to owning a site outright. I thought this was what you meant.

There is a lead generation industry out there where operators build websites, rank websites, and then the leads (enquiries) are sent to whoever is paying them that month.

Getty have gone after the person who is renting the site. Understand the this person didn't commission the site, doesn't own the site, they just effectively buy the leads from the site.

I know of 3 such cases. I know of 1 case where the person knows absolutely nothing about the site, it was a site built on spec by a design company for a specualtive bid on work, it is on a subdomain that is robots blocked, (private area), yet getty are going after the business who's name is on the site (event hough they have nothing to do with the site, it was just built by a design company (now gone bust) on a speculative basis?

These are the 'grey areas' I speak of. it isn't as black and white as many believe.

As I said earlier , YES it IS black and white that an infringement has taken place (only a fool would argue otherwise ) as long as the paperwork is in order, then IP breach has taken place, BUT what is gray is WHO is responsible for carrying the can for that breach.

Hopefully that has mede things more clear, because in the way you state it, I can build a site for you, put your details on it, you know nothing about it, but getty can hold YOU responsible because you are benefiting from it?

 

[Bill Ryan]

UKSBD - If you were able to properly demonstrate that it was not in fact your site at all but a scam or trick on you, then you would not be liable as you would not have been the copyright infringer in the first place.

OWG - what I don't get is what type of website can you have to promote your business yet have no responsibility for its contents? In a legal sense if it is your website promoting your business then you are responsible for it and its contents. The fact that you have entered into a particular arrangement for its development, upkeep, hosting is not really the point. Of course there may still be a course of action against the website provider as well but that is not the issue being raised.

As an analogy if you do not have your company details, address, VAT number etc and as a result are breaching ecommerce regs I don't think for a moment the argument that you are not liable because the website provider didn't put the details up will carry any weight.

EDIT-CROSS POST
If you are paying money for the site you are responsible for it or in fact taking repsonsibility for it. If you don't enter into an agreement presumably there would be no site at all otherwise it would be in the same category as UKBSD's point.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

HI Bill,

I have explained above that these are purrely lead generating websites. people pay for the leads, not the sites.

It is a fast growing industry a site is optimised to rank for a phrase, you don't own the site, you have no say in what goes on the site, they are pure ranking machines.

The gray area is who is responsible for the content if the only content contractually the person can alter is contact details?

Surely you can't then ignore contract law and go after an innocent party?

By that token, if you have a directory listing with Yell, and they breached copyright by using a tiny graphic that appeared on your page, YOU would be responsible for the actions of Yell?

I understand what you are saying, but as you know the law must be equal to all, can't have 1 rule for dai the website renter, and another for coporate business....
Oh, hang on we do LOL

Seriously though that is a perfect analogy In yell if YOU uploaded the image then YOU are responsible. if THEY use an image on your page then YOU pay? can't be right can it?

Also the problem you have Bill is that These imaging house do not listen. Honestly. they jus do not listen.

People have written to them via solicitors telling them that the site in question is not theirs, they have no connection with it etc. and the letters go unanswered, ignored, ad the debt collector calls keep coming.

 

[Bill Ryan]

The real question here is whose site is it? Is the person getting the leads but not putting up the site the publisher or not? I am struggling with this as it could be either party really, which would depend on all the circumstances of which are not available in this discussion.

On the face of it having your contact details does suggest that it is your site and that you are responsible. And if I understand this properly the contact by a prospect is made with the individual and not the website provider.

However if there is information on the site that contradicts that assumption I assume Getty would go for that provider instead.

What should be in place is an indemnity against copyright infringement given by the website provider to the person buying the leads generated by their custom website and the same really ought to be in place with Yell.

I think that most publishers, e.g. a web forum like UKBF, have an indemnity clause re publishing copyright materials provided by others. This does not get them off the hook but allows them to chase the person responsible for the money they lose in a copyright infringement action.

I suppose if you go into this sort of arrangement without understanding what you might be liable for then caveat emptor and all that.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I agree bill, and this is why I have said on many occasions that it is not as black and white as some make out (some cases are, they went to google imagess grabbed an image and used it, and being dumb is no defence in a court of law )

There are various cases like this, and the problem is that (as you quite rightly point out), the answer would be to co-name the party you believe to be guilty in any action, BUT...... getty etc will not take actiuon, they ignore letters that say 'take me to court or leave me alone' they continue to harrass people to make payment (which as we all know harrassment is a crime under the protection from harrassment 1997 law)

Also as you must be aware, to threaten an action in order to recover a debt, then fail to carry out that action, could again be deemed illegal practice under the consumer credit licence laws as they are making threats in order to frighten or cause worry to that party.

if you write to me and say 'unless you pay we will go to court', & I reply 'please take me to court, do not make further contact with me with this regard save through the courts to set in place legal action', & then you ignore that and continue to call to collect, you have again broken the law.


We have 2 cases here
1. has IP been breached & if so by who?
2. Is due process being followed.

The answer to 1. is 99% or more yes is it point 2 that has got me involved and has caused all this problem.

Had getty sent letters, then gone to court, NONE of this would be happening, NONE of it.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

HI Bill,

I have explained above that these are purrely lead generating websites. people pay for the leads, not the sites.

It is a fast growing industry a site is optimised to rank for a phrase, you don't own the site, you have no say in what goes on the site, they are pure ranking machines.

The gray area is who is responsible for the content if the only content contractually the person can alter is contact details?

Surely you can't then ignore contract law and go after an innocent party?

By that token, if you have a directory listing with Yell, and they breached copyright by using a tiny graphic that appeared on your page, YOU would be responsible for the actions of Yell?

Your 'grey' scenario is becoming a bit clearer. You go to a site which has infringing images on it and have exclusive use of that site for a month or two? Would this be any different than using any other piece of pirated IP for your advantage?

The answer is simple. Pay Getty and then go after Yell.

My small business buys in a lot of outside services. The first question I ask is, 'Are you legit?' Any lack of proof and that electrician, plumber, designer, supplier etc does not get the work. I may be able to get suppliers cheaper but it will be me that is liable for any breach of safety or tax rules. I don't see why the same should not apply to copyright.

 

[SimonWG]

I am involved in several business and we have been subject to this particular problem Having to use external contractors ended up in us using small images that "infringed" copyright. In theory all you have to do is remove it and this constitutes the cease and desist.

We also found the image used in several other sites (unlicensed we think).

In almost any other walk of life, this innocent mistake is accepted, however Getty (in my opinion of course) use their size and this legal machine to issue threatening letters. If you want to play their game and they keep threatening you then they need to also prove their license holds water and the owner has not sold or used the image elsewhere. They would need to do this in a court of law as disclosure.

So.

Letter 1. Send a letter saying you removed it as requested, it was an innocent mistake, but you are unclear as to the image's origin, which you clearly were.

2. You will receive more threatening letters. Send them a letter asking for a copy of the original image, a copy of the license agreement and a sworn affidavit from the owner that they took the photo/were the originator of the image and that it has never been used or licensed other than through their site. Then you can review your own situation with legal council.

Bear in mind that this is a small issue from a legal perspective but to you it appears quite threatening. Hence the desired effect, which I know has made some people pay money without question as they have been so scared.

I would suggest asking for the provenance of the supposedly infringing image before anything else.

Hi - my colleague has a small business and used an image found on Google images as an illustration on her website. She has just received a letter from Getty images demanding almost £600 for use of the image. Clicking on the image on Google images there is no mention of Getty; it simply takes you to a school website. She removed the image immediately and has tried to email and call the Getty License compliance number with no joy. It was an entirely innocent mistake - albeit a stupid one - and is unwilling to pay.
Has anyone experienced this lately?

 

[bdw]

I note that the OP did not come back to comment. It is so annoying when people do that.

 

[pjof451]

there is a principle in UK law of "fairness and reasonableness". Despite what OWG says the courts won't allow themselves to be used to extort money. That you are in breach, "innocent" or otherwise is not the point, which is to agree a fair and reasonable settlement with Getty. Do two things:

1. find the image in question, look at the resolution and what the usual licence terms are.
2. ask Getty when they became aware of the license breach and offer them twice the license fee that would have been due.

Remember this, very often images copied from Getty are comps or preview images, i.e. low resolution, most can be "bought" for £35. According to section 98 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;

"Undertaking to take licence of right in infringement proceedings.
(1)If in proceedings for infringement of copyright in respect of which a licence is available as of right under section 144 (powers exercisable in consequence of report of [F1Competition Commission]) the defendant undertakes to take a licence on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, settled by the Copyright Tribunal under that section—
(a)no injunction shall be granted against him,
(b)no order for delivery up shall be made under section 99, and
(c)the amount recoverable against him by way of damages or on an account of profits shall not exceed double the amount which would have been payable by him as licensee if such a licence on those terms had been granted before the earliest infringement.

The true cost of going to court are the lawyers. If you are to demonstrate that you have acted in good faith and that you have sort a fair and reasonable settlement based on section 98 then, if it comes to it, the court will be sympathetic.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

According to section 98 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;

"Undertaking to take licence of right in infringement proceedings.
(1)If in proceedings for infringement of copyright in respect of which a licence is available as of right under section 144 (powers exercisable in consequence of report of [F1Competition Commission]) the defendant undertakes to take a licence on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, settled by the Copyright Tribunal under that section—
(a)no injunction shall be granted against him,
(b)no order for delivery up shall be made under section 99, and
(c)the amount recoverable against him by way of damages or on an account of profits shall not exceed double the amount which would have been payable by him as licensee if such a licence on those terms had been granted before the earliest infringement.

The piece you quote has no relevance to Getty infringments. You don't have a 'Licence of Right' for Getty images, quite the opposite.

 

[The Resolver]

The piece you quote has no relevance to Getty infringments. You don't have a 'Licence of Right' for Getty images, quite the opposite.

Correct. To clarify, s98 relates to the monopoly laws when action is taken by the Competition Commission over an anti-competitive practice that includes an abuse of market influence over copyrighted material and part of the solution by the regulator is to widen the terms of a licence given to others (a licence of right). This mainly will refer in practice to software (think Microsoft) and unlikely ever to apply to images.

Copyright owners can claim damages under normal legal principles, ie what would they have received had the breach not taken place. In the image cases they will claim that had the alleged abuser done the correct thing and bought a licence then they woud have received the licence fee they charge for the resolution and image used for the period of use they can prove (51% plus of likeliness using the evidence they have -which can include the date stamped output of the Wayback machine).

 

[OldWelshGuy]

there is a principle in UK law of "fairness and reasonableness". Despite what OWG says the courts won't allow themselves to be used to extort money. That you are in breach, "innocent" or otherwise is not the point, which is to agree a fair and reasonable settlement with Getty. Do two things:

1. find the image in question, look at the resolution and what the usual licence terms are.
2. ask Getty when they became aware of the license breach and offer them twice the license fee that would have been due.

Remember this, very often images copied from Getty are comps or preview images, i.e. low resolution, most can be "bought" for £35. According to section 98 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;

"Undertaking to take licence of right in infringement proceedings.
(1)If in proceedings for infringement of copyright in respect of which a licence is available as of right under section 144 (powers exercisable in consequence of report of [F1Competition Commission]) the defendant undertakes to take a licence on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, settled by the Copyright Tribunal under that section—
(a)no injunction shall be granted against him,
(b)no order for delivery up shall be made under section 99, and
(c)the amount recoverable against him by way of damages or on an account of profits shall not exceed double the amount which would have been payable by him as licensee if such a licence on those terms had been granted before the earliest infringement.

The true cost of going to court are the lawyers. If you are to demonstrate that you have acted in good faith and that you have sort a fair and reasonable settlement based on section 98 then, if it comes to it, the court will be sympathetic.

Not sure what you are saying here, seems to me that you haven't bothered to actually read what I have said at all. My reason for saying this? Because I have continually stated that the courts don't like to be abused, I have stated this time and time again. Why do you think I have suggested replying to letters?

And what you stated has already been stated many times, and while innocent infringement will certainly help with regard malicious damages reduction, it isn't a 100% defence, (much as many would like it to be)

Not looking for a fight, but if you are going to state something I am alleged to have said, you really should have quoted the text of my saying it

 

[yorkshireflower]

I am involved in several business and we have been subject to this particular problem Having to use external contractors ended up in us using small images that "infringed" copyright. In theory all you have to do is remove it and this constitutes the cease and desist.

We also found the image used in several other sites (unlicensed we think).

In almost any other walk of life, this innocent mistake is accepted, however Getty (in my opinion of course) use their size and this legal machine to issue threatening letters. If you want to play their game and they keep threatening you then they need to also prove their license holds water and the owner has not sold or used the image elsewhere. They would need to do this in a court of law as disclosure.

So.

Letter 1. Send a letter saying you removed it as requested, it was an innocent mistake, but you are unclear as to the image's origin, which you clearly were.

2. You will receive more threatening letters. Send them a letter asking for a copy of the original image, a copy of the license agreement and a sworn affidavit from the owner that they took the photo/were the originator of the image and that it has never been used or licensed other than through their site. Then you can review your own situation with legal council.

Bear in mind that this is a small issue from a legal perspective but to you it appears quite threatening. Hence the desired effect, which I know has made some people pay money without question as they have been so scared.

I would suggest asking for the provenance of the supposedly infringing image before anything else.

I received a getty letter for £1200 back in October 2010 and when searching the net found lots of advice some saying ignore, some saying write letters, some saying you have no choice but have to pay!. What I didnt find much on was how people had got on months later with their chosen route so I wanted to come back now 10mths on and let people know how I was getting on. My initial reaction on getting the letter was worrying and phoned them - they had no sympathy said they would reduce by 10% if paid immediately. If anyone reading this has just received the letter I know how you must be feeling - I cried, worried and even my asthma returned so its not pleasant: I searched the internet for advice and as simon here suggests wrote a ltr covering the following points:

• details and proof of copyright claims and origianl license costs.
• costs and damages caused (their demand for money has to be for damages not just a figure plucked out of thin air) and if this went to court this is what they have to prove.
• Dates they are claiming "damages" for.
• Also asking why they didnt send a cease and desist letter

I also read that in Uk law usually damages are only awarded double the price of the original licence and even though Getty scare you into stating that copyright claims are held in high court where damages are unlimited this is not the case in everyday claims. There is only one claim Getty have won and this was completely different as the offender had the image on all stationary, vehicles etc and refused to remove it....but getty use this to scare others.

After sending my letter I received a second demand from Getty about 2 months later, no reference to my letter, not even personally addressed to me - it was a churned off computer demand basically a copy of the first but giving me one last chance! I threw it in the bin and now 8 months later I have heard nothing. So don't worry if you receive your letter, I read that getty send 3 demands before they disappear but I have only had 2 so perhaps I have another one due but it will join the rest in the bin. :redface:

 

[cheshire cat]

My website creates internet listings for restaurants using their images and one restaurant sent us an image which, unbeknown to us, fell foul of Getty's copyright. They asked us for £500+ for a very basic photo which could easily have been taken by my 4 year old nephew.

If we paid up, it would have taken all of our profit on the job, so we chose not to pay. Two months later we got a 'last chance' letter, threatening legal action if we didn't pay. We ignored it. 7 months later we've heard nothing.

Getty will not want to go through the hassle of court actions for small amounts and they rely on people paying them on the first or second letter. My advice would always be to ignore them. Don't enter into any correspondence and just grit your teeth when you get the nasty letters.

But if you're using copyrighted images in the full knowledge that you're doing so, shame on you and get your cheque book out!

 

[bdw]

It may be worth pointing out that Getty's scam continues unabated.
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/...settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm

Despite this similar case being sorted out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16616803

.

 

[Esk247]

It may be worth pointing out that Getty's scam continues unabated.
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/...settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm

Despite this similar case being sorted out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16616803

.

or running on an expired license

oh, I didn't know about this little nugget. So now you have to remember when the license expires and if you're a web designer and order say 200 odd images for a web based project and brochures then you've got to remember when the license expires on each individual image??? How can that be fair? I thought once you had purchased the image, it was yours to use for whatever the license permitted e.g. for print or web, not for resale. Not that it expires on the 11th January 2015, like you're going to remember that off the top of your head.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

That is why publishers employ professionals to keep track of rights.

Most picture sources I know of will send a reminder for licence renewal.

 

[Huw McGregor]

Hi All, Just thought I might get some impartial advice. Similar set up to all of you on here. 2 unauthorised use of Getty Images on my site, and extortionate settlement demands. My business which the website advertises is more of a sideline, and is a free service, and makes no profit. No Books, No business plan.
Comically, the letter is addressed to the legal department!
My first instinct is to throw the lot in the Bin and forget about it (of course removing said images).

Can you give any advice as to how to proceed?

Many Thanks pin advance

 

[bdw]

This has to be your call Huw. If you deliberately used copyrighted images then you would have to consider your position.

Having said that, no one in a similar position to you has ever been taken to court for this here in the UK. To date the threats have been just that - threats. Also, I think that recent developments in the speculative invoicing world in the UK are making any action much less likely.

.

 

[Huw McGregor]

This has to be your call Huw. If you deliberately used copyrighted images then you would have to consider your position.

Having said that, no one in a similar position to you has ever been taken to court for this here in the UK. To date the threats have been just that - threats. Also, I think that recent developments in the speculative invoicing world in the UK are making any action much less likely.

.

Thanks for your reply, I did not intentionally use copyrighted images and I can't remember now how I came by them.

Thanks for your help anyway, will wait and see how far they will take it before I do anything.

 

[smile76]

Hi all I have received my second letter from Getty Images today. Its a bloody joke I am a small business just starting out I dont even get much of a wage this sort of demand could seriously damag have told my existence I have told getty images this but they didnt want to know its nearly a grand for a tiny image that was downloaded from google. Nowhere on the pic did it say anything about it being a getty image this was a genuine mistake. There was no warning just straight in there these images are all ove google why not sue them ?.

 

[bdw]

these images are all ove google why not sue them ?.

Because they did not infringe the copyright. You did I am afraid.

.