Toggle sidebar

Getty images unauthorised use letter

Sort by date Sort by votes
What if website designer built a site for someone using lots of Getty's images (in the £1,000's value), Getty discover the website owner has no way of paying, could Getty decide to go after the designer instead?
You said no previously, but can you explain why?

I'm not being sarcastic or trying to start an argument, I genuinly want to know what reason you and bdw give for saying the website designer can use copyright images and not fear any reprimand from the copyright owner?
 
Upvote 0
UKSBD said:
What if website designer built a site for someone using lots of Getty's images (in the £1,000's value), Getty discover the website owner has no way of paying, could Getty decide to go after the designer instead?
You said no previously, but can you explain why?

I'm not being sarcastic or trying to start an argument, I genuinly want to know what reason you and bdw give for saying the website designer can use copyright images and not fear any reprimand from the copyright owner?
Click to expand...

I am not saying the website designer is immune, read the posts a couple of posts back. What I am saying is that the website owner is responsible for publishing the site, once it is published it is their reponsibility. The designer could be sued but for a miniscule amount and could even argue fair use as they could say there were covered by fair use as a positional with a view to purchase the image should the client like it. If the client then goes an publishes that image how is the designer liable for somone els's actions?

there hasn't and I doubt there ever will be someone taken to court for private viewing of a copyrighted image.

I reall ain't getting into this because no doubt now somone will come along and tell me I am wrong and ask me to justify it etc, when I am sick to the hind teeth of the whole sorry saga :(
 
Upvote 0
I'm not being sarcastic or trying to start an argument, I genuinly want to know what reason you and bdw give for saying the website designer can use copyright images and not fear any reprimand from the copyright owner?
Click to expand...
UKSBD I thought I had explained this well enough previously but clearly not. First of all no one is suggesting that web designers do this. But, as both OWG and I said above, responsibility for what is published on a website rests with the website owner. That's the law, the same law that is being used against all the site owners who are receiving the speculative invoices in this thread. Now perhaps you can explain what part of that you are having trouble with or are you just mischief making?

Of course not. Copyright is an exclusive Right to Copy. If you copy an image onto a mockup site without permission you are breaching copyright.
Click to expand...
Now you are just being pedantic ... not let me rephrase it, you are just being silly. Your views on this are doing more to harm the photographic community than anything else. If the imaging companies started sending these invoices out to people using comp images the web design community (on whom much of their income depends) would drop them like a hot spud.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
OldWelshGuy said:
Don't want to get into a fight here Bob, but please read the post about 2 above yours where I clearly say it isn't right, but that the claim would be miniscule and impractical to follow. As you are well aware the 'use' of a positional for private viewing would never be taken to court, because the instant they did that they can kiss goodbye to a mountain of revenue as designers simply couldn't mock up with a view to sell.

this sort of use is common practice because there is no way any court in its right mind would award damages, against someone going to a stock library and using an image as a positional, the other question is, who would know? HOW would the image house find out that any law has been broken and what would be their claim for damages based on?
Click to expand...

Dear OWG and BDW

It might be common practice now but it wasn't always so. Until Getty decided to allow free comps it was common for photographers and stock libraries to charge for images used in presentations. Before the age of digital downloads the only way a client got an image was to ask the agency to send a tranny. Pretty easy to track.

I agree with you both that in the digital web age things are different but the CDPA 1988 hasn't changed in this regard.

A designer using a comp to show a client is not private viewing. Its using someone's copyright 'by way of trade'.

My T&Cs, state

5. We do not make a charge for downloading or printing out the files on this site for use in comps or layouts EXCEPT we do insist that you ask FIRST. Very rarely some of the pictures may be tied up with exclusive licences and we do not want the embarrassment of stopping unauthorised publication.

6. If pictures are used in "paid for" presentations we expect a presentation fee. This fee can be negotiated against guaranteed use.

This was paraphrased from the then BAPLA suggested T&Cs.

(in one argument I got into with a designer who had lifted an image of mine I discovered that the other image in the layout was one of Getty's. I tipped them off and it cost the designer an extra £600.)
 
Upvote 0
Bob, as I said I am not going to get into a long protraceted he said she said over the legal definition of what is classed as private viewing and fair use.

meanwhile, the complicated REAL WORLD scenario I brought up on the previous page that IS relevant to the debate has again been washed away by the pooint scoring debate. I really should know better and just not get involved I guess :)
 
Upvote 0
I tipped them off and it cost the designer an extra £600.
Click to expand...
That must have been very satisfying for you. :rolleyes:

Pity he had not come along here and he may have seen advice that would have saved him from paying. Anyway, how do you you know he actually paid it? Did he report back to you?

.
 
Upvote 0
lets go again then, any chance of discussing this :)

here is an interesting question right here.

While browsing UKBF I saw an advert. The advert was using a getty rights managed image (I know this from my image plugin that flags rights on images). The image was part of an advert in the footer.

QUESTION:
imagine (for the sake of this discussion) that no licence existed, who is responsible?

SIFT (UKBF)
Certainly Sift (UKBF) wouldn't have a licence, why should they? Oh, Hang on, The image is on THEIR site, so surely THEY are liable?

BUT.
It was a Google adsense advert served by Google so surely THEY are to blame?

BUT
Google only carried the advert, it was the advertiser who is responsible for the creative.

WHAT A MESS the law is when it comes to intellectual property rights eh :)
 
Upvote 0
bdw said:
Pity he had not come along here and he may have seen advice that would have saved him from paying. Anyway, how do you you know he actually paid it? Did he report back to you?

.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that businesses using images should not pay the proper going rate for them?

In this instance the designer/client was hoping that the Getty Sale dept would not notice a major mailshot campaign because it was in 3 languages and sent to specific target addresses outside the UK.
 
Upvote 0
Bob, would you care to comment on my scenario above? it is a really compolex one isn't it because my understanding is the site owner or the person who is benefiting from the use.
1. sift are the site owner,
2. sift can benefit if somone clicks
3. Google rent that piece of real estate on the site
4. Google benefit if somone clicks on the image
5. The ad company are benefitting from using the image

Complex?
 
Upvote 0
Are you suggesting that businesses using images should not pay the proper going rate for them?
Click to expand...
Whatever gave you that idea?

You did not answer the question. How do you you know he actually paid it? Did he report back to you?

.
 
Upvote 0
What puzzles me (as an artist / photographer) is that copyright is only mine or who I assign it to. So why shouldn't I or any agency I assign copyright to defend that copyright?
 
Upvote 0
It seems I haven't made enough posts to post a link to another site so go to consumerfocus dot org dot uk and do a search for speculative invoicing. Makes interesting reading.
 
Upvote 0
Speculative Invoicing is now being recognised for what it is, i.e. a way to extort money from people. This is why so many people have told Getty to go and sing for their money and they (Getty) have done nothing about it. Their invoices will surely stop as these recent related judgements become more public?

Getty should be forced not only to stop this practice by the courts but also to refund any excessive fees deemed to have been extorted from people using speculative invoicing during these last six or seven years.

From IP Magazine...
The court rejected 12 of the applications but found in favour Ben Dover Productions, saying that "the claimants' interests in enforcing their copyrights outweigh the intended defendants' interest in protecting their privacy and data protection rights".
http://www.ipworld.com/ipwo/doc/view.htm?id=282193&sectionID=news&searchCode=SEC

and
My natural cynicism means that I have no doubt we haven't seen the last of 'ingenious' ways to try to part people with their money under the guise of protecting copyright holders.
Click to expand...
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/...9284/speculating-demise-speculative-invoicing

Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group told us: "This hopefully serves as a funeral for speculative invoicing in the UK. These schemes used quite indiscriminate allegations of copyright infringement as a way of scoring easy money from the public. It does nothing for artists and has no place in the modern copyright rulebook."
Click to expand...
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/...ings-solicitors-engaged-speculative-invoicing

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
We received 'The Letter' out of the blue about 18 months concerning one of the images on our website, with a demand for about £1000. Reading through the various forums was helpful, but there still remained two schools of thought as to what to do. Eventually, one site we went on for advice is in association with a solicitor who deals with the getty issue. We paid about £250 for him to deal with it, and, thankfully, we've not heard anything more from Getty from that day to this. I'm not sure what he did or said, but it certainly seemed to sort it out.
I can't remember what the advice site was, but I know it came up when I googled something like 'getty letter'.
Hope this is of some help.
 
Upvote 0
I'm not sure what he did or said, but it certainly seemed to sort it out.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that you could have saved yourself £250 if you had just told them that you were not paying or for that matter, ignored them.

I actually paid for something similar myself but with the benefit of hindsight I would pay nothing now. I would either ignore their letters or just tell than I had taken it down and tell them I would not be paying. This is based on extensive evidence over the last five years that no matter what approach people use they will NOT take you to court.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Hi, You may well be correct, but in my view, it was well worth it for the peace of mind. Also, if Getty had have contacted us again, we would have quite simply said it was now in the hands of our solicitor, and any further communication would have to go through him.
I feel it was money worth paying.
 
Upvote 0
Hi, You may well be correct, but in my view, it was well worth it for the peace of mind.
Click to expand...
I think I am right in saying that in the only case that they ever proceeded with the defendant had solicited the assistance of a legal company in this way.

.
 
Upvote 0
as long as your image is removed you should be ok now... these letters keep on coming.... eventually should stop...
 
Upvote 0
MASSEY said:
So atmosbob and his speculative invoicing is illegal.
Click to expand...

Dear Massey

What makes you think I have ever issued a 'speculative' invoice?

Negotiations over infringements go two ways; Either a retrospective licence is issued or a straight infringement penalty is paid. Strictly speaking an invoice is always needed for a licence because it has VAT but not for a legal settlement to a lawyer. Only after agreeing an amount do I issue a VAT invoice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MASSEY
Upvote 0
bdw said:
So do Getty and Corbis. ;)

.
Click to expand...


I think 'negotiate' is stretching the word to the extreme. getty just send an invoice and then harrass.

Remember the good old days when we firrst got involved in this and they were actually passing the 'debts' on to debt collectors who absolutely and mercilessly harrassed people trying to collect a debt that didn't exist.

How the hell getty & Corbis have got away with this is COMPLETELY beyond my comprehension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdw
Upvote 0
You always need permission off the photographer if you post an image on your website, even if it was not a Getty image, she is still liable as the image is someone else's and she does not have the rights to use the image.

£600 is very expensive though, tell her to explain the situation to Getty and play the innocent card and offer to buy the image (Prices vary but it probably costs around £20) instead of paying the fine of £600, make sure the image is on Getty though ask them to send you a link to the image and buy it through the website as the email might be a scam!

I don't think she will be taken to court over it or anything I think they will just drop it after a while, it's not like she was reproducing the image on to posters and selling them making a profit.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
OldWelshGuy said:
Bob, would you care to comment on my scenario above? it is a really compolex one isn't it because my understanding is the site owner or the person who is benefiting from the use.
1. sift are the site owner,
2. sift can benefit if somone clicks
3. Google rent that piece of real estate on the site
4. Google benefit if somone clicks on the image
5. The ad company are benefitting from using the image

Complex?
Click to expand...

I don't see this as complex at all. When using Googles services the author of the advert would have signified that he has the rights to use any associated images. The blame is clearly with the person who authored the advert.
 
Upvote 0
TommyGG said:
I don't see this as complex at all. When using Googles services the author of the advert would have signified that he has the rights to use any associated images. The blame is clearly with the person who authored the advert.
Click to expand...

NOPE! sorry it doesn't work like that Getty hit the site with the image on regardless of how it got there. this is the point I am making. Getty are not playing by any acceptable set of rules :(
 
Upvote 0
I'm a bit late in the thread I know, but have there been cases of Getty chasing a website owner displaying an advert served by Google that contains an image not licensed? If so, that does indeed suck
 
Upvote 0
This is what I mean though, in your theoretical example the person to blame would be the person who authored the advert.
 
Upvote 0
TommyGG said:
This is what I mean though, in your theoretical example the person to blame would be the person who authored the advert.
Click to expand...

Then by the same logic, the person to blame for an image being on your site is the person that put it there (the designer). do you see where the argument falls flat? Google are not interested who put the image there, only that it IS there.


They have sent invoices to forum owners where their members have used a getty image as an avatar for example.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Payment Demand for Unlicensed Use of an Image
Replies
24
Views
9K
Websites & Ecommerce
Paul FilmMaker
Paul FilmMaker
Lucan Unlordly
Allowable use of purchased images?
Replies
11
Views
1K
General Business Forum
Lucan Unlordly
Lucan Unlordly
D
  • Ask a Question Ask a Question
Project failed due to client now being asked for deposit back
Replies
3
Views
2K
Legal, Employment and Insolvency
Frank the Insurance guy
Frank the Insurance guy
B
Complicated fraud/VAT/refund advice?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Accounts & Finance
Mark T Jones
Mark T Jones
makeusvisible
Most Audacious Digital Marketing Attempt I've Ever Seen
Replies
13
Views
3K
Sales, Marketing & PR
PhiltheCopywriter
P

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back