Getty images unauthorised use letter
- Thread starter Emma Beck
- Start date
Upvote
0
Hi all, I too have received the same demand letter from getty. I must agree with tintacks though. It gave me peace of mind to get things done down the legal route. This solicitor has now offered a £50 discount if you go through gettyletter.co.uk. Normal fee is £250 +vat, for a limited time only it is now £200+vat. I feel that now it has been dealt with legally, if getty get in touch again, I can refer them to my solicitor. Gives me great peace of mind. Thanks all, good luck!
Upvote
0
Getty has only ever taken 1 company to court in the Uk, most people who receive the letters do nothing, but as you say, it got you peace of mind for the moment and that is all that matters.
Upvote
0
Thanks for noticing guys, omg you are so negative.....if you care to look I have posted several times in this forum and always bout getty. The info I put on here was to try and help the thousands of people who are worried by these demand letters. If you prefer to deal with things in your own way then thats your decision. Some people like to do things legally. Please let people make their own choices rather than poo pooing alternatives.
Many thanks and good luck all. No doubt I will be back at some stage.......
Many thanks and good luck all. No doubt I will be back at some stage.......
Upvote
0
Lara they weren't having a go at you (unless you started the thread under a different name
) They were pointing out (or rather one post was pointing out) that the person who started the thread made the one solitary post and never returned to the thread. Not a dig at you honestly
Upvote
0
I had a similar letter from Getty Images some time ago. I immediately removed the image and then I sent them a letter asking them to prove they have copywright ownership of the image. I didn't hear another thing. If you want a copy of the letter I sent them let me know, it'll cost you £500 Only kidding! It's yours for the asking.
Only kidding! It's yours for the asking.
Upvote
0
Hi all, whats the latest advice with the getty saga? I did a website for a client and unknowingly used a getty image.. needless to say around 18 months ago they got the inevitable letter.
Like many others, they ignored it apart from one ill advised response. Nothing had been heard since jan 2011. Now, they forward me a letter from atradius for debt collection (atradius is a division of getty it would seem.. suprise suprise).
So, can anyone offer any advice now i should give them, apart from research it themselves and sort it out personally rather than thinking this is my problem (harsh but perhaps true). I'm willing to help them out and go halves with the costs incurred (currently £580) out of good will. But, am i correct in thinking that i need to tell them to get their arses in gear and research this themslves?
Anyway, that aside, anyone have any advice for the atradius letter?
Thanks.
Like many others, they ignored it apart from one ill advised response. Nothing had been heard since jan 2011. Now, they forward me a letter from atradius for debt collection (atradius is a division of getty it would seem.. suprise suprise).
So, can anyone offer any advice now i should give them, apart from research it themselves and sort it out personally rather than thinking this is my problem (harsh but perhaps true). I'm willing to help them out and go halves with the costs incurred (currently £580) out of good will. But, am i correct in thinking that i need to tell them to get their arses in gear and research this themslves?
Anyway, that aside, anyone have any advice for the atradius letter?
Thanks.
Upvote
0
Trouble is, it is your problem isn't it? You used the image and sold the final product to them - including an element that wasn't yours to trade. Getty will take action against them, and they will take action against you. It's hard to see how it can be their problem at all - let alone 50/50. Unless your contract included some kind of clause absolving you of the copyright issue - although I'm not sure you can do this, because the copyright isn't yours to assign.
I think you may be on dodgy ground, sorry!
I think you may be on dodgy ground, sorry!
Upvote
0
A
arcon5
If I was your client I would
a) demand you settle this on their behalf
b) post warnings on review websites about your company
What do your terms say about copyright and such?
I suspect they would have a very strong case against you as the designer.
You could:
a) continue to ignore it, although your reputation or relationship with the customer is probably not something that will be repaired here. Whether it would come to anything or not I don't know.
b) make an offer to them for a significantly lower sum and settle it. It's likely they will make a counter offer and subsequently you both meet in the middle
a) demand you settle this on their behalf
b) post warnings on review websites about your company
What do your terms say about copyright and such?
I suspect they would have a very strong case against you as the designer.
You could:
a) continue to ignore it, although your reputation or relationship with the customer is probably not something that will be repaired here. Whether it would come to anything or not I don't know.
b) make an offer to them for a significantly lower sum and settle it. It's likely they will make a counter offer and subsequently you both meet in the middle
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
My web design company also inadvertently used a Getty image on a site we designed for a client and they received "the letter". The image we used was legitimately purchased as a package of images and templates, which we stripped down for stock material.
When our client contacted me about the letter, I felt obliged to take up the matter. I wrote to Getty Images and explained how we came by the image and that we had no idea it belonged to them. They wrote back and told me they still wanted the money. Some £900.00.
I wasn't having any of it so I called my solicitor and explained the situation. He got back to me later, after consulting with some colleagues who were familiar with copyright law, and told me that unless Getty could prove that they owned the image then there was no case to answer.
Next, I wrote to Getty Images asking them to provide proof of ownership of said image, and that was more than 2 years ago. Haven't heard a thing since.
When our client contacted me about the letter, I felt obliged to take up the matter. I wrote to Getty Images and explained how we came by the image and that we had no idea it belonged to them. They wrote back and told me they still wanted the money. Some £900.00.
I wasn't having any of it so I called my solicitor and explained the situation. He got back to me later, after consulting with some colleagues who were familiar with copyright law, and told me that unless Getty could prove that they owned the image then there was no case to answer.
Next, I wrote to Getty Images asking them to provide proof of ownership of said image, and that was more than 2 years ago. Haven't heard a thing since.
Upvote
0
In my defence, as far as i am aware, If you own and operate a website you are directly resposible for anything contained with in it. Whether that content is put there by yourself, or somebody else. Even a forum owner is accountable for posts, transactions, or introductions made by others within his forum. I know this from bitter experience after being drawn into a battle for lost monies via a transaction done through a forum i once ran. It is the resposibility is it not, of the website owner to check any content which they commission, for fair practices and legal issues.
I also did not sell them an image. I wrote an article as part of a marketing package and used the image within the article. There was also no offical contract in place. At the time i was a bedroom business and not long started out.
I am not absconding my involvement in this, far from it, but the website owners think this is something that they dont need to get involved with.
ANYWAY, lets not get bogged down with who does what, I am after all trying to find out information for them and also i said i was willing to come to an arrangement with them. So, i'm not just doing a runner and saying 'its your problem'.
SO !! back on topic.. Lets assume for a minute that i am the website owner.. from a LEGAL point of view, what would be the advice for this. Are getty getting away with this where they shouldnt be? Anyone familiar with the way getty does this knows that they send no cease and decist, they send no correspondance prior to a settlement demand, and they ignore the fact that the image is removed asap. They then assign their own affiliated 'risk management' company to retrieve the 'debt' (settlement) , and state that non contact or pnon payment accrues interest.
I also did not sell them an image. I wrote an article as part of a marketing package and used the image within the article. There was also no offical contract in place. At the time i was a bedroom business and not long started out.
I am not absconding my involvement in this, far from it, but the website owners think this is something that they dont need to get involved with.
ANYWAY, lets not get bogged down with who does what, I am after all trying to find out information for them and also i said i was willing to come to an arrangement with them. So, i'm not just doing a runner and saying 'its your problem'.
SO !! back on topic.. Lets assume for a minute that i am the website owner.. from a LEGAL point of view, what would be the advice for this. Are getty getting away with this where they shouldnt be? Anyone familiar with the way getty does this knows that they send no cease and decist, they send no correspondance prior to a settlement demand, and they ignore the fact that the image is removed asap. They then assign their own affiliated 'risk management' company to retrieve the 'debt' (settlement) , and state that non contact or pnon payment accrues interest.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have merged your new thread with the existing thread.
I find it amazingly ironic that you are asking for legal advice while abdicating your legal responsibility.
You can paint it any way you like, you had a duty of care when providing the content to the site owner, YES they are responsible for this as it is their site, but they are also 100% entitled to co-name you if they get dragged into court, and if you doubt this then look at the case of JA coles .
I suggest you read this thread.
However I will say one thing to you. Your client is entitled to tell the debt collection company that they deny the debt exists, as no contract exists, and that if the debt collection company contact them again, they will report the matter to the Office of Fair Trading as illegal harrassment. Tell them to either take you to court or leave you alone.
But at the end of the day it is YOU that is going to pay. But that shouldn't be a problem as your professional indemnity insurance should pay for this.
I find it amazingly ironic that you are asking for legal advice while abdicating your legal responsibility.
You can paint it any way you like, you had a duty of care when providing the content to the site owner, YES they are responsible for this as it is their site, but they are also 100% entitled to co-name you if they get dragged into court, and if you doubt this then look at the case of JA coles .
I suggest you read this thread.
However I will say one thing to you. Your client is entitled to tell the debt collection company that they deny the debt exists, as no contract exists, and that if the debt collection company contact them again, they will report the matter to the Office of Fair Trading as illegal harrassment. Tell them to either take you to court or leave you alone.
But at the end of the day it is YOU that is going to pay. But that shouldn't be a problem as your professional indemnity insurance should pay for this.
Upvote
0
i am not abidicating my responsibility !!! read my message again. I am looking into it for them (note: where they are not), and also saying i will come to an arrangement should they decide to pay. How is that avoiding my responsibility?
However, thankyou for the advice.. which it seems would be to reply to the supposed debt collection agency stating they are not paying for a debt which does not actually exist.
Would this be the general consensus?
Upvote
0
I did get legal advice from a solicitor practising copyright law, so I would trust this... wouldn't you?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I wouldn't go to court on that basis. While it has been argued over many times on web forums Getty only have to produce proof that they owned the image* or had the rights to protect copyright on the photographer's behalf when they get to court. On the other hand if you do not have a licence to use the image you are on very dodgy ground.
Getty have six years in which to bring a case to court in which time the UK will have a new fast track Copyright Court.
*Getty do have some wholly owned content.
Upvote
0
B
bdw
Actually (based on six or seven year's history) it has been a very clear indication that they have given up. They just don't do court actions because they know they are likely to lose them.
Getty have had more than six years to bring thousand of cases to court and they have not done so. Unless I have missed it nothing has happened to suggest that this is likely to change.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
mine was approaching two years, and now we get another letter.
Anyway.. so assuming this has now been passed to a supposed debt collection company (atradius, surprise surprise its part of getty), who are now chasing the monies and stating delaying wouldd accrue interest, what would be the advice from yourself?
Anyway.. so assuming this has now been passed to a supposed debt collection company (atradius, surprise surprise its part of getty), who are now chasing the monies and stating delaying wouldd accrue interest, what would be the advice from yourself?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
BDW who are you quoting? by deleting the name of the person you quote, it makes it impossible to follow the thread
if you leave the persons name in the quote box, then we can scroll back and look at the snippet you quote in context, otherwise it is really difficult For clarity this is me as a forum member not me as a moderator
Upvote
0
be that as it may, i still have the letter. So, the advice would be?
PS here is the crux of the letter... for anyone who is interested.
You will find enclosed a detailed statement of account. Please return the document to us duly signed and sealed with the notice debt acknowledged.
Please be aware that statutory interest and costs are accruing on the outstanding debt and will continue to accrue until full payment is made. Statutory Interest is governed by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, (and subsequent revisions) which provides that, all businesses, including public sector organisations are entitled to claim interest from any other business or organisation, (including small businesses) for unpaid invoices falling over the specified time of repayment.
We hereby demand payment of the full outstanding debt including costs and interest within 5 days of the date of this letter,
Please be aware that statutory interest and costs are accruing on the outstanding debt and will continue to accrue until full payment is made. Statutory Interest is governed by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, (and subsequent revisions) which provides that, all businesses, including public sector organisations are entitled to claim interest from any other business or organisation, (including small businesses) for unpaid invoices falling over the specified time of repayment.
We hereby demand payment of the full outstanding debt including costs and interest within 5 days of the date of this letter,
Upvote
0
You are not listening to what is being posted.
I already said that no debt exists. Getty have sent you an offer to pay, it is NOT an invoice, and it is NOT a debt.
BUT, unless you pay, you do risk being taken to court (or rather your client does), now granted so far Getty have not taken people to court in all bar a couple of cases (which they knew would settle).
Why do you think they have asked you to acknowledge a debt? the instant you do so, you are liable for interest etc.
you have a couple of options
1. pay up in full
2. negotiate the cost down
3. Write to them and say you do not acknowledge the debt and for them not to contact you again or you will report them (already told you about this and who to report them to)
1 +2 wqill close the matter 3 will leave the sword of damocles hanging over you and your client, in that Getty may at some stage do a complete U turn on past actions, and take people to court. IF they do this, then they can't claim interest, but they CAN claim damages and costs.
it is your call what you decide to do.
I already said that no debt exists. Getty have sent you an offer to pay, it is NOT an invoice, and it is NOT a debt.
BUT, unless you pay, you do risk being taken to court (or rather your client does), now granted so far Getty have not taken people to court in all bar a couple of cases (which they knew would settle).
Why do you think they have asked you to acknowledge a debt? the instant you do so, you are liable for interest etc.
you have a couple of options
1. pay up in full
2. negotiate the cost down
3. Write to them and say you do not acknowledge the debt and for them not to contact you again or you will report them (already told you about this and who to report them to)
1 +2 wqill close the matter 3 will leave the sword of damocles hanging over you and your client, in that Getty may at some stage do a complete U turn on past actions, and take people to court. IF they do this, then they can't claim interest, but they CAN claim damages and costs.
it is your call what you decide to do.
Upvote
0
B
bdw
There is a fourth option, which is to ignore them. Many thousands of people around the world appear to have done this without any further action being taken against them.
We have to look at this in the context that it has been going on for around seven years. Here's a forum thread that was started six years ago. AFAIK it was not the first and I found a reference to it as far back as Jan 2006. AFAIA aware none of those who chose to ignore the letters away back then have had any action taken against them. If anyone knows any different I would love to see the evidence.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Dear OWG
We don't know 100% whether a contract exists or not in every case on this thread. Getty issue a letter with a 'conditional' implied contract. The recipient takes down the image and by that action admits guilt. Why would someone with a valid licence remove the image?
Next the infringer writes to Getty asking to see proof of ownership. That creates a 'condition' from the other side. Why else would they ask unless to imply they will pay up when Getty produces the proof? If Getty respond, even if they don't produce the proof, they will have created a 2-way contract.
IANAL but as we never know the exact words used by both sides we cannot be certain there are no pitfalls.
Upvote
0
S
Suzuki
Taking down an image doesn't necessarily become an admission of guilt. Its just an admission that you don't want to spend time or money dealing with them.
Upvote
0
Whatever you say. you have quoted me but gone off on one that has nothing to do with what I posted. My reply was to the guy who stated he placed an image on a site without a licence, so even though i am Welsh, and clearly disadvantaged mentally, I think it is safe to assume he took the image and placed it on the site i.e. no licence.
If you truly believe that asking somone if they have the right to discuss a matter is forming a contract then you are mistaken. Certainly I would agree that it is possible to form some sort of implied liability or admission of wrong doing by badly wording a reply, which is why it has been suggested that a solicitor be used.
However a letter as simple as.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dear sirs,
I have received an item of correspondence from yourself ref: 555555555 claiming you represent the image rights holder of an image that was on my site.
I am not prepared to discuss anything whatsoever regarding your claims until I am certain you are who you claim to be, so to that end, could you please justify your claim and provide me with definitive documentary evidence that you are in fact the sole and exclusive image rights manager for the item you refer to in your correspondence. Please note, until such time as I am provided with proof of this matter, I am unable to investigate the matter with the image provider.
I have at this time, removed the image, but this is not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing, it is a simple precautionary measure taken while I investigate your claims and the provenanceof the image with the image provider.
Should I not receive the information requested within 30 days I will consider the matter closed.
regards
mickey mouse.
------------->END
now explain to me how that has entered into a contract? it has simply stated that I am asking for some evidence to back up their claims, in order to carry out an investigation with the image provider. It is certainly not admitting anything, nor forming a contract it is a simple request for information on a without prejudice basis.
Now we all know that Getty will simply reply stating 'we confirm we are the sole image rights manager for this item' but we also know this isn't always the case, as the photographers have signed multiple deals sometimes. and the image is available on other sites.
But that isn't the point. If getty were to say 'yes we are' then we go round and round and round demanding they provide evidence before the matter will be discussed.
Not ideal of course, but such is life.
TECHNICALLY getty are within their rights to say they don't have to provide evidence, but with regards costs, there is a fair chance that by refusing to provide the evidence, Getty are going to leave themselves unable to claim their costs from the first time they refused. My argument would be 'why should I pay their costs for refusing to provide me with evidence that they had available?
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Is AI Making the Internet Worse?It started with a comment about music. @JEREMY HAWKE , a courier...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The AI Divide: What UKBF Members Really Think in 2026Every few months on UK Business Forums, a thread appears that refuses...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
