Getty images unauthorised use letter

[fisicx]

...a tiny image that was downloaded from google.

And that's why Getty are chasing you.

Google says in the terms of service:

[SIZE=-1]You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.[/SIZE]

If you didn't ast for permission then you havre infringed the IP rights of the owner.

I'm not suggesting that the amount Getty want is reasonable but you have broken the law so they are entitled to recompense.

 

[smile76]

well it would of been nice to have been given the chance to remove the image rather than wade in demanding extortionate amounts of money but then what would they gain from that ?. I suppose the lesson is never use any image from the net as you will end up gettin scammed by some shyster.

 

[MikeJ]

So you stole an image of the net, and now think you're the one being scammed?

Priceless.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

well it would of been nice to have been given the chance to remove the image rather than wade in demanding extortionate amounts of money but then what would they gain from that ?. I suppose the lesson is never use any image from the net as you will end up gettin scammed by some shyster.

With respect, it is YOU that have broken the IP rights of the Image holder, yet YOU are claiming they a scamming you?

Much as I disagree with the methods the image houses use, I am sorry to say that you really need to admit you are in the wrong here. are you a LTD company or sole trader? if this amount is going to put you through and you are ltd, then just wind the company up.

 

[smile76]

So the majority of people here should just stop their whinging and pay the obscene amount of money demanded by Getty. If I had known it was copyrighted i wouldnt of stolen as you put it. But when you type in free photos you would of thought they were just that, obviously not. I realise I was niave but Im not going to pay nearly a grand for a postage stamp sized picture.

 

[kulture]

Thats the problem is it not. Its the size of the fine for breaking the law. Its the lack of opportunity to take down the picture you stole with only a slapped wrist. As a retailer, I am sure I would be rightly upset if a shoplifter got the opportunity to give back what he stole, and then got a caution.

The basic question is does the punishment fit the crime? The problem is that we have let commercial enterprises set the punishment and they seem to be more designed to profit from the crime than simply punish. Until this is tested in law, or until regulations or guidelines are actually implemented, we are left with this sorry state.

 

[bdw]

And it is highly unlikely to ever be tested in law because Getty will not be taking anyone to court. Too risky.

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

getty only go to court on cases they know will be rubber stamped as an agreement, so they can use it as a staick to threaten people with. as in the case of JA Coles.

 

[bdw]

as in the case of JA Coles.

Yes, and AFAIK that was the only one.

.

 

[paulears]

I was given the advice the other day to source images from wiki, where creative commons licenses tend to be the way it's done. Is this one for real?

 

[bdw]

Wikipedia images are generally reusable under the following terms ...

You are free:

• to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

• attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
• share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

You must however bear in mind that (AFAIK) there is no guarantee that the people who posted these images in Wikipedia originally were entitled to do so. You could inadvertently use a copyrighted image. (I stand to be corrected on this.)

.

 

[pjof451]

Totally agree with TickledPink, Old Welsh Guy has expressed the same view for years on this thread - you're guilty, so cough up. NOT QUITE SO.

I SUCCESSFULLY dealt with exactly the same threat from Getty several years ago, here's how:

1. establish the resolution of the image in question - Getty license rates vary depending on the image resolution. It follows their "loss of revenue" should be measured accordingly.
   
2. establish when Getty became of the copyright infringement, again their loss of revenue should be measured accordingly.

This useful part of the relevant act is as follows:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Part I Chapter VI Rights and remedies of copyright ownerSection 98

If in proceedings for infringement of copyright in respect of which a licence is available as of right under section 144 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.

Quite simply this means that, if your friend has made a genuine mistake, Getty cannot reasonably claim any more than twice the license value for the infringed item.

We, unwittingly had a single low res image on a secondary page and we had not profited from it's use. I offered to settle with Getty for twice value of a low res images for a three month license period - £75. Getty insisted the image was high res, that the period was a lot longer and they asked for nearly £1000. We were quickly able to prove it was a low res image and after several letters, Getty conceded that they had become aware of the infringement some 6 months before notifying me; thereby deliberately inflating the value of any subsequent claim. After I wrote to them pointing this out, the letters stopped and I didn't pay them anything.

You could as suggested roll over and pay-up but I would first write to Getty, agree the resolution, ask when they became aware of the infringement and offer to settle on twice the license value due. If, as was the case with me, you find Getty had been "sitting" on this for sevaral months, take that in to account.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Totally agree with TickledPink, Old Welsh Guy has expressed the same view for years on this thread - you're guilty, so cough up.

Sorry but that isn't the case at all, well not as you paint it anyhow. Oddly though you go on to say you were guilty and you 'coughed up'. I have said lots of things about this, but 'you are guilty so cough up' isn't one of them. YES I would agree there is compensation to be paid, BUT I have always argued (like you) as tyo the amount and extent of the damages.

There are many laws that can be used to push these people into a corner and get a massive reduction, and you touched on one, TIME!

The law states that a rights owner must act immediately (or as quickly as possible) in order to protect his rights. if they wait 6 months in order to push the price up then they have messed their nest.

I have always said that if you have no defence I.E. 'I got it from Google' then you must try and negotiate a deal, and ignoring the letters really isn't an option.

 

[bdw]

Establishing the "genuine mistake" may be the problem.

The bottom line in this case is that all indications are that the chances of anyone getting taken to court are virtually zero. AFAIK it has only happened once here in the UK and there were special circumstances in that case (JA Coles).

I got involved in this away back in 2006 when I got my invoice for £2400. My use of the image was a genuine mistake so I never paid them a penny. I became an active campaigner on several forums where this situation was being discussed. I did this publicly. I put my head on the block and they knew who I was and where I was. I more or less challenged them to take me to court. They never did because I believe they know that their case would fail and their gravy train would be halted in its tracks.

.

 

[bdw]

ignoring the letters really isn't an option.

It worked for me.

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Sorry I should have said that IMO ignoring letters really isn't an option as I consider it a high risk game to play. By ignoring letters, they are being forced to persue, and as such can legitimately add costs onto the amount, plus should it ever go to court (as if ) then the judge would take a dim view of the action of simply ignoring the matter.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

To me the main trouble is Google

They copy the sites images without permission and display them as a free service but for Their gain by their advertisers payments to them based upon the whole Google search engine promotion

They may claim they give warnings, but then go and copy and display images they have taken without permission from other peoples web sites

 

[OldWelshGuy]

That's a VERY good point Chris. I mean to say, how simple would it for Google to add a right click warning to their images section? so when people right click to copy, the actual 'WARNING: this image may well be covered by copyright etc....

 

[bdw]

To me the main trouble is Google

I have said this all along. Newcomers to the Internet, who have never had to think about image copyright could easily be forgiven for thinking that if this free search engine offers a means to display images then they must be there for the taking.

Having said that, Google does display "may be subject to copyright" notice albeit not in a prominent position beside the image, which would effectively highlight the copyright situation.

Bing, on the other hand, makes no mention of copyright. If you use Bing image search you can click on an image, then display it as full size then right click to save it and at no point is there any indication that what you are doing may not be legal.

(Sorry OWG .. I posted this before I read your post. I think we are saying the same thing.)

.

 

[FirstAidTraining]

AFAIK it has only happened once here in the UK and there were special circumstances in that case (JA Coles).

I looked this one up out of interest, and it seems to be very like most of the situations described here in this thread. Out of curiosity, what was the special circumstamces in the Cole case?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I looked this one up out of interest, and it seems to be very like most of the situations described here in this thread. Out of curiosity, what was the special circumstamces in the Cole case?

Without exposing myself to action, i would say that if I had to guess, then i would guess that maybe the parties involved knew that there might be a possibility of an out of court settlement being made by a third party, maybe, possibly, allegedly

 

[bdw]

What is significant about this case is that hundreds more may now follow. During 2005-2006 Getty (and Corbis) began invoicing alleged infringing users of their photographs for retrospective licenses. Many hundreds of UK web publishers have since received bills from Getty's UK lawyers, demanding typically £2000-£7000 within 7 days else legal action would be commenced.


...It seems likely that this was a one-off test case against JA Coles, and having been successful, Getty will now commence proceedings against other non-paying infringers who lack any substantive defence.

The above is from the copyright action website, http://copyrightaction.com/forum/getty-finally-sues-and-wins

AFAIK they (Getty) have not proceeded against even one more since then and the above was written in November 2009, two years and three months ago. The threatened "hundreds more" actions did not materialise. This wasn't the opening of floodgates that the some of the photographic community anticipated ... more of an isolated drip.

They do however continue to make their threats banking on a percentage of people paying up without question. This makes me also think that there could perhaps be some retrospective claim back available to these people if Getty go to court and are defeated on this.

OWG, if there was a court ruling on this is it not listed somewhere online?

.

 

[FirstAidTraining]

maybe, possibly, allegedly

Say no more. Say no more

 

[OldWelshGuy]

The above is from the copyright action website, http://copyrightaction.com/forum/getty-finally-sues-and-wins

AFAIK they (Getty) have not proceeded against even one more since then and the above was written in November 2009, two years and three months ago. The threatened "hundreds more" actions did not materialise. This wasn't the opening of floodgates that the some of the photographic community anticipated ... more of an isolated drip.

They do however continue to make their threats banking on a percentage of people paying up without question. This makes me also think that there could perhaps be some retrospective claim back available to these people if Getty go to court and are defeated on this.

OWG, if there was a court ruling on this is it not listed somewhere online?

.

That was my point, THEY are painting it as a ruling, but it wasn't it was a court settlement that was rubber stamped at court, at the time it was made CRYSTAL clear by the judge that no legal precident had been set by the action (I think he knnew what was going on, which is why he stated that).

 

[bdw]

Yes, I agree.

Isn't there a website where these court rulings/verdicts are listed online?

.

 

[TommyGG]

To me the main trouble is Google

They copy the sites images without permission and display them as a free service but for Their gain by their advertisers payments to them based upon the whole Google search engine promotion

They may claim they give warnings, but then go and copy and display images they have taken without permission from other peoples web sites

It's not Google's responsibility to teach copyright laws to people. They are pretty basic, if it's not yours and you don't have permission to use it - don't use it.

If you got caught using it when you shouldn't of then you have no one to blame but yourself. If I spent a lot of money and time putting a picture together and someone just copied it onto their site I would be quite peeved.

 

[bdw]

Here we go again, happy as can be
All good friends and jolly good company.


.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Here we go again, happy as can be
All good friends and jolly good company.


.

resist it Don't give in, must.... not........reply

Think happy thoughts

 

[pjof451]

For accuracy....

Sorry but that isn't the case at all, well not as you paint it anyhow.

Yes it is, see below....

In short, she has used someone elses copyrighted image and it has come back to bite her on the backside.

She can be as unwilling to pay as she likes, but you have just laid it out how it happened, she got it wrong, and will now have to deal with the consequences of unauthorised use of someone elses Intellectual property.

How else would could one read that?

Oddly though you go on to say you were guilty and you 'coughed up'.

Quite the opposite, please read my post carefully, we dealt with it and didn't pay a penny!

BUT I have always argued (like you) as tyo the amount and extent of the damages.

There are many laws that can be used to push these people into a corner and get a massive reduction, and you touched on one, TIME!

The law states that a rights owner must act immediately (or as quickly as possible) in order to protect his rights. if they wait 6 months in order to push the price up then they have messed their nest.

I have always said that if you have no defence I.E. 'I got it from Google' then you must try and negotiate a deal, and ignoring the letters really isn't an option.

The post I responded to, contained no such advice?

 

[pjof451]

http://www.out-law.com/page-10367

£2k in damages, and a reported (elsewhere) £19,000+ in court costs

You may have noticed that Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, represented Getty Images in the action against JAColes?

It is my understanding that JAColes didn't "lose" in so much as they settled out of court to limit their costs on a forgone conclusion. What was decided in court was the issue of cost and by settling out of court no precedent could be set. Not that the law on this can be tested, just Getty's case. That said, my opinion is that JAColes were badly advised, it should never have got that far.

I think Getty's actions actions in this are more subtle than most realise. For starters, many of the recipients of the now notorious "Getty Letter" will be scared witless and simply pay-up. In that, it is probably worth the effort for Getty? Secondly, Getty has now established a very aggressive reputation in dealing with copyright infringement which must be a deterrent?

I have every sympathy for copyright owners and those who "innocently" breach that copyright. The real culprits in this are the so called "web-site designers" that pass this work off as their own or worse, charge clients for these works with-out paying for them. With no action against these individuals and companies, they are unlikely to stop.

 

[bdw]

With no action against these individuals and companies, they are unlikely to stop.

Who told you no action was being taken against web designers?

.

 

[Mark Amies]

May be worth contacting BAPLA for advice -

http://www.bapla.org.uk/

 

[Nodge]

I also received the Getty letter this week demanding £1230 for one image on my website. I believed the image to be free but have no idea where I got it from. The website was designed by me to save costs. I have a home based business and the website gets hardly any hits. I have hardly slept since getting the letter. This is a lot of money to me and I would struggle to find it. Since getting the letter I have been googling non stop and must have read hundreds of posts on the subject. My head is now spinning with all the conflicting views and suggestions.

It seems to me I have 3 options ...
1. Pay up
2. Completely ignore all correspondence from Getty/Solicitors/Debt Collectors.
3. Try and negotiate a reduced settlement.

You may be surpised to hear that I have actually contemplated option 1 in order to just make it all go away. I tend to worry about stuff like this and make myself ill over it. The only thing stopping me is that I know full well that I am being screwed.

Option 2 seems to be the one most recommended. But as I say, I tend to worry and would prefer not to have this hanging over me and know that the situation had been dealt with.

So I think I'm tending towards option 3. I guess I will reply initially requesting some sort of proof to substantiate their claims and this will be duly ignored. I have seen it mentioned that a court might at worst settle on a figure double what it would have cost to license the image in the first place. I have checked this out on the Getty website and find that the cost for just 1 month would be £430!!! The image has been on my website for more than a month. Surely no-one in their right mind would pay this sort of money for a small pic when there is so much stuff available for just a few £s.

I was hoping to hear from people who had succesfully settled with Getty to get an idea of what sort of figure to finalise at but even with all the posts I've read I'm none the wiser. I understand this may be because of non disclosure clauses in the settlements. I know my first offer will be rejected and probably my second as well. I guess I want to know what sort of figure should I finally stick at?

My wife is telling me to consult a solicitor but it seems to me this is only going to add to my costs.

Thanks.

 

[Nodge]

Just like to add a possible 4th option. Would anyone recommend paying the solictor on the extortionletterinfo.com site (Oscar Michelen) $195 to deal with the issue? All sounds legitimate but concerned he is in the US.

John

 

[bdw]

I'll try to reassure you.

Oscar Mechelen is legitimate. I exchanged a couple of emails (or was it forum posts?) with him two or three years ago. He has been with this case for a long time so he knows all there is to know about it but I am not sure that he is the best man to deal with your case (being in the USA).

I was in exactly the same position as you. I got my letter in December 2006, just before xmas. It was for £2,400 and obviously I got a big fright. I spent the next few weeks with major concerns about this. My concern was not so much for the £2400, which I was in a position to pay. It was more about the stigma for my business on being branded a copyright thief.

The image in question was not a picture. It was a drawing of a shopping cart about one inch square. I had used it twice. Like you I had no idea where I had got it but I suspect that it was a relic from an association I had had with another company in the past. I could not prove this one way or another.

The bottom line is that I took some advice from a legal company and paid them around £100 to draft a letter on my behalf. I heard no more about it. At that same time I was heavily and publicly involved in several website forums on this. As a result I was interviewed and quoted in national newspapers a couple of times. I was not anonymous. "They" knew who I was and did nothing about it. Had they wanted to make an example of anyone I was as good as any (and an easy target with all my utterings.

The JA Coles case was supposed to open the floodgates of litigation. It did not happen. I don't have the time to write about this again but see the post I made in this thread on 20th February 2012 at 14:42.

.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

You may have noticed that Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, represented Getty Images in the action against JAColes?

It is my understanding that JAColes didn't "lose" in so much as they settled out of court to limit their costs on a forgone conclusion. What was decided in court was the issue of cost and by settling out of court no precedent could be set. Not that the law on this can be tested, just Getty's case. That said, my opinion is that JAColes were badly advised, it should never have got that far.

I think Getty's actions actions in this are more subtle than most realise. For starters, many of the recipients of the now notorious "Getty Letter" will be scared witless and simply pay-up. In that, it is probably worth the effort for Getty? Secondly, Getty has now established a very aggressive reputation in dealing with copyright infringement which must be a deterrent?

I have every sympathy for copyright owners and those who "innocently" breach that copyright. The real culprits in this are the so called "web-site designers" that pass this work off as their own or worse, charge clients for these works with-out paying for them. With no action against these individuals and companies, they are unlikely to stop.

With respect, I didn't come up the river on the last boat i know EXACTL:Y what went on with regard the JA coles case, and for the record, JA Coles did NOT settle on anything as they were merley the defendants, if you want to know exactly what went on then drop me a PM and I will send it to you (as I have to others), I am not prepared to post it on an open forum. Had you read my previous posts you would have seen I stated the courts 'rubber stamped' the agreement, so you seem to be arguing with me in order to agree with me

 

[Nodge]

Just like to add a possible 4th option. Would anyone recommend paying the solictor on the extortionletterinfo.com site (Oscar Michelen) $195 to deal with the issue? All sounds legitimate but concerned he is in the US.

John

Just to follow up on this, Oscar Michelen does not act on behalf of overseas clients, he is US only. However, I found his videos on youtube quite helpful. In particular the 2 about defending yourself. Search for Getty Letter to find them.

John

 

[steve_livesley]

i had a meeting with our MP yesterday about the getty extortion letters - she was appalled that large companies using expensive lawyers bullying small businesses with extortionate demands for money - using copyright laws not for what they were originally intended - which is to protect the originator and not to be used to keep a company that is in administration from going under by menacing small businesses to pay large sums of money to them.
She wants everybody receiving these letters to contact their MP to make everyone aware that these laws are being abused.

 

[The Resolver]

Who is your MP?

 

[bdw]

Pity it's not Eric Joyce. You could just send him round to nut them.

(Sorry) :redface:

.