Getty images unauthorised use letter
- Thread starter Emma Beck
- Start date
D
Deleted member 59730
What on earth makes you think that. Have you ever read the Getty/Photographer contract?
Upvote
0
B
bdw
But we are not talking about that story. We are talking about Getty. Other than the isolated JA Coles case there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is any danger in being dismissive or blatantly ignoring Getty.
And remember that in the JA Coles case they were not being dismissive. They were negotiating, which would suggest that there is more danger in getting involved in dialogue with them.
Feel free to offer links related to this Getty case that prove me wrong.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
I thought I'd go to the getty site and download an image at random, and then use Adobe Bridge to view the metadata.
Clearly the credit line says getty images - however the copyright is Thomas Barwick. Whoever he may be. It states copyrighted, but no contact details to get it cleared are provided. Clearly an email address or phone number would make clearance easier - but they chose NOT to make the contact details simple to find - which makes me wonder if the idea is to make the copyright more difficult to assess? However - the magic words copyrighted and Getty are quite plain to see.
Clearly the credit line says getty images - however the copyright is Thomas Barwick. Whoever he may be. It states copyrighted, but no contact details to get it cleared are provided. Clearly an email address or phone number would make clearance easier - but they chose NOT to make the contact details simple to find - which makes me wonder if the idea is to make the copyright more difficult to assess? However - the magic words copyrighted and Getty are quite plain to see.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
A common theme running through Getty letter recipients is that they cannot 'remember' when or where they got the images. Storing the info in the metadata would surely help.
My post was to show that it is photographers who are in the forefront of pushing best practice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Dear BDW
Not that established, just long lasting.
I have no dealings with Getty or Corbis but I have had feedback from several photographer friends who have stock with them. I know that many have been asked to sign court affidavits who have later had payments from Getty for infringements. From that one can only assume that Getty had every intention of going to court but the infringers settled in advance of final action.
Upvote
0
B
bdw
Actually from that I think we can assume that these payments are from the many people who take fright at Getty's threats and pay up without question.
In a case that is as high profile worldwide as this one there is no chance that multiple court actions could have been kept hidden. The photographic community are (quite rightly) defensive of their position in this situation. You tend to publicise any speculation that would seem to strengthen your position and to frighten people into paying up. The problem is that it is only speculation.
Since I first got involved with this back in December 2006 the JA Coles is the only case that has been pursued and that was settled out of court. During these 5 and half years I have eagerly sought out any evidence that Google intend to follow up on their threats. I have contributed to several website discussions, national newspapers and Internet forums during this time and there is not a shred of evidence of this to be found anywhere.
These are the facts and once again, let me repeat that I eagerly await someone to contradict me with anything other than assumptions and unfounded speculation. Anyone who is reading this thread should take this on board because it is a very important factor in helping you to decide what action you should take if you have a Getty letter.
I am not a lawyer but all of the above is based on the actual evidence that is available.
.
Upvote
0
I downloaded from the internet thinking it was in the public domain and inserted it a web site I built for a Client.
The owner of the copyright to the image spotted it and has sent my client a letter demanding the image be removed and requesting a settlement payment of £1000.
The image was removed straight away and a letter was sent to the owner of the copyright apologising for the accidental use of the image and asked that the matter be left there.
The owner of the copyright has written back stating that if his proposed settlement of £1000 is not paid he will proceed with an action.
Any advice please? I think my Client is being scammed.
The owner of the copyright to the image spotted it and has sent my client a letter demanding the image be removed and requesting a settlement payment of £1000.
The image was removed straight away and a letter was sent to the owner of the copyright apologising for the accidental use of the image and asked that the matter be left there.
The owner of the copyright has written back stating that if his proposed settlement of £1000 is not paid he will proceed with an action.
Any advice please? I think my Client is being scammed.
Upvote
0
you took an image that belonged to someone else, and you think your client is being scammed?
getty images have been sending out hundreds of thousands of letters demanding money from people who have breached intellectual property rights.
Who is the owner of the image, what is he basing the £1000 figure on?
getty images have been sending out hundreds of thousands of letters demanding money from people who have breached intellectual property rights.
Who is the owner of the image, what is he basing the £1000 figure on?
Upvote
0
Yes I do think my Client is being scammed when an abritry demand for £1000 is made with no basis or expanation how that figure was derived!
The letter was from Getty.
My understanding (which may indeed be wrong, which is why I am asking the question of our legal colleagues on here) is that if the image is removed as per the request, then that is enough to satisfy the copyright holder.
Back to our legal colleagues...
1. how would this arbitry demand for £1000 be treated in Court?
2. Is just removing the image sufficient in the eys of the Law?
The letter was from Getty.
My understanding (which may indeed be wrong, which is why I am asking the question of our legal colleagues on here) is that if the image is removed as per the request, then that is enough to satisfy the copyright holder.
Back to our legal colleagues...
1. how would this arbitry demand for £1000 be treated in Court?
2. Is just removing the image sufficient in the eys of the Law?
Upvote
0
It is not actually a scam. It has been discussed at very great length in this forum.
Can I suggest that you
1 Read this thread
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/fo...d.php?t=194238
and
2 stop designing web sites until you understand the law. You have exposed your client to prosecution. You have damaged your reputation. Before this goes further you owe it to all your clients to go through every web design you have done and ensure that this is never repeated.
I do hope that you have professional indemnity insurance, you may need it.
Can I suggest that you
1 Read this thread
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/fo...d.php?t=194238
and
2 stop designing web sites until you understand the law. You have exposed your client to prosecution. You have damaged your reputation. Before this goes further you owe it to all your clients to go through every web design you have done and ensure that this is never repeated.
I do hope that you have professional indemnity insurance, you may need it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Kulture:
I find your comments in point 2 of your reply offensive, of little or no use and full of assumption.
I posted this thread in good faith and in keeping with the professional nature of this forum asking legal colleagues for advice on what is a one-off situation. I dont need to be patronised or have the reputation of myself and my business publicly slated by You!
If the nature and tone of your comments are indicative of this forum, then it may well be time for me to leave.
I find your comments in point 2 of your reply offensive, of little or no use and full of assumption.
I posted this thread in good faith and in keeping with the professional nature of this forum asking legal colleagues for advice on what is a one-off situation. I dont need to be patronised or have the reputation of myself and my business publicly slated by You!
If the nature and tone of your comments are indicative of this forum, then it may well be time for me to leave.
Upvote
0
If the letter is from Getty it is not a scam. It is certainly genuine, and as I stated in my first post, hundreds of thousands of these have been sent out around the world.
There is already a thread running here regarding Getty copyright letters and potential claims etc.
To give you an example, getty have so far only reall gone after 1 person in the Uk in taking them to court, and that was JA Coles (Google it). The outcome was a court settlment before judgement, with JA Coles agreeing to pay the £2000 cost of image, plus they were of course liable for the legal costs of the other side. The total amount paid was pennies short of £19,000. My understanding is that it was the professional indemnity insurers who covered the cost.
This thread will now be tagged on to the Getty images thread as it is a continuation and not a thread in its own right.
There is already a thread running here regarding Getty copyright letters and potential claims etc.
Getty will have arrived at this figure using a set system as prescribed in law, so IF it went to court, then it would be treated as acceptable
no it isn't. You have used someones intellectual property rights, and as such the rights holder is entitled to compensation for the use of his/her works(the image), and Getty are entitled to cover their own reasonable costs.
To give you an example, getty have so far only reall gone after 1 person in the Uk in taking them to court, and that was JA Coles (Google it). The outcome was a court settlment before judgement, with JA Coles agreeing to pay the £2000 cost of image, plus they were of course liable for the legal costs of the other side. The total amount paid was pennies short of £19,000. My understanding is that it was the professional indemnity insurers who covered the cost.
This thread will now be tagged on to the Getty images thread as it is a continuation and not a thread in its own right.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Given the number of people that have appeared on this thread to say they've received Getty letters, have any come back to say what they settled on?
Also, is there a consistent ratio between the settlement Getty claim and their standard fee for the image on the website? Do they always claim x times the standard fee, or is it the fee plus a "management/legal" cost?
Also, is there a consistent ratio between the settlement Getty claim and their standard fee for the image on the website? Do they always claim x times the standard fee, or is it the fee plus a "management/legal" cost?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
1. You don't want to go anywhere near a court. Your lawyer's fees will make £1,000 look puny.
2. Your client has had use of the image and will owe the copyright holder compensation until that time.
Have you made a practice of stealing images for other sites? Time to take them all down now.
Upvote
0
M
MASSEY
Atmos, he can ignore everything and remove the image.
There is no proof of infringement, ever, as long as the image is removed.
Screen shots mean nothing in this day and age where people can photoshop all sorts.
I feel sorry for image producers having such little capacity to stop people stealing their stuff. Becuase as has already been established, people ignore a multi million pound companies demands and get off scott free.
Upvote
0
I am sorry that you found it offensive, BUT a professional web designer should know the law, especially copyright law. You have effectively stolen a picture and put it on your clients web site. You client is open to being sued for using this stolen image. Now Getty invoices stupidly high amounts for this and some people are intimidated to pay up. Others are chased and chased and chased by debt collectors. It can be frightening and worrying for the clients. It is ALL YOUR FAULT.
As others have noted, Getty has only ever taken one company to court, and it was settled for a huge amount before it reached the court. So it is probable that your client will not be taken to court. That said they will still have the worry, and they should blame you.
I am certain that you did not wish this on your client. I am certain that you want to do a good job and have a good reputation, and get lots of recommendations. This WILL NOT HAPPEN if you continue to design sites and use images simply taken from the internet. As a professional your clients rely on your expertise and knowledge. YOU have let them down because you did no know about copyright and Getty.
So I am not being offensive when I say, learn the law before you hurt another client.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I don't know about Getty but I do know that many other image sources have a way to prove infringement including myself.
Upvote
0
Hi,
sorry if anybody has already answered this (I trawled pages but couldn't find a definitive answer)...
What is the time limit on Getty bringing a court action in the UK? I have seen 6 years quoted but is this definitely correct - also if so, 6 years from when (supposed infringement or first contact from Getty)?
We got our first letter in February of 2007, queried the details with Moreton Smith (images were removed) and have heard nothing since. The images were listed as being used between August 2006 and Feb 2007.
Many thanks
sorry if anybody has already answered this (I trawled pages but couldn't find a definitive answer)...
What is the time limit on Getty bringing a court action in the UK? I have seen 6 years quoted but is this definitely correct - also if so, 6 years from when (supposed infringement or first contact from Getty)?
We got our first letter in February of 2007, queried the details with Moreton Smith (images were removed) and have heard nothing since. The images were listed as being used between August 2006 and Feb 2007.
Many thanks
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Afaik the copyright owner has a reasonable time to prepare the 1st letter. Then the six years runs from the date when the offending material is completely removed. However there is some confusion about this. If the 1st letter mentions a sum of money which the copyright owner is willing to settle for the SoL is 6 years but if the owner just says he will let the courts decide a value then the SoL is 3 years. There seems to be some doubt about the six years; if the copyright owner sends reminders every year then the six years can be extended.
IANAL This is culled from several articles on UK law.
IANAL This is culled from several articles on UK law.
Upvote
0
@Massey if the imaging company deliver a sworn afffidavit then the judge will accept it as FACT (as a barrister told me on Tuesday during a discipliniary meeting I attended in an administrative role, not the defendant, you NEVER call anyone a liar, you just prove they are not telling the truth ) , and not allow it to be questioned unless the other side deliver confilicting affidavit (understanding that if you lie on a sworn affidavit it is perverting the course of justice and is punishable by a custodial sentence). So in this scenario, a sworn affidavit is sufficient (although they haev other info)
@Atmosbob - yep it is a mess. the 6 years thing came about due to the spent debt laws, but of course no debt exists here so that law will not apply. I would say that if someone has written to the company/their representative and stated in black and white 'take me to court or I consider the matter closed' then they have very little time in which it will be entertained. 3 years is seriously pushing it, as the defendant will simply make a counter claim for damages due to the strress caused by their inactivity, whcih could well see it thrown out.
I would say that anything over 12 months in this exact scenario is likely to end in tears.
But again IANAL.
) , and not allow it to be questioned unless the other side deliver confilicting affidavit (understanding that if you lie on a sworn affidavit it is perverting the course of justice and is punishable by a custodial sentence). So in this scenario, a sworn affidavit is sufficient (although they haev other info)@Atmosbob - yep it is a mess. the 6 years thing came about due to the spent debt laws, but of course no debt exists here so that law will not apply. I would say that if someone has written to the company/their representative and stated in black and white 'take me to court or I consider the matter closed' then they have very little time in which it will be entertained. 3 years is seriously pushing it, as the defendant will simply make a counter claim for damages due to the strress caused by their inactivity, whcih could well see it thrown out.
I would say that anything over 12 months in this exact scenario is likely to end in tears.
But again IANAL.
Upvote
0
What's the position with regards to VAT?
My understanding of HMRC law was that payment by way of compensation for a past infringement was not liable to VAT but the Getty letters I've seen all have it and in the USA they've started adding sales tax in some areas.
My understanding of charging VAT was that it would be for a service but I don't see what service could possibly apply here.
Is it that VAT can be charged at the discretion of Getty? If they do charge VAT then does that then become a contract which would be governed by contract law?
My understanding of HMRC law was that payment by way of compensation for a past infringement was not liable to VAT but the Getty letters I've seen all have it and in the USA they've started adding sales tax in some areas.
My understanding of charging VAT was that it would be for a service but I don't see what service could possibly apply here.
Is it that VAT can be charged at the discretion of Getty? If they do charge VAT then does that then become a contract which would be governed by contract law?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
As I understand it there is VAT on a retrospective licence which is what Getty offer in the first instance. If it changes to a payment of damages for a copyright infringement then there is no VAT.
How does it change from one to the other? Usually when 2 solicitors argue the toss about it.
Upvote
0
I would question the logic of paying the demand from Getty for an innocent infringement then.
A retrospective licence would, to me, fall under contact law which would frown upon legal threats to commitment to the contract.
I certainly would not pay on those terms, although fortunately I am not in that position.
A retrospective licence would, to me, fall under contact law which would frown upon legal threats to commitment to the contract.
I certainly would not pay on those terms, although fortunately I am not in that position.
Upvote
0
Yes there is. If you can show that you were unaware that the image was owned by the copyright holder (IE your web design company stole the image and lied to you, saying it was copyright free) then it would be considered an innocent infringement and lower penalties applied.
This is one reason why having copyright info in photo exif data and a copyright watermark are good when posting images online. If you can demonstrate that the only version online are clearly marked with your copyright you can disprove a claim of innocent infringement.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I repeat; there is no such thing as innocent infringement. In the above scenario the web design company was not innocent. If the stolen image was published under your name you are still liable.
Upvote
0
You can repeat all you want - you're still wrong.
Yes the web design company is guilty (of a wilful infringement) however their client isn't. Unfortunately, even though the client was unaware of the infringement they are still liable, but it is an innocent infringement and thus the penalty would be less severe.
Upvote
0
The case of Hoffman V DARE (2012) makes this clear that in a case of innocent infringement, where the end user had reson to believe they were entitled to use the images (Innocent Infringement), the n(and I quote the judge when he set the precedent)
"The fact that the defendant may have thought that it had permission to use the images is not a defence to infringement under s16. There is a form of innocence defence in copyright law provided for by s.97 of the 1988 Act … The s.97 defence would not mean that the defendant had not infringed, it would be a bar to damages.
Thus if the defendant did carry out one of the acts provided for in s16, the fact that they thought they had permission is not relevant. Although this may seem harsh, it is not. From the copyright owners point of view, the copyright is his property and his rights have been infringed if he did not give permission. Copyright law provides for other secondary acts of infringement which generally amount to dealing in infringing copies and those acts only infringe if the person knew or had reason to believe that the copies were infringing copies. However for the primary acts of infringement set out in s16, the policy of the law is that if there was in fact no permission, an infringement has occurred even if the person genuinely thought they had permission.
The key question on liability therefore is whether the defendant has committed any of the acts restricted by copyright as set out in section 16.""
So now then Bob did you read that? This recent case has pretty much nailed down the speculative invoicing quasi scam from getty and others. What judge John Burrs did was set it out in legal statement that in the case of an innocent infringement (where the defendant did not carry out the act personally), the end user (defendant) does NOT have to pay a penny more than the licence fee.
What say you about that?
Citation http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...e+(+drug+)+and+title+(+abuse+)&method=boolean
"The fact that the defendant may have thought that it had permission to use the images is not a defence to infringement under s16. There is a form of innocence defence in copyright law provided for by s.97 of the 1988 Act … The s.97 defence would not mean that the defendant had not infringed, it would be a bar to damages.
Thus if the defendant did carry out one of the acts provided for in s16, the fact that they thought they had permission is not relevant. Although this may seem harsh, it is not. From the copyright owners point of view, the copyright is his property and his rights have been infringed if he did not give permission. Copyright law provides for other secondary acts of infringement which generally amount to dealing in infringing copies and those acts only infringe if the person knew or had reason to believe that the copies were infringing copies. However for the primary acts of infringement set out in s16, the policy of the law is that if there was in fact no permission, an infringement has occurred even if the person genuinely thought they had permission.
The key question on liability therefore is whether the defendant has committed any of the acts restricted by copyright as set out in section 16.""
So now then Bob did you read that? This recent case has pretty much nailed down the speculative invoicing quasi scam from getty and others. What judge John Burrs did was set it out in legal statement that in the case of an innocent infringement (where the defendant did not carry out the act personally), the end user (defendant) does NOT have to pay a penny more than the licence fee.
What say you about that?
Citation http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...e+(+drug+)+and+title+(+abuse+)&method=boolean
Upvote
0
S 97 relates to something like this scenario;
Using an old photo which you thought was taken by a photographer who died 70 years ago but actually hadn't
i.e. a work where you thought the copyright had expired, but hasn't
It doesn't relate to making a mistake about who the copyright owner is or thinking you have permission when you don't.
Using an old photo which you thought was taken by a photographer who died 70 years ago but actually hadn't
i.e. a work where you thought the copyright had expired, but hasn't
It doesn't relate to making a mistake about who the copyright owner is or thinking you have permission when you don't.
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: