Invoiced from Getty Images for Unlawful Use of Images?

[danners02]

A WARNING FOR ALL WEBMASTERS!!

A client of mine has received a letter and invoice from Getty Images for unlawful use of images on his old website. We took over this website from a previous freelance designer 4 months ago and previous images from the old website were the cause EVEN THOUGH they no longer existed on the new site pages or server. Whether they sweeped the site a while back or took the data from www.archive.org we don't know.

The invoice was for over USD$1000 PER IMAGE and the total amounted to nearly USD$6000. Naturally, my client was panicked - the terms of the letter from Getty Images are very strongly worded and he nearly paid up until I did some investigating.

While I won't go into all the issues suffice to say if any other people are getting these letters and demands for payment from Getty for unlawful use of images please visit the following thread:
Unauthorised Use of Getty Images at www.sitepoint.com/forums/

Essentially, Getty Images are sweeping the net using PicScout bots to find any unauthorised use of images - fair enough - they have to protect their intellectual property.

Instead of complying with the DMCA and issuing a takedown order (cease and desist) they send an invoice to the domain owner demanding payment - even if the owner removes the images.

So - if you are unsure of the legal position of any images I would replace them with images from http://www.sxc.hu/ (I would say www.istockphoto.com but Getty own them now!). Even this may not protect you, as they may access historical data. You might want to exclude the archive.org bot from your site or images folder - see http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php
More info on the Picscout bot

So far there is no evidence of Getty taking anyone to court over this - they seem to be bullying mom and pop and small business sites.

[texxs]

Like Bill Gates doesn't have enough money already.

I heard him on the news talking about his plan for getty images - to buy every image in the world basicly. Sort like what he did with windows.

Someones got stop people like that.

[bj]

Sheesh, that's stupid. They're as bad as the RIAA thinking they can put the cork back in that bottle after the genie is out.

[texxs]

So, please tell us how you got out of paying?

[danners02]

advised client send letter disputing invoice validity as they did not know where images came from, also did not profit in any way from them - and quoting DMCA 1998 Section 512 plus:

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
"97.—(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy."

"It is an offence under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to harass of debtors with a view to obtaining payment including the issue of letters which convey a threat or false information with intent to cause distress or anxiety."

told them to ignore them! Will wait and see.

[texxs]

Good job, you rock. It's a great example of how it pays to do your research instead of blindly accepting what a corp or govt tells you.

[Paulie_A]

Danners.
Sorry to drag up old times, but did you get a resolution to this? I similarly have a letter from Getty from an image i had no idea was copyrighted and now they are demanding huge sums of money i simply dont have...

[danners02]

Hi Paul

Client has not heard from them, but its only been 4 weeks since they replied to the original demand - I advised them to ignore any further letters and if they get any phone calls to simply state that they strongly dispute the invoice.

Since then I have also received a letter for my own website! I designed a website for a different client and we bought the license to an image - once the project was complete I featured it in my portfolio section and reproduced a screen shot of the homepage of my clients site plus a detailed section which included the image. The image is licensed to my clients domain, not mine hence the letter. Anyway - I am sending the same letter my first client did and ignoring any further correspondence.

If you read the thread (link in my initial post) on sitepoint you will see that they are not taking anyone to court - just sending out as many of these demands as possible with a very strongly worded legal sounding letter, with the hook that if you settle quickly you get a discount (which should tell you something!) and of course many people panic and pay up.

If its under £5k in the UK they can only go the small claims court and generally having a legal advisor at these things is frowned on by the judge and certainly you cant claim any legal fees other than the court costs (minimal). This wont happen in any case.

If you are in the UK, private message me your email and I will send you text of letter.

[johngroup]

I had a client with a similar issue. The matter was settled with a deep discounted offer (less than 8%).

[dbramley]

If the site was designed by another website designer - should it not be them who are taken to court rather than the owner of the domain?

If you hire a designer how are you to know if they have used copyright images on your site?

[johngroup]

For protection, the site owner should request an agreement that includes copyright info on purchased images, scripts and other IP.

[danners02]

dbramley: in the UK i think you would be covered by:

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
"97.—(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy."

although as far as we can see no-one has been taken to court to test it, but this probably shows what shaky ground Getty are on.

[dbramley]

What happens though when they are based in the US and the website owner is based in the UK? Is it US or UK law that applies?

[danners02]

god knows - probably the US - read the thread at http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902
as there are a lot of US posts there - the US may be covered more by the DMCA's "safe harbor" clause

[texxs]

Originally Posted by johngroup

For protection, the site owner should request an agreement that includes copyright info on purchased images, scripts and other IP.

there's no such thing usually. for instance with photography, you don't buy one image at a time, you buy a subscription. So there's no way to show in writing you have legal rights to that photo.

As a matter of it's entirely possible that the person who made the site in the first place had every right to use those images, as he may have paid for that right.
Given the highly secure nature of the gettyimages site, it's NOT very likely he got it without pay asa matter of fact. Here, check it out.

[danners02]

Originally Posted by texxs

Given the highly secure nature of the gettyimages site, it's NOT very likely he got it without pay asa matter of fact.

are you kidding? You can download the preview images without even registering at getty - these are plenty big enought to use on the web. This is another issue raised in the sitepoint thread - they do not protect their images enough in the first place.

[mavk]

Glad I found this!

Will be dropping you a PM danners! Has anybody got any further with this?

[danners02]

The website owner is responsible and that is who Getty chase for the money.
I would send a letter explaining why they came to be used, state you were not aware they were coyrighted and you made no profit from them, you have now removed them, apologise, ask why a take-down notice was not issued as per DMCA and that you dont recognise their invoice as valid or legal.
Read the sitepoint thread in full
Then ignore absolutely anything else they send.

[petergar]

Originally Posted by texxs

Like Bill Gates doesn't have enough money already.

I heard him on the news talking about his plan for getty images - to buy every image in the world basicly. Sort like what he did with windows.

Someones got stop people like that.

Texxs,
Bill Gates owns Corbis, not Getty. :)

Peter Gariepy
iCLIPART.com (yes, i sell photos & clipart)

[alexmenace]

I'm in the UK, can you send me the text of letter?

[Koko]

Hi All! I have just received 'the letter' from Getty and have just joined this forum. First of all I would like to thank everybody who posted their experiances and advice - they are all extremely helpful.

Danners, could please send me the text of the letter? For some reason I cannot PM you. Many thanks.

[Koko]

We are now looking at all the pictures that are on our website. We sell holidays and some of the picture of the hotels (rooms etc) I think were taken from their websites. Do I need to e-mail each hotel and ask their permission to use the photos? (at the end of the day - we are generating sale and income for them)

[liquidmarke]

My client has received one of these letters from Getty. They ended up dropping the case with us because the are a non-profit. Also, from Getty's rep said they have no use for us and do not want to be known for going after small non profits. They are just looking for larger companies that can pay for it. (basically another way to generate revenue)

They wanted 8K or 9K for the pictures. But we just took them offline and the case was dropped.

[alweb]

Hello,
I have recieved one of these letters for 9000 euros.
The images in question are part of a very small flash component. It's part of a template I purchased from a large site. I have taken down this part of the template but have no idea what to do about the letter. The site is only for a golf club!! What law should I be looking at. Its an Irish club.

Any advise pleeease

[liferev]

Hey guys,

I am located in Sydney Australia, and I just received "the letter" from Getty today all the way from the USA. Like all of you here, I had no idea that I was using copyrighted images, as all mine came from the sample screen of google images almost 5 years back. I've heard nothing from anyone about copyright in all that time, and then today Getty suddenly inform me I owe them $12,000 for the unauthorised images. If I am expected to pay $12,000 I may as well close down my business!

A bit of feedback for me - I have already removed ALL the images from my page, so should I reply to Getty in letter form regarding their demand for payment?? some of you have mentioned that you are in the UK, anyone had a similar situation who is from Australia?

Any help is much appreciated guys!

Dan (liferev)

[PosterManiac]

Wow, seems like a lot of people are getting these letters!
But this is really not on, they can't just wake up one merry day and start demanding outrageous sums of money without proper communication and dialogue..surely they don't expect people to just pay up!

[liferev]

I absolutely agree Postermaniac!

I was shocked to realize I had used licensed images, and have since removed them all from my site. I did a lot of reading through the posts in the sitepoint forum, and I don't think I am legally required to pay for the images. By Law they should have to give me a 10 day cease & desist order, then if i knowingly continued use of the images thereafter, they may have a case in court to sue me for loss of income.

In reality, the invoice they send is a kid of con to try to guilt trip you into just paying the exorbitant fees they are asking. Yes, you were in the wrong for (unknowingly) using their image; but seeing as you remove the image immediately, they have no further right to demand anything else from you. In essence, if you choose to pay the invoice they send, you are simply paying out of your own choice, and not because you are legally bound to. They seem to be targeting home-based businesses, and thus far there are NO records of anybody having to pay damages to for not paying these invoices they send.

I'll keep you all informed of the continuing saga,


Dan (Liferev)

[andrewbrott]

I have received one of these "letters" as well. I had no problem removing the image from my site. It was found 3 years ago doing an image search using Google. Of course the image can no longer seem to be found this way. There was no copyright notice, no watermark, nothing to indicate that this image should not be used. I emailed them and told them the image had been removed, but that's not good enough. They still want their money, which can be difficult for a 1 man small business to do. I was not even aware of this company until I received their letter. Nice introduction.

[liferev]

Dont sweat it AndrewBrott, as I said in an earlier post, it seems they are just using the invoice as a kind of con to try to guilt trip you into paying them. It's interesting that in reading through the cases of everyone who has received a letter, not one of them has gone to court. NOT ONE! I think you'll find as long as you remove the images at the first notice, then you are legally not at fault. If they were really serious, they'd need to give you a cease and desist order first...

And as for paying the bill, they are just using it as a form of hard sell/revenue generator. They hope we small businesses are stupid enough to believe we actually owe them for something we don't... Don't fall for it!

[andrewbrott]

That's kind of what I thought. I have my own attorney looking at it just in case. I received a reply from them thanking me for removing the graphic. However, they still claim to want their money. Ah, what fun! I will post the advice from my attorney.

[racerx]

Love to see your attorney's advice. We just received a settlement demand letter yesterday.

[fulleffect]

Hey everyone, first of all i dont condone using other peoples photos/images without permission.

I've had the same experience myself and my client got a letter some time last year at the beginning of 2006, so i thought i'd share my experience with you all.

At the time my client recieved the invoice from Getty, i preformed a search on Google and found a forum where hundreds of people left messages saying they too had got the letter. Alot of whom had got the letters in 2005. It was very interesting to read the tactics Getty had used to try and get them to pay. Some had even got to the stage where Getty had hired a debt repossession company to ring them and demand the money "or else".

For those of you who dont know, a bailiff or debt repossession company cant legally take anything off you, (if you dispute the invoice) and they haven't got permission off the courts.

So anyone who calls you or sends a letter threating for money, advise that you stongly dispute the invoice and any further communication should be sent to you in writing or to your laywer, and that you have no further comment.

It is worth noting, that no one on that forum had been taken to court. Although alot of people had simply 'given in' and paid the ransom.......


......I signed up the help of a Solicitors this time last year, (i got their number off that forum i was reading), they had actually been helping loads of other people with Getty Invoices for a while and had sent loads of legal letters off to Getty, and in that time, none of their clients had been taken to court of had further action brought against them.

I would now like to post up that letter they sent to Getty (It cost me £50 !)

Wednesday July 2007


Getty Images
Licence Compliance Team
116 Bayham Street
London
NW1 0AB

Your reference ***********

Dear Sirs,

Re: Our client *********

We refer to your letter to our client regarding reference ******** dated the April 2007. Please note our instructions in this matter and address all further communications to us.

Our client confirms the photographic images referred to in your above reference (“the image”) have been used by our client on their website www.*********.com. We are, however, unable to comment on your client’s ability to assert copyright in the image or take action for infringement having been provided with no evidence as to ownership or exclusive licence.


Our client does not admit liability, and immediately removed the images from their web site upon receipt of your letter and confirms they will not use the images in the future. The images were provided to our client by a 3rd party, who also asserts rights to these images.

The images were therefore provided to our client in circumstances where they did not know, and had no reason to believe that copyright subsisted or was asserted by Getty as copyright was asserted as being owned by another party. The images provided to our client did not contain the Getty logo or any other source information. There is certainly no flagrancy as to our client’s intent which was entirely innocent.

Under Section 97 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the Act”) there is no entitlement for the claimant to recover damages where the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe that alternative copyright subsisted in the work. Your claim for a royalty payment under a notional licence agreement described as a demand for payment is a claim for damages and as such would, in our opinion, fail.
You therefore have no grounds for claiming entitlement to payment whatsoever.

Should your company commence proceedings on the grounds outlined in your previous correspondence we reserve the right to refer to this letter on the question of costs and would hope this will now end the matter. As previously indicated, our client has removed “the images” and undertakes not to use the images at any time in the future, this action was taken despite our client not being provided with any evidence of ownership or exclusive licence by you but is of the opinion that there is contested ownership which is outside his concern.

Yours sincerely

It has now been over 1 year since that letter was sent, and we've heard nothing else since.


This proves that they are after easy pickings, and they hope most people will fall at the first hurdle and give in, and pay up.

If you 100% did not steal their images, then follow the advice of others and....

1) Immediately remove the images from your website
2) prevent the archive.org bot from accessing your website (and thus remove your site from the archive.org index)
3) Dispute the invoice & send them a letter (similar to mine above)
4) Ignore all future phone calls and letters (do not respond) [unless they are from the courts]
5) If any bailiffs calls you, "Advise you strongly dispute the invoice and want all further communication in writing"
6) Do not worry, they are trying to scare you into paying.
7) Did i mention "don't worry" ?


Unless you already do so, either use your own images, get the photographers permission or use Stock Photography: Search Royalty Free Images & Photos (all images cost $1 for a web size image)


Let this be a lesson to those of us who use images without permission! However, i agree with alot of others, a simple "cease & destroy" letter would have done.

[andrewbrott]

Well folks, the gist of things is, don't use any images off of the internet unless you created them. I am still working this out with these pirates. But my attorney stated a few things to me.

1.) the reference to quoting DMCA 1998 Section 512 plus: is a little off base. According to the copyright attorney I spoke with, this bit refers to mainly ISP's not being liable for what sits on their servers.
2.) Not knowing an image is copyrighted does not relieve you of responsibility.
3.) If my little company had been just a sole propietorship, they would probably have left me alone. But my wife and I made it a corporation for tax purposes. This makes you a target of pirates like these.
4.)if left ignored, even for a long period of time, it is likely they are prepping to pursue the case in court.
5.)Because we did not know it was copyrighted and did not intend to infringe on anyone's copyright, the amount they ask for initially is too high. While we agree they should be compensated, the statutory minimum should suffice ($250).
6.)Reiterate to these people that you had no intention of using a copyrighted image and offer less.


This is what I'll be doing and will keep all posted.

As a side note, I think that companies that use these tactics should be boycotted at all costs. There are plenty of places to obtain legitimate copies of images without involving Getty Images!!

[fulleffect]

Mate i wouldn't waste your time or money, they are only scaring you into paying, and by the look of things its working. Dont play into their hands.

Dont reply, and dont pay.

Only worry about that when the court letter comes through the door.


Seriously, dont make another move. Wait for them.

[mrl72]

I just received a letter today for $1000 ($900 if I pay within next 7 days) for a tiny image on our site which we purchased from a company a couple of years ago (who's no longer in business). We are a small business registered as a SCORP in Florida (for tax reasons). When I got the letter this morning and while in panic mode fired off an email to Getty asking if we could rectify this by immediately licensing the image. Of course, after doing so started my search in Google and have spent the last few hours reading comments from forum members all over the world. So now I'm beginning to think the best thing to do is write to them explaining we have taken down the image (which we have) and leave it at that. But have I shot myself in the foot by sending that earlier email?

Also, does anyone have a copy of a US letter I can use similar to the one posted above (which looks like it's more relevant to the UK).

Thanks!

[tombstoneweb]

As a side point, I think all of us in the webpage industry should boycott Getty. Period. I know I will.

[danners02]

"2) prevent the archive.org bot from accessing your website (and thus remove your site from the archive.org index)"

its actually the picscout bot that scours the net, but it wont obey robots.txt instructions - glad to hear people are not caving in - both myself and my client have not heard anything since. Would be good to have a US letter text posted here - in the UK i think we have it covered.

In the UK - if you didnt know it was copyrighted and did not profit from the image then you are covered by design and patents act.

[Akashic]

Originally Posted by liferev

some of you have mentioned that you are in the UK, anyone had a similar situation who is from Australia?

Any help is much appreciated guys!

Dan (liferev)

I'm in Sydney and one of my clients has received two of these letters. The first one I suggested he toss in the bin, the 2nd one he responded to. If I'd seen this forum at that point I would have stopped him even doing that. He has no intention of paying.

Same as most people who seem to be in this situation he asked me to use an image that was supplied to him by a client to promote their business on my clients site. The image was removed from the site and the server as soon as the first letter arrived and as far as I'm concerned Getty can whistle dixie till the cows come home but they aren't entitled to a cent.

I have added a link to the front page of one of my sites ... "If you're looking for Stock Images click here to read about Getty images" and pointed it to the sitepoint forum which is very comprehensive on this topic. (not that this one isn't )

Would be interested to hear if there are more Aussies out there other than us who have received the letter/s and as I never actually got to see a copy, just had it read to me over the phone, I'd like to see how they are trying to tax us here, in the UK apparently they are trying to use IRL VAT which from what I gather is not legal.

There also seems to be mixed information about whether istock is actually owned by Getty. I emailed istock today asking them if they are and if they are owned by Getty I'm finding an alternative stock image site.

[Jean-Luc]

For your information : The Flickr Collection on Getty Images

The great folks at Getty Images and Flickr are joining forces to create a collection of royalty free, rights ready and rights managed photographs

Jean-Luc

[swecs]

hey Akaishic, yes I'm in Australia too and just received a letter too. I've looked on the net a lot and most of the advice is for UK/US law - I'm looking too for any advice specific to Australia - whether we have any similar clauses in our Copyright Act, of if anyone in OZ knows if Getty will really pursue here.

re: the tax question, our invoice is for $1200 plus $120 GST. Their main address in the US but they have an Aussie PO box in St Leonards, NSW

Cheers
Graeme

[hoveuk1]

Got my letter demanding payment yesterday, from Getty. 10% discount if i pay quickly!! bonus time! Just wanted to say it was as much of a shock as everyone else, with no previous communication from them.
I'm a one man band, part time complementary therapist...not earning a huge amount! My website was set up by a 3rd party (friend of a friend), so I just let him get on with it, with no understanding that copyrights/licenses were needed etc by myself.
The images have now been removed as many have suggested.

If anyone has the name / details of a good solicitor to handle this matter I'd appreciate it. UK based. One that's not too costly!! I had a couple of quotes - both over £500 !!! almost ast much as the demand itself!

I've read most of the posts and thanks to everyone who's contributed.

I'll let you know how things go.

[danners02]

see this article in Guardian:
Wendy M Grossman on the heavy-handed tactics picture agencies use when pursuing payment | Technology | The Guardian

[danners02]

Originally Posted by fulleffect

Mate i wouldn't waste your time or money, they are only scaring you into paying, and by the look of things its working. Dont play into their hands.
Dont reply, and dont pay.
Only worry about that when the court letter comes through the door.
Seriously, dont make another move. Wait for them.

i would echo this.

[LD]

Has anyone received phone calls as well as legal-looking "Offer of Settlement" documents from NCS Recovery in Florida on this?

[SeekersISeek]

Hello Guys,

Greetings. Introducing me.

By the way, I am looking for book I ching translated by Kerson Huang. I cannot find those book anywhere. Do you know where I can find those? Thanks

[envision2k]

I have 2 clients that have been down this road, and in both cases they removed the images in question, and never heard from Getty again. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

[baxterco]

Hi All,
I just got my letter from Getty on Monday 5/11/09
I am working up my response with fulleffect's advice and will let you all know how things go.

I do not fault Getty for trying to protect their market share and I do not condone stealing in any form.
However this tactic is asinine. It appears that they are going out and and tagging any picture
and sending a letter to the end user.
The picture in question on my end is from a temple that a well known real estate web master has
as a default templet. The webmaster has assured me they have acquired all of their media legally.

We need to lobby in DC to get this changed... this is flat out wrong!

If you are intently going out and stealing pictures then yes, the fines are warranted.
However when you are trying to earn a living and you buy and or acquirer pictures ethically, or so you think.
I think a C&D should be the end of the story.

I have since taken down any picture that I personally did not take or graphic I personally did not make.

And because of this practice I will not be endorsing Getty from here on out.

Sorry Getty, but just because you can do it, does not mean you should!

Cheers!

[andrewbrott]

My last post on this was in June of last year. Today I received a letter from NCS Recovery of Sarasota, Florida. Apparently JUST IGNORING THESE GUYS IS NOT GOOD SOUND ADVICE. Getty has sent it to this agency in Florida. I called NCS and spoke with one of their representatives. Getty is not going to let this go, plan and simple. And telling others to just ignore this is not good advice. So, that I don't even want to hear again.

According to a copyright Attorney in Oregon that I spoke with, not knowing it was copyrighted does not relieve you of your repsponsiblity. I am try to offer them a smaller amount to get them off my back as I am a one man shop on the verge of bankruptcy in this economy.

I do, however, strongly believe that web developers as a group should come together to let them know that billing this exorbitant amount is not acceptable. Especially when the usage was not intentional and they made no prior effort to ask that the image be removed.

$1000 is what they claim is the licensing for 1 year for this image.

Also, according to NCS Recovery, Getty Images is aware of this thread and many other complaint site regarding them. THEY SIMPLY DON'T CARE. They regard this thread and any website complaining about them as a joke (quoted from the NCS Rep). What this means is that so far, all of this is ineffective and, again, ignoring them is bad advice. It may take time, but they will continue to come after you.

What we need to do as professionals is something stronger. I am not sure what at this point (as I am pretty ticked off right now), but something must be done. Boycotting Getty and any company that does business with them is one idea. A website dedicated to this as a cental focal point is for this thread and any sites regarding Getty is another idea. Including listing companies doing business with Getty so we would be aware of who to not do business with. Business tactics such as Getty's simply aren't acceptable and we need to let them know this.

I realize I am ranting and going on, but the frustration level is very high right now.

Regards,

Andrew

[baxterco]

Hi All and Andrewbrott,
I Just sent my letter off to Getty yesterday.... we'll see what comes of it.

So it took a year for the collection guys to call you?...

so what do you plan as your next move?

One last question where did you get the image that is in question and how was it used?

thanks
baxterco

[mrdoren]

They make more money chasing 100 people for example and scareing 20 into paying Soprano-like extortionate fees compared to having 20 people pay their regular fee. BUT - having said that, even their regular fees are 10 time higher than most image banks offering comperable quality imagery. It's a pretty low handed but profitable gig they've got going.