Getty Images are at it again!

[inertia]

Morning People! I'm sure lots of you have come across Getty Images before. About 12 months ago one of our clients had a nasty letter from them asking for £21,000 for the use of their images. At the time i asked people on WPW about it and the common answer was "ignore them". We changed the images on our clients site and did just that!

Yesterday my client received another letter from what looks like a UK solicitor demanding the payment of the £21,000. As I'm sure you can imagine my client panicked and forwarded the letter to me demanding we resolve the issue. This is something we haven't encountered before. We've had plenty of invoices directly from them but never a solicitors letter threatening court action and further costs.

Here is the letter: http://www.cashcowrecords.co.uk/letter.jpg

Any advice? Should i tell are customer to ignore this? Does anyone have any legal advice as to how liable they/we are?


Edit: zoom in on the letter!!

[Steven1976a]

This may be a daft question but have you paid for the licences?

If so when you signed up for an account with Getty Images did they make you tick the read terms and agreement? I would imagine you can some how access these terms in your account that you created with them so long as you did obviously sign up for an account and pay for the pictures.

Im sure the terms and agreement are set up so that they will protect you if you send a copy back to the lawyer to prove that you paid and purchased the images. If you havent paid for the images then i would imagine that you are in the wrong.

I noticed that you do say you did change the images after the first letter but they are obviously prosecuting for the original offence.

I would imagine its not that easy to push the case through if they are a US company and your hosting is in another country. So you could tell your client to ignore it and you will probably just get a letter each time they audit their accounts or you may want to check with a lawyer of your own to find out your position.

[inertia]

We have never signed/registered or seen anything from Getty until the invoice. All the original images were found on Google images.

I think the best thing to do is tell my client to ignore the letter. Does everyone agree?

[wige]

No. Talk to a copyright lawyer. Immediately.

If the images were obtained through a Google search, it is possible one of the images you used was actually copywrited by Getty Images. Although it sounds like GI didn't follow the proper channels in dealing with this situation (they should have first sent a cease and desist letter clearly identifying what image was used in violation of copyright and proving their copyright) however, the potential exists that failure to respond could result in the company taking legal action against you or your client.

[incrediblehelp]

I agree Wige. Why are you getting a bill instead of a letter from a lawyer?

[tiley]

I smell scam.

The first thing that I though of was those letters I often get from Company Nobody Ever Heard Of that I need to a) register in the "Internet Directory" b) buy Internet or Domain Insurance c) some other scam that sound plausible.

What made me think of these is because these offers that come in the mail look like Invoices rather than what they are, which are (bogus) offers. A careless person might just go ahead and pay them with the other bills.

So, the first thing I would do is contact Getty Images. Get their contact info from their site - not that invoice. Ask them if they have a record of invoice #xxx.

If not, problem solved. Contact the authorities and warn your clients.

If they do, then, well, you'll need to go from there.

Finally, shame on you. The images are Google images are not necessarily free for the taking; in fact, most of them are not. If you are going out and grabbing images off the web and using them on your sites, chances are that you are stealing them from their rightful owners. Copyright belongs to the creator unless specifically transferred or licensed. The UK legal system honors US copyrights so no safety there.

Many artists will allow you to use their images, often for free, if you ask. Think of how you would feel if someone copied one of your website design and sold it as their own. (I know the feeling and it s*cks). Have the courtesy to not steal someone else's work.

[SemAdvance]

You had the legal right to make sure the images were not protected intellectual property.

You jeopardized your clients business, and your own business.

Are you trying to claim you had no knowledge of copyright law?

How can you run a business not knowing the legal ramifications of your actions??

You need to start dotting I's and crossing T's before your methods of operation come back to haunt you.

I would recommend coming clean to the client and seeing if there are any good lawyer friends in your contacts....

[puamana]

I've also run afoul of Getty Images in the same way...
They never sent a cease and desist letter,
just a demand for $1000 US for the use of a thumbnail
found on Google Image Search.

I removed the image and ignored them.

The later sent an additional letter (with a screen shot of
their image on my page) again demanding payment of
$1000 US.

I ignored it.

I have not heard from them since, and doubt seriously
if a court would award them any damages.

The letter your client received (while it LOOKS like it's from
a 'solicitor' (in American that's a lawyer) is really from a
debt recovery company... Getty has turned over the
account to a collection agency.

Personally, I'd ignore this too. I think this is a scam
through which Getty Images makes a good deal of
its income, by intimidating and harrassing people.

They do not use the standard methods of contact
when an image they have license to is found on a site,
they move right into the demand for payment, and offer
no options. Most people who end up with these images on
their sites are not consciously infringing, and for that
reason deserve the benefit of the doubt.

One thing it DOES do, is bring home the idea that if
you are going to put other peoples images on your sites,
don't depend on Google Image Search for content.

I recommend istockphoto.com for excellent, professionally
photographed stock photography at reasonable prices.

- Puamana

[red]

Getty Images is HUGE...and this letter from the solicitor (if it's on the up and up) will not go away. It will haunt you until you take steps to correct it.
Professional photographers want to be represented on Getty and pay a premium for their work to be on the site. In fact Getty is very picky about the images they will accept. It's not easy for a pro photographer to "get in" with them.
I know because I live with a proessional photographer and have heard the name over and over again.

Users pay much more for these images than they would from most sources as Getty is considered one of the best in the industry.

My product images can all be found on Google Images too. I ofter send out cease and desist letters to people that steal them because I paid for a professional photographer to shoot the images.

Wige, be careful. I hope for your sake that this can be dealt with short of a lawsuit.

Good luck to you!

[Orion]

Simply responding to the original invoice, saying that the images that were used on the site were used in error and you were unaware of any copyrights assigned to those images. They have been removed, and thank you for bringing this to our attention.

That simple letter to the first invoice from them is all that is required in most cases to cover your butt.

You definitely need to respond to them each time that they contact you. With the second contact simply take another screenshot and send that to them, showing that those images are not on the site and were not purchased from Getti so were removed as soon as you were aware there was copyrights to the images.

The part that really sucks with these things is that if they actually file suit against your client and they don't show up physically in court (depending on the court it's filed in they must appear in person, we've used this before going after clients in the past) and if they don't then Getti wins automatically by default. Some courts will allow your client to hire a lawyer to represent them by proxy, but most companies will file in a juristiction that requires the named defendant to appear in person. The other option is to apply to the court for a change of venue to your client's benefit...

Having said all that... SPEAK with a LAWYER if they actually file or don't drop the case.

This should have been dealt with at the point of the initial invoice though. Once it's the hands of a collection agency then you have to deal with both Getti and the collection agency.

Good luck!

[halfmexi]

You should always make sure when you do a job that the images the client gives you are theirs or they have the permission of the photographer to use them.

I myself have had many of my images stolen and used on other websites. I personally track big offenders in my log files and request that they remove my photos or graphics within 48 hours or my next move is to their ISP.

I have only had to go the ISP route a couple of times fortunately - a headache for me... now I try to keep most of my image galleries in Flash to protect them from the internet thieves.

Yes, the internet is free - but my work is not!

BIL

[DrTandem1]

Firstly, don't use copyrighted material without the authorization. Now, once someone has decided that you are infringing on their copyright, it is incumbent upon them to notify you. You do not simply owe them money. However, if your use of their copyrighted material has somehow cost them in the way of lost business or other expenses, they may sue you.

If you happen to be a client of theirs, that could be a different story. If you have entered into an agreement (contract) and you violate that agreement, they may bill you per the contract.

My advice is not use images without the proper authorization. If you are caught, I would further advise you to remove the image immediately to mitigate any damages. Then I would wait for them to start legal action. Your defense, if it came to that, would be ignorance/stupidity and the fact that once they advised you of the infringement, you complied by removing the image.
__________________

[businessdata]

seen it all before a number of times with getty

others will no doubt disagree with my advice, but i have been there (by mistake - a designer I used pinched one off their site once) and I have also talked to others in the same boat.

SO, my advice is:

1) never ever use their images without permission, and as their prices for web use are monstrous i.e. $600 or more for 6 months use, I doubt you would want to anyhow. Check through all your sites now and immediately remove any getty images.

2) just admit you made a mistake if it was you or your business that put the images onto your client's website, then you should tell your client not to worry, you will indemnify them for any charges / legal restitution or costs AS YOU SHOULD

3) here's the good bit, don't listen to the holier than thou righteous ones, just SIT TIGHT. Getty are unbelievable the way they get super heavy. Don't bother wasting money on expensive IP lawyers until you have to, i.e. IF THE SH&* HITS THE FAN and the summons arrives. WHICH IT PROBABLY WON'T. But in that scenario your lawyer will argue that the extortionate 3 or 4 x the normal getty price that your client has been charged is UNREASONABLE. A lower settlement will probably be levelled, especially if you can show you removed the offending images as soon as you were notified. But you may get whacked with their legal expenses. However, if this lower setlement gets awarded by the courts getty will be sorely pi**ed off, as a precedent will be set that will make it harder for them to make this kind of approach to the next dumwad who uses their images in breach of copyright. MY BET IS THAT FOR THAT REASON THEY WON'T TAKE IT THAT FAR.

your call dude

[DrTandem1]

So, it appears that Getty isn't making its business licensing images. It seems that they are hoping you'll use one and then make money via extortion and litigation threats. I think another legal defense that would negate their outrageous demands for fees is to discover what, if anything, they have charged Google for displaying the images.

While Google notes that images may be copyrighted, it also offers the owners the opportunity to have them removed. So, since the very images they are trying to claim as being infringed are most likely still on Google. I could just see a defense lawyer bringing in a wireless laptop into the courtroom and show that Google is still using the image. Getty would then have a nearly impossible time claiming damages from your use. After all, let's compare your site's traffic (no offense) to Google's.

I of course would be counter-suing for frivolous litigation at the same time.

I doubt that any of their "cases" ever land in court. If Google is causing that much of a problem for their "business," then Getty images is obliged (legally) to mitigate their damages when first discovered. Since it appears that you are in a long line of offenders, they have little legal ground to claim damages.

Other lawyers use this same scam with things such as access laws for the disabled. They will look for a business that has some minor ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act, the UK has their own version) "violation" such as a counter being 41" high rather than 40" high and sue. It costs more for the "violator" to defend rather than settle. There is no "victim," just a lawyer suing, by the way.

Fortunately, many courts in the states and counties in the US are taking a dim view of this extortion and misuse of the ADA. Lawyers are being disbarred in California for such tactics.

[ACross]

I have got to weigh in on this one! I'm a photographer...

I sell my photography on my own website. To help promote the site, I put up a number of my photos as free computer desktop wallpaper. I have a posted license agreement for the free wallpapers that is very specific about what the images can and cannot be used for.

I recently found two sites that were using images that were derivatives of some of the roses wallpapers I put up on my site.

I contacted both sites. I was polite, I let them know I assumed they were unaware they were infringing on my copyright. I asked that either they pay for the usage or take the images down.

The response from the first site arrived early the following business day. They were equally polite, and apologized. They also had already gotten their webmaster to remove the images. I believe this company was the victim of an unethical, unscrupulous designer/company.

The second site was a lot slower in their response. They said "To the best of our knowledge, all of the images we are using have come from public sites, so if we have gotten any of your images, we have gotten them second hand through another website without any knowledge your copyright restrictions or where the photo originally came from. Please feel certain that we have not downloaded and cropped out any of your photos ourselves directly." Then they follow with "We would be glad to remove those images and replace those with new ones if we need to" in spite of the fact I had made it clear they would have to either take down the images or pay for them. This puts me in the role of bad guy as I now have to write back and say "Yes, you need to take them down if you are unwilling to pay for the license."

Most of what I'm hearing in this thread is what to do when you get caught, with a few dissenting voices saying you shouldn't do it in the first place. So I want to put in my two cents worth:

My photography is my product. If your use of my image(s) is in violation of the appropriate licensing agreement, you are stealing my product. If you steal my product, you are a thief.

Harsh words, I know. But they need to be said.

The internet is freely accessible, but just because you can see an image, or read the text, doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. In fact, all of the content you can access online is copyrighted, whether or not there is a copyright notice.

Image, text or source code, if it doesn't specifically say it is in the public domain, or covered by one of several public licenses (GNU General Public License, for example,) then using it anyway constitutes stealing.

If you caught people shoplifting your products from your physical store, would you be so gracious as to offer them the opportunity to give back or pay for what they stole with no further legal action? Or would you have them arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

Yet you don't think twice about coming into my "store" and "shoplifting" my product.

You don't think twice about it, because you don't think of it as stealing. Well, it is. And it's long past time the entire internet community recognizes that fact.

With that said, I also don't necessarily agree with the draconian tactics used by Getty Images.

However, if you take the extra steps required to insure that all the content you use is legally obtained, you should never find yourself in this kind of predicament.

And if your client isn't willing to purchase the proper licensing for the content, you're probably better off in the long run without them for a client.

Good luck. I truly hope this gets resolved with a minimum of "blood loss".

-ACross

[HalBaumbach]

I have a lot of photos on my web sites and also spent a lot of time drawing a map. Every once is a while I find my photos and the map on other web pages. I never try to come down hard on them for a couple of reasons. First I am not in the photo business. And, second, I don't actually know where they got the photos from. So many people have used my photos without asking my permission that they may have taken the photo from someone else's web page. They may have even received permission from the owner of that web site to use my photo.

So how does Getty Images know that a particular person actually got the photo from them? With their photos on Google Images, like hundreds of mine are, they could have got them from someone four or five generations down the line and most of them may not of know where the original photo came from.

How can I prove the person actually took the photos from my web site when so many people are using my photos?

I don't think Getty Images can prove that you actually took the photo from them either, and they would probably have trouble collecting their ridiculous fees in court. That is one of the main points, their fees are outrageous which makes it look like extortion.

Since you stopped using the photos immediately after they notified you, you did the right thing, and that should be the most that they can demand of you.

I think that Getty Images' demanding payment, with no other way to satisfy them, for the use of photos looks too much like extortion to me. If Google were notified that Getty Images is using those tactics, they may want to remove all of their photos. Google probably wouldn't want to get in the middle of problems like Getty Images is creating.

[DrTandem1]

Receiving stolen property is still a crime. Again, if you just don't have a clue to the source of the images you are using, don't use them. It really isn't that difficult to pick up a digital camera and take a picture. Most of the images that are found on image sites are so staged they make your site look just as phony or at the very best, generic.

[ACross]

Originally Posted by HalBaumbach

I have a lot of photos on my web sites and also spent a lot of time drawing a map. Every once is a while I find my photos and the map on other web pages. I never try to come down hard on them for a couple of reasons. First I am not in the photo business. And, second, I don't actually know where they got the photos from. So many people have used my photos without asking my permission that they may have taken the photo from someone else's web page. They may have even received permission from the owner of that web site to use my photo.

So how does Getty Images know that a particular person actually got the photo from them? With their photos on Google Images, like hundreds of mine are, they could have got them from someone four or five generations down the line and most of them may not of know where the original photo came from.

How can I prove the person actually took the photos from my web site when so many people are using my photos?

I don't think Getty Images can prove that you actually took the photo from them either, and they would probably have trouble collecting their ridiculous fees in court. That is one of the main points, their fees are outrageous which makes it look like extortion.

Since you stopped using the photos immediately after they notified you, you did the right thing, and that should be the most that they can demand of you.

I think that Getty Images' demanding payment, with no other way to satisfy them, for the use of photos looks too much like extortion to me. If Google were notified that Getty Images is using those tactics, they may want to remove all of their photos. Google probably wouldn't want to get in the middle of problems like Getty Images is creating.

First, Getty Images undoubtedly has an embedded digital watermark in all their images. I know I do, and I'm just a one man operation (so to speak).

There are programs and plug-ins designed to read these digital watermarks. If you make your living using other people's photography, you owe it to your clients to be able to read these digital watermarks and make sure that every image they are asking you to use is obtained legally.

Second, the only one who "owns" the image is the copyright holder, usually the photographer. When you "purchase" an image from a stock photography supplier you are actually licensing the use of the image. It is very much like a software program: You may purchase a copy of Windows Vista, but you don't own the program and you can't legally make copies and distribute it, for fun or profit. And I bet, if someone offered you a pirated copy of Windows, you'd know it wasn't a legal copy, regardless of whether you accepted the disk or not.

So it doesn't matter how many "generations down the line", the image is still owned by the copyright holder and anyone using it without paying the fees is using pirated product.

On the other hand, if the use of the image was paid for by the user, s/he could produce the invoice showing just who they paid. Many royalty free images are purchased by designers and used in more than one client project. If the invoice proves that the derivative work is legitimate and covered under the original license the designer obtained, the copyright holder would abide by the terms of that license.

As for "extortion"... I don't necessarily agree with Getty Images' tactics. However, I'm sure their lawyers have seen to it that the information is posted on the Getty Images website.

As for your own photos and map, you are not required to enforce your copyrights. However, regardless of how or where these other sites obtained them, the images are still yours and you have certain rights. Seems to me, you should at least insist on a one-way incoming link to the site where the original image resides. Couldn't you use the additional traffic? Maybe even a boost to your position in the search engine results pages? After all, these sites are profiting (one way or another) off of your intellectual property.

-ACross

[magnets]

Originally Posted by ACross

The internet is freely accessible, but just because you can see an image, or read the text, doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. In fact, all of the content you can access online is copyrighted, whether or not there is a copyright notice.

Image, text or source code, if it doesn't specifically say it is in the public domain, or covered by one of several public licenses (GNU General Public License, for example,) then using it anyway constitutes stealing.

Interesting! I always wondered what Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, other search engines and thousands of comparative websites were doing when they indexed information from copyrighted websites. Now we know. It is called stealing according to Ms. Cross.

Also, many websites labeled as "Copyrighted" also contain '<meta name="robots" content="index,follow">' in their source code. So, it seems to be a definitive case that "indexing" allows (even requests) some use of copyrighted material.

Eliminating free search engines would be a loss to the world. However, it would be absolutely fantastic if the search engines would be shut down. The number of small computer businesses would explode and salaries would go back up to a reasonable level since we would once again be competing in local, regional or national rather than cut-throat worldwide markets.

However, I do not think that will happen.

There are specific rules and procedures to follow. At a certain point it becomes stealing. If you do not want Google, and any other company, to index your information you can keep it offline.

Or, my preference, you can shut down Google and company. If you choose the latter, please let the rest of us know here in this public forum so we can call our brokers. You wouldn't want to be the next Martha Stewart.

[danners]

Client had same over a year ago and responded with a registered letter to the effect:

"We have received an invoice for £XXXX for image
reproduction - after taking professional advice we strongly dispute
this invoice for the following reasons:

1. The images mentioned are not being displayed on our current website [they were removed prior to receiving letter]

2. We have not received any communication from you regarding this
matter other than your invoice, which is against the DMCA (DMCA 1998
Section 512).

3. We have no idea where they came from (a website designer many
years ago used them) and were unaware they were not free to use [important bit!]

4. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. forty-eight) states:
"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."

5. Finally:

"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."

We therefore fail to acknowledge your letter or the invoice as legal
or lawful [important bit!]"

notes in [] have been added just now

long thread on it here
WARNING: Getty Images Cracking Down! - SitePoint Forums
you have to register to read it i think

[jannmirch]

I have also read about designers using images that appear on Getty AND OTHER SITES. They licensed the images from other sites and were still contacted by Getty.

ALWAYS keep your licensing info so you can prove you have a legit reason for having the images.

In this case it's too late, but I have heard of many cases where you show Getty you have removed the images from your site they will back off.

[wige]

Originally Posted by red

Wige, be careful. I hope for your sake that this can be dealt with short of a lawsuit.

What'd I do? I'm a hacker, not a thief! Trust me, when they come for me, it won't be lawyers they send...

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

So, it appears that Getty isn't making its business licensing images. It seems that they are hoping you'll use one and then make money via extortion and litigation threats. I think another legal defense that would negate their outrageous demands for fees is to discover what, if anything, they have charged Google for displaying the images...

I am not sure how the Google argument would play out in this case. In the US, Google's image indexing is generally thought to fall under fair use: all images are stored and redisplayed in a reduced form (not full size) and are presented for representative purposes only, with an attribution link to the original source of the image. The only time Google has really gotten in trouble for trademark infringement is when publishers filed a claim that substantive portions of work were being served to users (instead of representations of the work, full portions of the work) which violated the copyright. There is a fine line between what is fair use and what is infringement (and I don't think in this case you have a leg to stand on claiming fair use...) but Google has a big enough legal department that they would probably love the challenge, just to establish the case law.

Originally Posted by HalBaumbach

I have a lot of photos on my web sites and also spent a lot of time drawing a map. Every once is a while I find my photos and the map on other web pages. I never try to come down hard on them for a couple of reasons. First I am not in the photo business. And, second, I don't actually know where they got the photos from. So many people have used my photos without asking my permission that they may have taken the photo from someone else's web page. They may have even received permission from the owner of that web site to use my photo.

Is it possible with this type of approach you could actually do more harm? By not demanding the removal of the images wherever you find them, could you endanger your ability to enforce your copyright in the future?

[inertia]

Well! There seams to be a big difference in opinion here! Having read the post by Danners i think that i agree with the people that are criticising Getty for their overhand (illegal) tactics. There are various aspects of their procedure which validate their claim for payment. 1. They charge a HUGE amount for these images which is clearly way out of sync with the rest of the industry and looks more like extortion. 2. They contradict various legislation, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (US) and The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (UK).

I understand peoples criticism of my company using copyrighted images (with or without knowledge of this). We no longer use Google Images for images and use Fotolia (whose prices are so far below Getty it is unreal!). As for "using Google Images is a form of shop lifting". If Getty doesn't want people to "steal" their images then why let Google Images index them? Its looks as though they dangle a carrot in front of you and then charge when you bite!

[wige]

Originally Posted by inertia

If Getty doesn't want people to "steal" their images then why let Google Images index them? Its looks as though they dangle a carrot in front of you and then charge when you bite!

Wow. Just, wow. I am going to try to be polite... I really will...

Are you serious? Do you actually think that the majority of people who search for images on Google are doing so to find pictures to "borrow"? Thats like saying, "But your honor, if they didn't want me to steal the car, the dealership shouldn't have advertised it in the paper! It's entrapment I tell you!"

Yes, I agree first sending a bill is wrong, and possibly illegal - their first communication should have been a cease and desist or a DMCA complaint, but come on. You have to be joking.

[meinking22]

My company has also encountered an issue with Getty Images in the past and just recently. The current volley of Getty assertions leans on some recent catalogues of images Getty purchased just in the last couple years. Since we have been in business for almost a decade, and because we purchased the licenses for the images through the company whose catalogue Getty bought, we had to dig through our own image catalogues to turn up the agreements with the previous image provider.

We were able to do the above for most of the images. Unfortunately, two of them slipped through the cracks (a lazy designer who no longer works with us failed to catalogue the image source) so we consulted our lawyer. Our lawyer stated that since there were only two images in question, it wouldn't make financial sense to take Getty to task over their right to enforce copyright. So we paid the licensing fee for two images.

As we have had to deal with Getty previously, we had already taken the step to hire a professional photographer to shoot our own library of images to use with the websites we create to avoid the licensing matter altogether. We have been using that library as a design resource for the past 3 years.

My recommendations to anyone concerned about complying with image copyright law is to a) use licensed images on professional products you create (don't risk leaving your client vulnerable) b) be sure to keep a license catalogue of your image sources in case Getty comes a knocking (this step saved us thousands of dollars) c) if you have the resources, just hire a pro to get you the images you need (expensive, but now those images are yours and you can enforce YOUR copyright whenever someone uses those images without permission or license).

Steve

[ACross]

Originally Posted by meinking22

My recommendations to anyone concerned about complying with image copyright law is to a) use licensed images on professional products you create (don't risk leaving your client vulnerable) b) be sure to keep a license catalogue of your image sources in case Getty comes a knocking (this step saved us thousands of dollars) c) if you have the resources, just hire a pro to get you the images you need (expensive, but now those images are yours and you can enforce YOUR copyright whenever someone uses those images without permission or license).

Good Advice.

One caveat, though. Hiring a photographer does not automatically give you the copyright.

Unless the photographer is your employee, the copyright remains with the photographer EXCEPT when there is a written agreement that gives you the copyright.

So, if you want the copyright, be sure to get it in writing!

-ACross

[Aequus]

Hello All.

Something to bear in mind here, is that there 4 main points.

1- Getty Images, as well as IStockphoto are either owned or affiliated with a parent company, affiliated with Microsoft (Read - deep pockets and .. ooooh we love that DRM. Having said that, Microsoft is a great company with some amazing people - some of them get a little overzealous I think though.)
2-The DMCA states that if you has reasonable belief that the images were royalty free.. ie: stockxchg.hu, or similar site, then the copyright holder should contact you to remove the images, prior to making demands.
3-It is unlawful to send threatening letters (At least in the US), referring to unconfirmed issues with the purpose of extorting moneys and/or property outside of a lawful judgement.
4-It is considered a violation of computer security for any person or program (ie. PicScout's bots) to access servers and systems including ignoring and circumventing robots rules designed to prevent indexing of non public spaces. Their bots apparently have gone into some secure areas as well. Read up on anti-hacking laws.

Caveat: I am neither an attorney, barrister, solicitor, or member of any legal council. I do not recommend that you or anyone else state in fact laws that may be unconfirmed or in the process of being changed.

Recommendation: I do recommend that since these copyrights tend to be held in the US, you contact the EFF.org , or contact WIPO in Switzerland. Since the matter is now based with a solicitor in th U.K. I do recommend that you inform them of all the details (Complete disclosure), including the removal of the images as soon as you were notified (per. DMCA) Lastly, do yourself a favour, and hire your own solicitor, even to keep around for future advice. The legal profession is a ever changing and complicated one, let them deal with it.

Best of Luck,
Aequus

[jmdirc]

I'm coming in late to your discussion; but, from the sounds of it someone didn't check copyrights before grabbing an image off the internet. I'm sure you already know that just because something is there, doesn't mean it is free for the taking. And, because it is there, doesn't mean their baiting you.

Many times, when images are offered up for free there are limitations in the copyright; in the fine print. If you do not have a purchase and copyright agreement, you have no foot to stand on if it makes it to court. You and your client can be sued and damages can far exceed what they are asking for now.

Since they followed up with at least one letter, you might have your attorney contact them asking for proof of copyright. That's another thing great about the court system - they have to prove copyright as well. If they are scamming, they will back off. If their not scamming, you might consider settling out of court, usually at a lower cost. Still, you do need to get your attorney involved.

Since you removed the images, ask them for proof the images were used in the manner they said they were. If they didn't keep a copy of the web site with the images in question, they don't have proof you even used them. No court will touch it if there is no proof. Lastly; next time, get your images legally.

[adiadi]

Yes, it is unpleasant! However, surly you know images are protected with copyrights, so why being surprised when being sued?
Why not checking in advance whether the images are copywrited instead of putting the blame on Getty images or the Picscout bot?
I read, that per Picscout N­i­n­ety­ percen­t o­f the i­ma­ges­ they fi­n­d­ ha­v­e been­ s­to­len­.
i.e is be­i­ng use­d wi­t­ho­­ut­ pe­rmi­ssi­o­­n a­nd wi­t­ho­­ut­ pa­yme­nt­.
And the pl­ai­n­ truth i­s­ that a hard­ w­ork can­ go d­ow­n­ the d­rai­n­ i­f an­ i­m­age pi­rate com­es­ al­on­g an­d­ s­teal­s­ y­our image...

[inertia]

Havent worked with this company for a while now guys so dont know what happened?!

BTW... the company im with now use shutter stock.

[sammyman]

They dont have a leg to stand on see below:
We refer you to the 'On-Line Copyright Liability Limitation Act'
<H4>`Sec . 512 . Limitations on liability relating to material on -line </H4>

• `(a) LIMITATION- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, a provider shall not be liable for--

• • `(1) direct infringement, based solely on the intermediate storage and transmission of material

through a system or network controlled or operated by or for that provider, if--

• • • `(A) the transmission was initiated by another person;

• • • `(B) the storage and transmission is carried out through an automatic technological process, without any selection of that material by the provider; and

• • • `(C) no copy of the material thereby made by the provider is maintained on the provider's system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than the recipients anticipated by the person who initiated the transmission, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission;

• • `(2) monetary relief under section 504 or 505 for contributory infringement or vicarious liability , based solely on conduct described in paragraph (1); or

• • `(3) monetary relief under section 504 or 505 for contributory infringement or vicarious liability , based solely on transmitting or providing access to material over that provider's system or network, other than conduct described in paragraph (1), if the provider--

• • • `(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material is infringing or, in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; and

• • • `(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, if the provider has the right and ability to control such activity.

[thebadhackerz]

seems like a scam to me.... coz they cant send you a letter like this immediately...

they should first warn you

[Loft Conversions]

Interesting thread this one and a must read for any webmaster. I think its very easy for people to fall into the trap of searching on google for images and making the (false) assumption that its ok to use them. Just think how many people with free blogs must be using copyrighted images without permission.

I would say take this as one of lifes lessons learnt the hard way. At least you know for the future. As for Getty, the amount they are demanding sounds excessive in the extreme. I would suggest not responding at all until you have sought some legal advice.

Personally, I'm completely paranoid about infringing someones copyright - the exent that as much as possible I only use my own photos that have taken myself, or if I do use other peoples photos I ensure that they are the owners and that I have written permission (via email) to reproduce them.