Getty Images threatening letter

[allybally]

Can anyone please help? I too have received a letter from Getty Images demanding £900 + Irish VAT with the offer of a discount if settled quickly. A friend created a website for me and is adamant the image had no copyright but isn't able to prove it. The image was removed immediately; I emailed them to plead poverty and ignorance so they reduced the amount. They still want £600 plus VAT; I am a very small sole trader who can't afford this. I did make an offer of £50 which they have refused. Any suggestions as to what I should do next, the advice on previous posts suggests ignore the situation. This has already cost sleepless nights and the idea of ignoring it fills me with dread not knowing when it will come back to bite me on the bum! Some of the posts I've read are quite old, so has anyone had a satisfactory outcome with their dealings with Getty Images and does anyone have a template of a successful letter they've used that they would be prepared to let me have. Any help would really be appreciated.

[weegillis]

They are using fear tactics, and obviously they work: 1) you're sleepless and in dread 2) you've already responded with an offer.

Tactics like these do not need lawyers. The advice to ignore is not necessarily the best, but a 'wait and see' attitude right about now might help you sleep. Let them make the next move, and don't be threatened by 'letters.'

[stevecane]

I'd just take the image down and not worry about it, if they go further you can always settle out of court... It's too much hassle for them to chase you. I'd also kick my designers butt for dropping me in it!

S

[Jerin]

It is a common misconception that if an image doesnt have a copyright notice it isn't copyrighted. These days almost all nations follow the Bernie copyright convention under which a work is copyright the moment it is conceived. So by that standard clearly you are in the wrong.
But I am not sure if Getty is right in demanding money for an unconscionable mistake. But I don't think they will sue, maybe they will keep the pressure for a lil while longer and then close the matter.
Good luck!

[bob486]

I received “the letter” from Getty and here’s what I did. I looked up the US internet copyright rules at:

(I can't post the link cauz I'm a newbie.....google US gov internet copyright laws....sorry)

and click on “§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online” Go to about the 6th page of this document where it says:

(g) REPLACEMENT OF REMOVED OR DISABLED MATERIAL AND LIMITATION ON OTHER LIABILITY.—
(1) NO LIABILITY FOR TAKING DOWN GENERALLY. — Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider’s good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing

I sent this to Getty with a cover letter telling them to read the friggin law and don’t contact me again. Haven’t heard from them. DON’T FALL FOR THIS EXTORTION !!!

[weegillis]

@bob486: This looks more a 'safe harbor' clause than anything that exonerates a would be infringer. Not sure dishing out this part of the law will offer you any defense. If you are posting Getty Images (as many sports related images tend to be syndicated through them) without proper authority you are infringing, and they have a case. Your service provider is protected under the above section, but would still have with comply to any take down orders they receive.

@Jerin: That would be 'Berne Convention' not, 'Bernie.' And these days that particular convention is quite outdated. Most countries have revised their copyright laws in recent years with the advent of electronic media and 'sharing.'

[bob486]

@bob486: This looks more a 'safe harbor' clause than anything that exonerates a would be infringer. Not sure dishing out this part of the law will offer you any defense. If you are posting Getty Images (as many sports related images tend to be syndicated through them) without proper authority you are infringing, and they have a case. Your service provider protected under the above section, but would still have to comply to any take down orders they receive.

@Jerin: That would be 'Berne Convention' not, 'Bernie.' And these days that particular convention is quite outdated. Most countries have revised their copyright laws in recent years with the advent of electronic media and 'sharing.'

Well, you can say what you want.....I'm just saying that they've quit once I quoted them the law. If you want to argue this, then I guess you'd have to take me to court which is cost prohibitive for Getty as they would have to sue you and hire lawyers in YOUR state.

[weegillis]

@bob486: A little probing on this site will turn up a considerable amount of discussion on Getty Images and copyright related topics, and some of the goings on the members were experiencing at the time, no doubt. Your experience sounds not unlike many before you, but I don't recall any of them citing law to Getty Images. They know the law, and every in and out, by now. They've made a business enterprise out of protecting their image rights. One could have accomplished as much as you by sending a blank piece of paper.

[bob486]

@bob486: A little probing on this site will turn up a considerable amount of discussion on Getty Images and copyright related topics, and some of the goings on the members were experiencing at the time, no doubt. Your experience sounds not unlike many before you, but I don't recall any of them citing law to Getty Images. They know the law, and every in and out, by now. They've made a business enterprise out of protecting their image rights. One could have accomplished as much as you by sending a blank piece of paper.

They may indeed know the law, however they are counting on your ignorance of the law to intimidate you and get you to pay up. Extortion, this is, as Yoda might have said. I don't think a blank sheet of paper would have conveyed to them that you have the backbone to call their bluff.

IMHO

[masx]

I have hundreds of photos on my site. 99% of them are my own, taken by me. With a digital camera these days you can take and manipulate and upload a pic to your site in literally minutes. And you can take pictures that are exactly appropriate to what your site or article is trying to say. And you can store thousands of photos on your puter, so don't delete the ones you aren't using at the moment. It is amazing how creatively you begin thinking with an odd picture.

As far as other images, if I find and use one that I THINK might be copyright, I credit the website or photographer with the image. (just a tiny line at the bottom) There is also what is called 'fair usage' which is a grey area, and usually applies to writing. In some cases I have used a video without problems because I am using that video to illustrate a learning point, on the subject, and have had no troubles. On a few occasions I have had a note via email advising me about copyright or even just had the video disappear as unauthorized use.

In the case of digital pictures today, they all have the picture information embedded into them, which would include the camera exposure information, time and date, etc., but ALSO the photographers NAME and other info! So you really cannot get away with stealing a photo.

I am also an actor who works in commercials and photoshoots. The client pays a fortune to make a commercial or get pics for print campaign, (there may be 30 or more highly paid people on set, including ad agency people, product people, art directors, tech people etc.) and you can imagine the irritation it causes when someone just cuts and pastes a picture that they paid a lot of money to make.
Thanks hope this helps.