WARNING: Getty Images tracking unpaid image use on wesbites
Discussion
Had a couple of incidents recently where Getty Images have contacted and said that we have used their images on websites we’ve done for clients but have not paid them their fee. In all these cases, we’ve been able to prove that we did.
Mentioned this to a client who had his site done by a one-man-band a fair few years back. He had the same thing. His web designer (who apparently has since disappeared off the face of the earth!) used three images that he never paid for and Getty are looking to charge our client over £4,000 !!!! Legally, the responsibility lies with the end user and it’s the end user that is then responsible for getting the money from the designer.
Seems Getty are most probably doing some kind of pixel search – if such a thing is possible – so worth checking sites and images chaps.
Even if an initial fee had been paid, the image hire agreements are usually time limited so unless a renewal has been paid, you’d still be liable.
Mentioned this to a client who had his site done by a one-man-band a fair few years back. He had the same thing. His web designer (who apparently has since disappeared off the face of the earth!) used three images that he never paid for and Getty are looking to charge our client over £4,000 !!!! Legally, the responsibility lies with the end user and it’s the end user that is then responsible for getting the money from the designer.
Seems Getty are most probably doing some kind of pixel search – if such a thing is possible – so worth checking sites and images chaps.
Even if an initial fee had been paid, the image hire agreements are usually time limited so unless a renewal has been paid, you’d still be liable.
StevieBee said:
Had a couple of incidents recently where Getty Images have contacted and said that we have used their images on websites we’ve done for clients but have not paid them their fee. In all these cases, we’ve been able to prove that we did.
Fair enough that they are are chasing non-payers but it sounds as though they are shooting first and then asking afterwards for those who have played by the rules. Cheaper to get the users to prove they've paid than bother to check their own records by the sound of it. Shades of TV licensing.
Dogwatch said:
Fair enough that they are are chasing non-payers but it sounds as though they are shooting first and then asking afterwards for those who have played by the rules. Cheaper to get the users to prove they've paid than bother to check their own records by the sound of it.
Possibly although the sites that their queries relates to with us were developed by one of our group companies that has since been subsumed in to the wider group. I can see why they may have thought the fees weren't paid as they were looking for a name of a company that doesn't exist but a website containing the images that tracks to us.www.tineye.com is useful, you can feed it an image and it tells you where it is used on the web. We use it to check if there are a lot of people using an image, particularly if anyone we know uses it, before we buy.
I've had some recent experience with this and looking into it in further detail it appears as though it is a big SCAM.
If you look at the paper work and have it read over by a legal specialist it was found that nothing quite added up. Yes obviously using images which havent been paid for is against the law but at the same time the first instance should be a warning to get them removed within 'X' days before legal action is taken.
There is a whole whirl wind of information on 'Getty' getting £1000's out of people and if you do the maths it does appear to be a scam.
e.g
Getty send 100 letters out demanding sums of £1000-10,000+ to 250 with websites say - 10% of those pay up or even 5% think about how much they're making. Now do that country wide and see how much money they make!
I'll drop back with some links to the SCAM info i found - my personal experience showed a letter from Getty around January 2010 but the print screens of the website they had taken were back in June 2008 - surely it doesn't take someone 2 or so years to compile a generic letter?
If you look at the paper work and have it read over by a legal specialist it was found that nothing quite added up. Yes obviously using images which havent been paid for is against the law but at the same time the first instance should be a warning to get them removed within 'X' days before legal action is taken.
There is a whole whirl wind of information on 'Getty' getting £1000's out of people and if you do the maths it does appear to be a scam.
e.g
Getty send 100 letters out demanding sums of £1000-10,000+ to 250 with websites say - 10% of those pay up or even 5% think about how much they're making. Now do that country wide and see how much money they make!
I'll drop back with some links to the SCAM info i found - my personal experience showed a letter from Getty around January 2010 but the print screens of the website they had taken were back in June 2008 - surely it doesn't take someone 2 or so years to compile a generic letter?
JC2012 said:
I've had some recent experience with this and looking into it in further detail it appears as though it is a big SCAM.
If you look at the paper work and have it read over by a legal specialist it was found that nothing quite added up. Yes obviously using images which havent been paid for is against the law but at the same time the first instance should be a warning to get them removed within 'X' days before legal action is taken.
There is a whole whirl wind of information on 'Getty' getting £1000's out of people and if you do the maths it does appear to be a scam.
e.g
Getty send 100 letters out demanding sums of £1000-10,000+ to 250 with websites say - 10% of those pay up or even 5% think about how much they're making. Now do that country wide and see how much money they make!
I'll drop back with some links to the SCAM info i found - my personal experience showed a letter from Getty around January 2010 but the print screens of the website they had taken were back in June 2008 - surely it doesn't take someone 2 or so years to compile a generic letter?
it is a big scam.If you look at the paper work and have it read over by a legal specialist it was found that nothing quite added up. Yes obviously using images which havent been paid for is against the law but at the same time the first instance should be a warning to get them removed within 'X' days before legal action is taken.
There is a whole whirl wind of information on 'Getty' getting £1000's out of people and if you do the maths it does appear to be a scam.
e.g
Getty send 100 letters out demanding sums of £1000-10,000+ to 250 with websites say - 10% of those pay up or even 5% think about how much they're making. Now do that country wide and see how much money they make!
I'll drop back with some links to the SCAM info i found - my personal experience showed a letter from Getty around January 2010 but the print screens of the website they had taken were back in June 2008 - surely it doesn't take someone 2 or so years to compile a generic letter?
FSB has a massive topic on it.
Basically
Breach of copyright - remove image as soon as aware
dont pay them.
Can anyone point me in the direction of what the rules are re: picture copyright. For example, could I take an image off the net (first one that comes up in google images) and then manipulate it, i.e. change to B&W or watermark it, collage it etc. without having to pay royalties?
The reason I ask is I toyed with putting up a WS for my company, but most of my clients are Defence or Nuclear so finding (c) free pictures that I could use to illustrate past projects becomes difficult - can't use mine as I'm not allowed to take them, which leaves me with officially sanctioned pictures which are obviously (c).
The reason I ask is I toyed with putting up a WS for my company, but most of my clients are Defence or Nuclear so finding (c) free pictures that I could use to illustrate past projects becomes difficult - can't use mine as I'm not allowed to take them, which leaves me with officially sanctioned pictures which are obviously (c).
Scraggles said:
how about contacting the copyright owner and asking them ?
Admittedly I haven't and it's laziness on my part. BUT, having worked for and in some of the organisations, the thought of having to try and find the right person and then get permission makes me feel depressed - such a search would truly be like looking for a needle in a haystack, but with the similar speed of a tectonic plate. I have been watching this thread and I remember this popping up about 3 or 4 years ago and helped a couple of posters.
If I remember rightly, the claims were for the unauthorised use of photos and a bill for X hundred pounds for each one.
There are two issues here:
Firstly, they may be on correct legal grounding, however the demand for X hundred pounds is unenforceable unless they want to take you to court. If they *do* take you to court they will have to justify why they believe they have suffered this damage, and secondly prove the amount and get a court to agree.
Even should they do this on the small claims track, all you would be liable for is the amount plus the court fee of £100 or so as the small claims track prevents either side adding solicitor's costs to the bill.
So, would it be in their interests to spend maybe 5 or 10 hours preparing a case and then sending a solicitor to court for the day for a few hundred quid? Not really. Then look at the wider issue: that is, in the time they have spent doing that they could have fired off 100 more letters to other people of which a dozen will gladly pay up without much hassle.
Secondly, I seem to remember that these letters were coming from a solicitors X Ltd based in Merseyside. It would be a truism that being in Warrington just outside the border of the area, I can say that over the last decade, I would say that about half of all the business I have done west of me the other party tried to screw me over, scam me, or they were just dodgy.
If I were a multinational corporation and needed legal representation, without offence to those living west of me, Merseyside would not be my first port of call. As such, and due to a couple of other things, I thought those previous letters to be a scam.
So, all in all, my advice is to do nothing. Nothing at all. It is 50/50 whether it is real or not, but in both cases it is highly unlikely they are going to fire off court papers to someone they do not even know is still trading. You probably won't even get a 'Final Warning' for legal action, they will just go onto the next guy.
That said, also take the offending photos down...
If I remember rightly, the claims were for the unauthorised use of photos and a bill for X hundred pounds for each one.
There are two issues here:
Firstly, they may be on correct legal grounding, however the demand for X hundred pounds is unenforceable unless they want to take you to court. If they *do* take you to court they will have to justify why they believe they have suffered this damage, and secondly prove the amount and get a court to agree.
Even should they do this on the small claims track, all you would be liable for is the amount plus the court fee of £100 or so as the small claims track prevents either side adding solicitor's costs to the bill.
So, would it be in their interests to spend maybe 5 or 10 hours preparing a case and then sending a solicitor to court for the day for a few hundred quid? Not really. Then look at the wider issue: that is, in the time they have spent doing that they could have fired off 100 more letters to other people of which a dozen will gladly pay up without much hassle.
Secondly, I seem to remember that these letters were coming from a solicitors X Ltd based in Merseyside. It would be a truism that being in Warrington just outside the border of the area, I can say that over the last decade, I would say that about half of all the business I have done west of me the other party tried to screw me over, scam me, or they were just dodgy.
If I were a multinational corporation and needed legal representation, without offence to those living west of me, Merseyside would not be my first port of call. As such, and due to a couple of other things, I thought those previous letters to be a scam.
So, all in all, my advice is to do nothing. Nothing at all. It is 50/50 whether it is real or not, but in both cases it is highly unlikely they are going to fire off court papers to someone they do not even know is still trading. You probably won't even get a 'Final Warning' for legal action, they will just go onto the next guy.
That said, also take the offending photos down...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
link to the topic dicussed some years ago.
As an update, Ive heard nothing more.
link to the topic dicussed some years ago.
As an update, Ive heard nothing more.
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 27th April 09:58
I just found this thread. I got the 'Getty letter' having used an image supplied by our web site developers but apparently owned by Getty. I sent them this:-
Dear Sirs
We confirm that the photographic images referred to in your above reference (“the image”) has been used on our website. You have not provided evidence of your copyright in the image or told us when you acquired an exclusive license. We believe that image previously available royalty free.
We do not admit liability, although we have arranged for the image to be removed from our web site. The image was provided to us by a 3rd party who assure us that they acquired it legally.
The image was therefore provided to us in circumstances where we did not know, and had no reason to believe that copyright subsisted or was asserted by Getty. The image provided to us did not contain the Getty logo or any other source information. There is certainly no flagrancy as to our 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 license agreement described as a demand for payment is a claim for damages and as such would, in our opinion, fail.
We would also point out that at no time have you issued a takedown notice. Why not?
We believe that you therefore have no grounds for claiming entitlement to payment whatsoever. On a without prejudice bases we may be willing to pay for normal use of the image at the price we could previously have purchased same. Under these circumstances we would expect to be able to use the image again in the future.
Should your company commence proceedings on the grounds outlined in your 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, we will remove “the image”. This action is being taken despite our not being provided with any evidence of ownership or exclusive license by you.
Getty came back saying they did not agree with our interpretation then again saying the matter has been escalated to their 'legal team'.
Dear Sirs
We confirm that the photographic images referred to in your above reference (“the image”) has been used on our website. You have not provided evidence of your copyright in the image or told us when you acquired an exclusive license. We believe that image previously available royalty free.
We do not admit liability, although we have arranged for the image to be removed from our web site. The image was provided to us by a 3rd party who assure us that they acquired it legally.
The image was therefore provided to us in circumstances where we did not know, and had no reason to believe that copyright subsisted or was asserted by Getty. The image provided to us did not contain the Getty logo or any other source information. There is certainly no flagrancy as to our 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 license agreement described as a demand for payment is a claim for damages and as such would, in our opinion, fail.
We would also point out that at no time have you issued a takedown notice. Why not?
We believe that you therefore have no grounds for claiming entitlement to payment whatsoever. On a without prejudice bases we may be willing to pay for normal use of the image at the price we could previously have purchased same. Under these circumstances we would expect to be able to use the image again in the future.
Should your company commence proceedings on the grounds outlined in your 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, we will remove “the image”. This action is being taken despite our not being provided with any evidence of ownership or exclusive license by you.
Getty came back saying they did not agree with our interpretation then again saying the matter has been escalated to their 'legal team'.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff