WARNING: Getty Images tracking unpaid image use on wesbites

[JustinP1]

Simpo Two said:

superlightr said:

Basically
Breach of copyright - remove image as soon as aware
dont pay them.

Still breach of copyright though. If I break the speed limit and then stop, I still broke it. Once an image is released onto the net, it could be anywhere.

That would be a correct simile if there was a defence in speeding law as if you were unaware you were speeding and when you found out you immediately stopped you would not be prosecuted.

So, it would still be speeding, yes, but you could escape punishment.

The same exists in copyright law.

It is basically to stop this type of extortion happening.

It is my guess that the law firm on behalf of Getty have a deal where they police for free, but they keep any 'damages' they recover. A bit like a clamping firm policing a supermarket car park. And also, like their tactics they will fire off thousands of letters a certain percentage will pay up without much fuss.

[plasticpig]

You should start posting complaints on 4Chan about it. Hopefully they will add it to their "people we don't like list" and DDOS the Getty Images websites.

[bad company]

To be fair Getty are entitled to protect thier copyright. My argument is that we obtained the image in good faith which I understand protects us in law.

Also I have asked them twice to prove ownership of the image but all they have supplied is a copy of it with their watermark.

Edited by bad company on Tuesday 5th October 15:20

[Simpo Two]

JustinP1 said:

Simpo Two said:

Still breach of copyright though. If I break the speed limit and then stop, I still broke it. Once an image is released onto the net, it could be anywhere.

That would be a correct simile if there was a defence in speeding law as if you were unaware you were speeding and when you found out you immediately stopped you would not be prosecuted.

In either case it can't be proved that you were aware or not - you'd adopt the position that suited you best. For speeding they can say 'Well you SHOULD have been aware, so tough'. Sadly copyright isn't enforced by special cameras than connect to people's bank accounts...

JustinP1 said:

It is my guess that the law firm on behalf of Getty have a deal where they police for free, but they keep any 'damages' they recover.

I'm sure Getty must grab a cut too, otherwise the only thing they'd gain is bad press.

[AndrewBab]

Are there any updates to this topic? Has anyone been taken to court for this? I have had my second letter from Getty Images giving me "one last Chance" ! I am not sure if I should reply and contest my innocence, do nothing or just pay up and avoid any more uncertainty or worry!

Any help?

Thanks

A

[StevieBee]

Some interesting discussion here:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthrea...

The first post suggests that nobody has been prosecuted although this link would suggest otherwise:

http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367


Don't know the latest but I have heard from various sources that their business has suffered as a result of the actions they have taken. It's a crowded market place and plenty of royalty free or one-of fee based resources out there now.

[Mojooo]

Much like downloading music and films - it depends on whether they can be bothered to take peopel to ocurt.

It will be much easier proving infringement as presuably they will have evidence of the picture being used on websites.

[Simpo Two]

AndrewBab said:

Are there any updates to this topic? Has anyone been taken to court for this? I have had my second letter from Getty Images giving me "one last Chance" ! I am not sure if I should reply and contest my innocence, do nothing or just pay up and avoid any more uncertainty or worry!

But can Getty PROVE it, ie are you guilty? If not then they cannot prove it and they can rattle your cage until they go blue and get bored. You can only sue and win if you have PROOF. And even then of course you can play silly buggers, as my last victims did.

[stuart-b]

Thought I would add, one of our clients had the same issue. Years ago when we built websites, we used a free image library. The rights to the image(s) were bought by Getty, who then tried to sue our client.

The client was actually a solicitor!

We ignored it, wrote back that the image had been removed, and therefore there was no consequential damages.

A few more letters came through, all ignored.

Nothing since.

[bad company]

AndrewBab said:

Are there any updates to this topic? Has anyone been taken to court for this? I have had my second letter from Getty Images giving me "one last Chance" ! I am not sure if I should reply and contest my innocence, do nothing or just pay up and avoid any more uncertainty or worry!

Any help?

ThanksA

Andrew

I had my 'one last chance' letter months ago. Nothing since.

[bad company]

It's been over 6 months now and still nothing more from Getty.

They seem to be playing a percentage game relying on some people just paying up.

[bad company]

Oddly enough I just received another letter this time from 'Atradius Collections'. They are still fishing imo and some 2 years after the event.

I do not intend replying to this one as I have said all I have to say.

Edited by bad company on Tuesday 18th September 19:32

[Frimley111R]

timskipper said:

They've been doing this for a long time.

Yep, they even chased our China office regarding images (we had paid but in the UK).

[rhinochopig]

Bump...

Our cleaner has just had this letter. He has a one-man-band cleaning business and it seems he used one of their images on his website, which he erroneously assumed was copyright free as there was no water-mark or meta data indicating as such. I know the onus is on the end user, but to give him his dues he did attempt to check. On receipt of the letter he immediately took the image down and sent a response indicating as such. Getty are still demanding over a £1000 for the use of this image.

1k for such a small business is possibly ruinous, so what is likelihood of them pursuing this through the courts? Any help gratefully received.

Thanks

Edited by rhinochopig on Tuesday 24th December 18:38

[bad company]

rhinochopig said:

Bump...

Our cleaner has just had this letter. He has a one-man-band cleaning business and it seems he used one of their images on his website which he erroneous assumed was copyright free as there was no water-mark or meta data indicating as such. I know the onus is on the end user, but to give him his dues he did attempt to check. On receipt of the letter he immediately took the image down and sent a response indicating as such. Getty are still demanding over a £1000 for the use of this image.

1k for such a small business is possibly ruinous, so what is likelihood of them pursuing this through the courts? Any help gratefully received.

Thanks

Bump indeed.

They had a go at us in 2010. Then nothing until October 2012 when we received a letter from their debt collection agency. Asked them for proof of exclusive ownership of the image and they replied saying that Getty owned the image but would not supply proof. Nothing since.

Take a look at this forum - http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-...

[rhinochopig]

bad company said:

Bump indeed.

They had a go at us in 2010. Then nothing until October 2012 when we received a letter from their debt collection agency. Asked them for proof of exclusive ownership of the image and they replied saying that Getty owned the image but would not supply proof. Nothing since.

Take a look at this forum - http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-...

Thanks. That's the stage he's at - case passed on to debt collection agency. I'll pass on the info.

[DSLiverpool]

Our blogger seems to have uploaded a Getty image and they want £1900 for it, we removed it as soon as we got the letter and I am not sure what to do next. £1900 for a picture of a baby crying seems a bit high - any pointers?

[Wacky Racer]

DSLiverpool said:

Our blogger seems to have uploaded a Getty image and they want £1900 for it, we removed it as soon as we got the letter and I am not sure what to do next. £1900 for a picture of a baby crying seems a bit high - any pointers?

Ignore it, they are trying it on.

Found this btw,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26463...

[JustinP1]

DSLiverpool said:

Our blogger seems to have uploaded a Getty image and they want £1900 for it, we removed it as soon as we got the letter and I am not sure what to do next. £1900 for a picture of a baby crying seems a bit high - any pointers?

Replace it with a picture of you crying.

[bad company]

We had this in 2010. We had a website designed for us complete with several photos. Getty wrote to us in the October asking us to pay for one of the photos. We wrote back asking for proof of exclusive ownership which they did not do so we didn't pay.

We heard nothing more until 2012 when a debt recovery agency Atradius starting chasing for the money.. We once again requested proof of exclusive ownership, they responded with more threats but no proof of ownership.

We did not respond further and have heard nothing more. My advice now would be not to respond or enter into any correspondence with them.

Hope this helps.

Edited by bad company on Tuesday 2nd June 20:53

Edited by bad company on Tuesday 2nd June 21:26