Getty Images demanding $1000 for image not on the live site

[vgVlad]

Hello,
My uncle is in the process of creating his new site. The website is not live but on the live URL. on the website you can see a lot of the test records.
which distinctly say test.

Getty Images send us a letter demanding $1000 for the small image(183X153) we use temporary in the design of the website.
After my call with Chloe Surdyk, and explaining to her our situation, she promised to talk to here manager.
Which she did, and price was reduced to $650.00.

I don't think it far. the site not live. We did not make a dime from using this image. And just very little amount of people did see it.
What should we do?

[rublev]

Of course she spoke with her manager (ten thousand winks).
But seriously, my guess is that the process is almost fully automated so they don't really distinguish between live or not live sites. As long as match is made by scanpix The Letter is going out.
Which makes an interesting situation. In case i'm involved in the website targeted by Getty was moved (minus images in question) to a new hosting provider. But i know for a fact that the old site with images in question is still sits on the server of an old hosting provider (only they can completely remove it). So, i guess, lucky Getty now they can extort again for the same images.

[Oscar Michelen]

Getty is even sending out letters for sites that are only on the Wayback Machine (archives.org) For purposes of copyright law you should be aware that it would not matter if the site was live or not,it would still be an infringement. You don't need to make any money off the "work" to infringe on  a copyright. The main issue is that it is worth closer to $6.50 than $650.

[vgVlad]

So, what should I do?

[rublev]

vgVlad, did you check this? http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,287

[vgVlad]

Can i ask another question. If website own by incorporation, and company has no $. can they hold owner of company responsible?

[Oscar Michelen]

Generally no, that's why one incorporates in the first place. However, if the person who actually downloaded the image and placed it on the website may be personally liable as well in some circumstances, but it would be impossible to prove who did that so I would not worry about it.

[vgVlad]

I  talk to them again, and offer $200, they refuse, but offer to reduce price to $500.

so should I hire a lawyer or i just ignore it? because it a single image

[Oscar Michelen]

I can't advise you to ignore it even though it is highly unlikely that they will sue you. I don't believe Getty will sue over one image and many people with one image have decided to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.  Others have opted for the letter from this site so that they have some peace of mind and Getty cannot contact them directly.  Its really up to you, both decisions are supportable in this case.