Retroactive License?

[ekitch]

Hello and thank you for this web site,

I received a letter from Getty and, of course, they say I owe $3,000 for 3 images that came with my purchased website template.  This is a new template and the company has already magically disappeared. I removed the images within minutes of reading the letter.

My new design has only been up for about 4 months. It's not in Wayback (yet). My last site image on Wayback is from 2007 that didn't have any images.

I read on another forum that someone had an image on their site for a month when they got contacted. They went onto the Getty site and bought a retroactive license dating back to the day they began using it.

A retroactive license for 3 months is $49 for each image. I realize Getty is basically saying too late, you now owe us $3,000 because that's the number we've come up with for infringement/damages... but is buying a retroactive license dating back to the date it appeared on my site any type of help at all since these images were on the net for a very short period of time and they obviously have no screens from previous years that show a long-term use of the image? I just don't understand why they offer a retroactive license that you can change the date and year on.

I appreciate the response. I'm a one person home biz and would have to close my tiny little place on the net if they sued.

[Oscar Michelen]

Thanks for the post - you are correct that it would be much less than what Getty asks for to have purchased a retroactive license. Getty usually has no right to attorney's fees and costs as most of these images are not registered at the time of the alleged infringement. For a thorough discussion of this issue, read our "Summary" post on this forum.  You have essentially hit the nail on the head as to our greatest beef with Getty - even if they prove infringement, their actual damages are much less than they seek.  Recently, Getty has provided use with invoices showing that some entities pay as much as $600 for an image for use up to two years. While I continue to argue that fair market value and not Getty's inflated fees is what controls, even if you use their numbers, they have no valid explanation why they seek twice their regular license fee.  You will have to negotiate a settlement with Getty, as just going onto their website and buying the retroactive license will not end their contacting you. If you show them your limited use and your having taken the image down, perhaps you can get them to be reasonable and accept $49, but they have never gone this low nor accepted this argument despite the common sense nature of it.