Another Getty Image Story

[nickymoo1]

Hi All,

We got an email from Getty images a month or so back regarding the unauthorised use of a rights managed image, it had been used on a blog post we wrote that was non commercial and had exceptionally small traffic numbers. We gave credit to any site that we had used to source our images (through a link titled "image source:....."). The image that Getty was questioning was no different, we linked to the site and on that site there was no mention of any image belonging to Getty.

In Getty's initial email they were demanding £900 as compensation for use of the image.

I read through this forum and it was a great help, I replied to Getty with the following (although after reading some more posts today I'm starting to think I might have been better just staying completely silent):

Dear XXX,

I am contacting you regarding your above email referencing Catalogue Image No.XXX and reference XXX.

We were wholly unaware that the image in question was a rights managed image owned by Getty and removed the image as soon as this was indicated. There was no commercial intent with the article in question but rather we were showcasing the most impressive green roofs from around the globe to a small local audience that would otherwise most likely be unaware of the structures outlined.

As we have done throughout the article, all images used have been referenced to source. We spent a considerable amount of time researching this article and were resolute in crediting all publications that helped us compile our list.  The source of the image that you are referring to - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/multimedia/chicago/8.html - makes no reference to the image being a Getty rights managed image.

Apologies again for any inconvenience caused and I would now hope that we can both consider this matter closed.


We were then advised to send the email on to their generic compliance email address which we did and last night we received the following response:

Thank you for taking the time to contact us about your Image License Validation, [and thank you for removing the images from your website. Please be aware that removal of the images alone does not resolve this matter because it does not compensate our photographer for your use of their images.]

 

The ability to view content via search engine results or other internet searches does not mean that the content is not protected by copyright. Nor does it mean that permission to use content has been granted. When a company purchases a license from Getty Images for this image, they receive a copy of the image without watermark to display on their website according to our terms and conditions. When using a search engine, these images can be found but this does not grant you any rights to use them for any purpose other than viewing them on the web. As you are aware, search engines are designed to find anything that fits your search description and are not image licensing companies. Accordingly, if you would like to use any images you have found through a search engine, we advise you to contact the site owner to obtain the requisite permissions.

 

After careful review, Getty Images is willing to settle the matter for £ 357 net. This offer is based on the usage you made. Please note that we are not adding any fees or attempting to recuperate any of the costs Getty Images has incurred in relation to this matter. You can review what the license fee would have been if the image had been licensed prior to use by visiting www.gettyimages.com, searching for the imagery, and using the  website’s price calculator.

 

We understand that this use was unintentional, and we want to facilitate replacement of the imagery. If you agree to this settlement offer, we are prepared offer you one of the following options to offset this unexpected cost on your business.

1.       12 free iStock credits (£69 value) – £69 of iStock credits which will allow you to license up to 12 royalty-free, RF, images. These images can be used indefinitely and in multiple projects based on iStock’s license terms.

2.       1 year license for the imagery – License allowing you to leave the imagery on your website as it currently appears for 12 months.

Take some time to think about how you would like to proceed. However, I do need to hear back from you within the 28 April 2015. I may not be able to extend this settlement offer and/or future use options to you after that.

Please feel free to contact me, if you have any questions or need any additional information.




As you can see they have now reduced their demand to £357 and are offering packages along with the fee to help us come to terms with the cost!

I have no intention of paying them the sum demanded. It would be great to get some input before drafting my next response (if any) to Getty.

Thanks everyone.

Nicky

[codeman]

I would not respond to them at all.

If they communicate with you simply reply that you will only accept written forms of communication  and will not discuss the matter using email or by telephone.

This slows the whole process down and starts to make it more expensive for them to continue chasing you.

Eventually they will probably get a company called Atradius to chase you for the money.

Atradius telephoned me claiming that I owed Getty money to which I replied I did not know what they were talking about and wanted written documentation before I would discuss this matter any further and put the phone down.

I ignored their first letter so they resorted to sending another recorded delivery (more expensive for them and again slowing the process down again).

When they phoned me after that I said that I was going to contact my solicitor for legal advice, every question the Atradius representative asked I stonewalled them by saying I  was not prepared to discuss the matter until I had received legal advice which also prevented them from getting information from me that they may try and use against at a later time.

Do not try and discuss it over the phone with these people as they are trained to extract information from you and to try and get you to agree to something under pressure.

I have not heard from them in over year and I certainly am not worried anymore.

Remember that is their job to try and get the money and it is not in your interest to make it easy for them.

Regards

Codeman

[nickymoo1]

Thanks very much for your reply Codeman, it's very helpful. I had avoided phone contact until now for exactly the reason you said and will now refuse to communicate any further with them over anything but written communication.

When the letters came did you simply ignore them and await a phone call?

[codeman]

They only had my phone number and unfortunately I was out when they called and they managed to get my wife to confirm our address.

They called back and I told them I would only communicate using written documentation which they sent and I ignored.

They called back and I told them I had not received it so they sent another copy recorded and then  called a couple of weeks after that at which point I went into my stonewall routine.

I think they called a total of three times and that was over a year ago and I have not heard from them since ( I guess they think I am going to be an awkward so and so and moved on to easier targets ).

They are persistent but don't let that worry you as they are a debt collection agency and you have not incurred a debt so they are unable to collect anything despite how much of a threatening tone they use.