Confused on Who Getty Targets and Who They Ignore?

[brooklynborn]

I remember about 10 years ago, I used an image without permission and received a simple takedown notice like a week later, and never did it again.

Fast forward to the present, one of my main competitors runs a news website that uses images from the Getty website. I've seen galleries where the guy has as many as 30 photos - and he's done this practice for at least 6 or 7 years.

Over the years, I would estimate that they have thousands of photos that originated from Getty.

Speaking to one of his managing editors who just left him, they have never even received a second look from Getty or any copyright attorney.

I just don't get it, as several webmasters I know received threatening emails or letters within weeks or even months of using some copyrighted photo.

However, I was told by the editor that left, that the website in question DOES buy some Getty images legally, but only a handful a year.

I almost wonder if Getty's attorney runs the website's contact email in the database, sees them as a registered customer and leaves it at that.

Or maybe they go after certain kinds of images, as just about everyone I know that was contacted by their legal team, was using some form of stock image. The website in question uses images of Trump, Kardashians, etc.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty does not vet anything, we have seen instances of people getting a getty letter, when in fact they had purchased the license from Getty. We have also seen getty send letters for public domain images. Without not knowing more about the company you reference, it's hard to say why they haven't heard a peep from getting, my assumption is that if it is a new site, most of the images used would most likely fall under fair use.

[brooklynborn]

Robert,

They run a website on political news and information - almost in a gossip website style. They update in high volume - 30-40 updates a day. They often have photo galleries with celebrities at the political events or photo galleries of the events themselves... sometimes the images are provided by the pr reps, the venue, etc. - but when they are not, these guys grab all the photos they can from wherever they can.

But what you say is true, they are reporting it for news and information purposes, so it might be "fair use" or close enough to it, to prevent Getty from pulling the legal trigger.

[brooklynborn]

After reading this, you may be right.

The courts developed the fair use doctrine in the 19th and 20th centuries, and Congress codified it in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. It reads, “The fair use of a copyrighted work … for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”

I also reviewed some of the lawsuits Getty filed in the last 2 years (for some reason I couldn't find any filed in 2017), but the lawsuits in 2016 and 2015 were all based on stock photos - images of cats, or the sky over water, or a dentist standing in front on a patient, etc. - but I found nothing related to a political event or sporting event or a celebrity, etc. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty probably hasn't filed any suits in 2017, it's been a losing proposition for them for the most part.. another thing to consider, is that if the site in question has a registered agent, and they have registered properly, they would have safe harbor from infringement letters providing they follow the guidelines when presented with a dmca takedown notice.

[brooklynborn]

Rob,

The Safe Harbor would not protect them, because their writers are posting the image galleries. The owners may not have knowledge (or claim they dont) regarding the origin of said images or copyright, but I believe Safe Harbor is only in play if a "third party" is posting, like a user on an image host website or a forum like this one or facebook or youtube.

However, I should add that while their website uses an American hosting company, their address of business and where the owner resides, is in Moscow, Russia. I'm not sure if the fact that they are in Russia comes in play, in terms of Getty even bothering. (Based on what I read) I would assume they would have to play ball based on the copyright laws in Russia, have the person served in Russia, and try to collect funds in Russia from a person who may not even have any.

I should add, Russia has strict copyright laws - but for video and music files. Photos are not mentioned in those laws and there appears to be some very loose fair use involved, especially when it comes to news reporting.

I guess they could do a DMCA, but from what I've seen Getty rarely does this (although I've seen them do it in situations where they can't locate the website's owner's contact information).

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

You are correct as far as the safe harbor issue. I'm sure the Russian equation probably comes into play as well. Getty and the many pther trolls looks for low hanging fruit, that will scare easily and cough up cash.

[Matthew Chan]

They might just be lucky.  There are many people who unknowingly had unauthorized images for years. Some people get notices very quickly even for experimental/testbed websites. Others can go for a decade and not get any demand letters.  There are people who get letters and deal with it quietly, with the public no wiser for it.

We have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

Robert,

They run a website on political news and information - almost in a gossip website style. They update in high volume - 30-40 updates a day. They often have photo galleries with celebrities at the political events or photo galleries of the events themselves... sometimes the images are provided by the pr reps, the venue, etc. - but when they are not, these guys grab all the photos they can from wherever they can.

But what you say is true, they are reporting it for news and information purposes, so it might be "fair use" or close enough to it, to prevent Getty from pulling the legal trigger.

[brooklynborn]

Matthew, Rob

I just noticed that they have taken a lot of those pages down.

What is the usual turnaround between them finding infringement and sending a letter to demand payment?

A week? Two weeks? A month?

I would assume they don't sit on their hands and knees for a year, waiting for you to either take it down or move away.

I've read stories where people got letters within two weeks of posting an image on a test page. And then I've read others where a site was shut down for as long as 2 months (or so the person claimed) and then a letter came in.

[Matthew Chan]

That is not a question people on the "outside" are going to answer. It probably varies greatly from firm to firm. The response time for a private photographer is likely going to be shorter than someone like Getty Images who deals with far more infringement cases. But that is a terribly generalized statement on my part.  I have always been open to receiving information from an inside "leaker" but no one has after nearly 10 years of following this.

I will take a stab at answering that it probably takes them anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months from getting a "potential hit" to getting a letter out.  It does not behoove them to take too long because the statute of limitations technically begins from "date of discovery".

What is the usual turnaround between them finding infringement and sending a letter to demand payment?

A week? Two weeks? A month?

I would assume they don't sit on their hands and knees for a year, waiting for you to either take it down or move away.

I've read stories where people got letters within two weeks of posting an image on a test page. And then I've read others where a site was shut down for as long as 2 months (or so the person claimed) and then a letter came in.

[brooklynborn]

Matthew,

I've never really seen one of these letters in full because most people black out the information.

Do they actually cite the date of discovery? I would assume they have to by law?

What I'm saying is, if I found some infringement violations today, and took the images down, do I have to sweat for the next few months wondering if they caught the images prior to removal and plan to issue a letter.

From your personal experience, I'm sure you've seen countless cases to get an idea of when someone is in the clear so to speak.

That is not a question people on the "outside" are going to answer. It probably varies greatly from firm to firm. The response time for a private photographer is likely going to be shorter than someone like Getty Images who deals with far more infringement cases. But that is a terribly generalized statement on my part.  I have always been open to receiving information from an inside "leaker" but no one has after nearly 10 years of following this.

I will take a stab at answering that it probably takes them anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months from getting a "potential hit" to getting a letter out.  It does not behoove them to take too long because the statute of limitations technically begins from "date of discovery".

What is the usual turnaround between them finding infringement and sending a letter to demand payment?

A week? Two weeks? A month?

I would assume they don't sit on their hands and knees for a year, waiting for you to either take it down or move away.

I've read stories where people got letters within two weeks of posting an image on a test page. And then I've read others where a site was shut down for as long as 2 months (or so the person claimed) and then a letter came in.

[Matthew Chan]

I have seen a few letters that do cite the date of discovery. But most do not.

People need to understand that these demand letters are NOT legal filings. No one has to send a notification, warning, or information letter of ANY KIND to a potential infringer. Accusers can go straight to lawsuit without any warning whatsoever although doing that is fraught with risks and frowned upon.

ANYONE who comes to ELI and don't get the message to clean up their websites are foolish. 

As already discussed, there is no telling if or when you will receive a letter or not. Some people are luckier than others. But letters do come out of nowhere. You cannot turn back time. All anyone can do is to clean up the websites of unlicensed images and hope for the best.

If you had one or two images, the risk is probably very low.  But if a website owner made a practice to use MANY licensed images for several years and only now taking it down, then yes, they have reason to sweat for the short term of getting a letter.

The more infringing images, the greater the chance of discovery. It is just plain statistics.

Do they actually cite the date of discovery? I would assume they have to by law?

What I'm saying is, if I found some infringement violations today, and took the images down, do I have to sweat for the next few months wondering if they caught the images prior to removal and plan to issue a letter.

From your personal experience, I'm sure you've seen countless cases to get an idea of when someone is in the clear so to speak.

[brooklynborn]

Another webmaster I know got one a few months ago and it did actually cite the date.

They cited a date in May, but he did not receive a letter until July - about 5-7 weeks I think after initial infringement was discovered. It was a photo of a table with a red ball on it.

I actually do know someone who works for Getty, but in sales. He knows a little but not a lot. Based on what he told me, their primary focus is to scan the internet for people using those type of stock images. I'm not entirely sure why, but likely because the abuse is more rampant with them because people assume that it's safe to use them, as opposed to a random photo of a celebrity or a baseball game or the president. And also because website all the time are built, likely thousands a year, with stock images from Getty or some other company, that a designer just grabbed off Google images.

He may be right, because I've read through at least 100 letters that were posted online by people Getty went after and 99.9% of the time it was some type of stock photo.

I have seen a few letters that do cite the date of discovery. But most do not.

People need to understand that these demand letters are NOT legal filings. No one has to send a notification, warning, or information letter of ANY KIND to a potential infringer. Accusers can go straight to lawsuit without any warning whatsoever although doing that is fraught with risks and frowned upon.

ANYONE who comes to ELI and don't get the message to clean up their websites are foolish. 

As already discussed, there is no telling if or when you will receive a letter or not. Some people are luckier than others. But letters do come out of nowhere. You cannot turn back time. All anyone can do is to clean up the websites of unlicensed images and hope for the best.

If you had one or two images, the risk is probably very low.  But if a website owner made a practice to use MANY licensed images for several years and only now taking it down, then yes, they have reason to sweat for the short term of getting a letter.

The more infringing images, the greater the chance of discovery. It is just plain statistics.

Do they actually cite the date of discovery? I would assume they have to by law?

What I'm saying is, if I found some infringement violations today, and took the images down, do I have to sweat for the next few months wondering if they caught the images prior to removal and plan to issue a letter.

From your personal experience, I'm sure you've seen countless cases to get an idea of when someone is in the clear so to speak.

[Matthew Chan]

The fact of the matter is small-time copyright infringement is rampant. Much of it is unintentional and de-minimus but it is happening nonetheless and it should stop.

ELI has been accused of supporting infringing activity.  That is not true.  We are against the egregious lying, manipulation, and the outrageous profiteering through unreasonable, disproportionate demands. I have seen, read, and heard of some outrageous bullshit tactics used against letter recipients which is why I am not beyond throwing some outrage bullshit tactics back in people's faces.

If you get one of these letters, take it as a warning to clean up ALL your websites. If you won't clean up, then don't be shocked when more nasty letters come your way.

Everyone wants free which is fine. But if you can't be smart about finding the right free images, then you assume the risk.

Everyone has to decide how to resolve their own situation but they also get to deal with whatever consequences comes from it (money, stress, lack of sleep, worry, etc.) Financial settlement or not, everyone pays in one form or another.

Another webmaster I know got one a few months ago and it did actually cite the date.

They cited a date in May, but he did not receive a letter until July - about 5-7 weeks I think after initial infringement was discovered. It was a photo of a table with a red ball on it.

I actually do know someone who works for Getty, but in sales. He knows a little but not a lot. Based on what he told me, their primary focus is to scan the internet for people using those type of stock images. I'm not entirely sure why, but likely because the abuse is more rampant with them because people assume that it's safe to use them, as opposed to a random photo of a celebrity or a baseball game or the president. And also because website all the time are built, likely thousands a year, with stock images from Getty or some other company, that a designer just grabbed off Google images.

He may be right, because I've read through at least 100 letters that were posted online by people Getty went after and 99.9% of the time it was some type of stock photo.