Unauthorized Use of Science Photo Library Ltd Image(s)

[lakesidegal]

Earlier this week I received a classic demand letter regarding one of the images on my website. (See below with unique info hidden.)
I have removed the image and started doing some investigating. The image in question is available through Science Photo Library here: http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/303436/view as well as through iStockphoto ($33) here: http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/human-body-antique-medical-illustration-8567148?st=29b6193. The version that Science Photo Library has is on an orange rectangle where mine was on a purple rounded cornered square. I am quite sure originally when I used this I had a license for it from iStock. I've been back and forth with the people at LCS sending my receipt from iStock and explaining that I have a license and that the image is not an exact match because of the background to which they've replied:
====
Infringement arises if the whole of the image has been copied or a substantial part of the image has been copied.  Any use of a manipulated file or derivative work (eg. cropping, color changes, layering, rotating, etc) without the appropriate licenses constitutes copyright infringement. While your company has been utilizing a modified version of the imagery in question, we believe a substantial part of our original image has been copied.
 
Please advise on how you will take care of the settlement fee.
 
Matthew J. Adams
License Compliance Services, Science Photo Library Ltd
P: 1.855.387.8725 E: [email protected]
605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
====

I'm going to consult a copyright lawyer but this seems like it's not defensible on their end.
A. The image is available elsewhere and I have purchased it.
B. The image is a vintage illustration. (Note their site also has works by Divinci)
C. My image doesn't match the image they have posted because I'm using a different background.

How can they get away with this? What do I do next?

===original letter=====
License Compliance Services, Science Photo Library Ltd.

605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
United States

08-Dec-2014


Dear XXXXX,
It has come to the attention of Science Photo Library Ltd that an image or image(s) represented by Science Photo Library Ltd are being used or have been used online by your company. According to our records there is no valid license issued to your company for the use of the image(s).

To view the image(s) in question together with the usage(s) found on your company’s website, go to: https://lcs.sciencephoto.com/XXXXX

Using a Science Photo Library Ltd image without a valid license is considered copyright infringement and in violation of the Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, entitling Science Photo Library Ltd to seek compensation for infringing uses. Science Photo Library Ltd is committed to protect the interests, intellectual property and livelihoods of the contributors with whom we work.


To resolve this matter (Case Ref: XXXX):
_____________________________________________________________

If a valid license has been issued for the image(s) in question:

Please email the license purchase information to [email protected] within 10 business days of the date of this letter.

If a valid license proof cannot be found:

Please cease using the image(s) in question immediately.

In addition, a $660.00 settlement payment should be received within 10 business days of the date of this letter. The payment options are detailed below. Ceasing use of the image(s) does not release your company of its responsibility to pay for the image(s) already used.
 

Remittance Payment Options (settlement fee: $660.00)
_____________________________________________________________
 

You can remit your payment online at:
https://lcs.sciencephoto.com/XXXXX
Remit Check Payment To:
         License Compliance Services
         Picscout Inc.
         605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
         Seattle, WA 98104
         United States

        Please include Reference Number XXXX with check payment.


Alternatively, you may contact us at +1 855 387 8725.

 

We believe that prompt cooperation will benefit all concerned parties.

If you would like to continue to use the image(s) in question, or if you believe you have mistakenly received this letter, please contact us by email at [email protected], or call +1 855 387 8725 and we will assist you.

This letter is without prejudice to Science Photo Library Ltd’s rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.

 

Sincerely,

License Compliance Services, Science Photo Library Ltd.
[email protected]

 

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Welcome to the forum.

I can tell you that this address....

===original letter=====
License Compliance Services, Science Photo Library Ltd.

605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
United States

...is Getty Images/Pic-Scout and Getty/Pic-Scout does care about the facts they are just about the money.  If you have licensed the image from i-stock and have record of that purchase I don't think you have mush to worry about.  If this is the case I personally would tell them to pound sand and if you contact me again I will file complaints with the Washington Attorney Generals office, the BBB and bill them for any future time used to deal with the issue.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

istock is owned by getty, whom also owns picscout, what a bunch of incestuous fucktards they are.. If it were me, and I had a receipt I would tell them to pound sand..if they sue you, they will loose as you can show you purchased the image in good faith..hell I'd go so far as to file a counter-suit if they sued, turns the wheels on those douche bags.

[lucia]

I stock shows it here
http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/human-body-antique-medical-illustration-8567148?st=29b6193
The credit says

Medical illustration depicting the upper part of the human body. Published in Systematischer Bilder-Atlas zum Conversations-Lexikon, Ikonographische Encyklopaedie der Wissenschaften und Kuenste (Brockhaus, Leipzig) in 1844. Photo by N.Staykov (2008)

So it appears that this is a photo of an underlying image originally created by someone else.  The underlying images would not belong to them.  On can get a copyright on a derivative-- but then they have to prove you copied their derivative. So... are they saying yours is watermarked and so can show you copied their copyrighted copy of the original? And not someone elses copy of the orginal? Or even your own copy of the original.
They can't "own" the underlying original -- if they could, I could gain copyright on the original Mona Lisa by going to the Louvre and taking a photo-- and so could anyone else! 

 It would be rather interesting to hear what a judge would say about their copyright claim if they did pursue it.
It would be interesting to read what Oscar says too.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

They have no copyright on this image. Unless they made transformative alterations to the underlying work, the image is not theirs to claim.

Based on what you said so far, my reply would be simple:

 The image is in the public domain. Not realizing this at the time, you purchased a license from their affiliated company, iStock photo for a few dollars. If they pester you again with further requests for documentation, they must provide a chain of title showing how they have the exclusive rights to this image. If they do continue to ask for further clarification you will provide it. However you charge $200 an hour for this service and bill in half hour increments. You will submit an invoice for any further time they cause you to spend on this issue.

Done.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

This.

They have no copyright on this image. Unless they made transformative alterations to the underlying work, the image is not theirs to claim.

Based on what you said so far, my reply would be simple:

 The image is in the public domain. Not realizing this at the time, you purchased a license from their affiliated company, iStock photo for a few dollars. If they pester you again with further requests for documentation, they must provide a chain of title showing how they have the exclusive rights to this image. If they do continue to ask for further clarification you will provide it. However you charge $200 an hour for this service and bill in half hour increments. You will submit an invoice for any further time they cause you to spend on this issue.

Done.

[Matthew Chan]

The moral of the excellent feedback everyone has provided is that it absolutely pays to research and vet these claims (especially if they are related to the Getty Images/Picscout operation).

Of course, to the average newcomer, they don't generally know where to start. However, fortunately for the Google-experienced, ELI (and all its various free and premium-paid resources) exists for anyone willing to be educated.

I am clearly biased (but I also say it because I believe it), there is no better resource on the Internet than ELI when it comes to photo-related infringement letter issues and knowing how those "incestuous fucktards" (as RK calls them, LOL!) operate.