ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: landing on June 29, 2010, 11:23:04 AM
-
Recently received the settlement demand letter from Getty Images stating I published an image on my secondary page without a valid license from them. 4200 SEK (sweedish krone) or about $800 USD to be paid.
The image is size: 150x105 pixels
I have removed it now.
What should I do? pay them? What will happen if I dont?
- Sweedish web developer -
-
Sorry you are dealing with this issue. Please realize a few things:
1) A demand letter is not a legal binding contract between you and any instituation or business. It is a "quick" way to attempt to engage you in a binding agreement. If you choose to agree to enter a binding agreement for whatever cost is being requested or negotiated, then the binding agreement can be upheld directly through legal action without the image supplier establishing an illegal use of their service, product, image, royality, or royalty management for an amount you agree to settle.
2) The cost to establish litigation against an entity from any instituation to an individual, business, corporation or other is quite expensive. Even if the litigation were to lean towards the favor of a stock photography company; the corporation would have to prove that the image could have no other possible avenue for distribution except through their institution (i.e. being mutually exclusive). If you did in fact get the image from a Royalty-Free service from an organization, you might be liable for damages, but unless a court can show proof, the case has little bearing.
3) Use good judgement. An organization should establish business with the public and private business in good faith. Most all companies are explicit by establishing images with logo, and (c) protention overlays directly on the image. It does not appear that GettImages has attempted to protect their images in a way that provides an established visual breach; and has not attempted to incorporate one since these letters began surfacing several years ago.
4) Even should a judge rule in the favor of GettyImages, the court has the opportunity to establish the actual "street" value of any said image, or images which may be the value of an established professional photographers work in taking a "like-image."
5) Bottom line, GettyImages is making money by persuing damages against any good faith form of business. If a settlement can formed without moving through a formal legal process, they immediatly win. If you decide to let them pursue legal action, they have an extremely small chance of taking away a settlement from a court, and the cost of the legal process has lead their company to eventually give up after a few letters are sent out, so they can "pray" on someone else.
Piece.
-
Sorry you are dealing with this issue. Please realize a few things:
1) A demand letter is not a legal binding contract between you and any instituation or business. It is a "quick" way to attempt to engage you in a binding agreement. If you choose to agree to enter a binding agreement for whatever cost is being requested or negotiated, then the binding agreement can be upheld directly through legal action without the image supplier establishing an illegal use of their service, product, image, royality, or royalty management for an amount you agree to settle.
2) The cost to establish litigation against an entity from any instituation to an individual, business, corporation or other is quite expensive. Even if the litigation were to lean towards the favor of a stock photography company; the corporation would have to prove that the image could have no other possible avenue for distribution except through their institution (i.e. being mutually exclusive). If you did in fact get the image from a Royalty-Free service from an organization, you might be liable for damages, but unless a court can show proof, the case has little bearing.
3) Use good judgement. An organization should establish business with the public and private business in good faith. Most all companies are explicit by establishing images with logo, and (c) protention overlays directly on the image. It does not appear that GettImages has attempted to protect their images in a way that provides an established visual breach; and has not attempted to incorporate one since these letters began surfacing several years ago.
4) Even should a judge rule in the favor of GettyImages, the court has the opportunity to establish the actual "street" value of any said image, or images which may be the value of an established professional photographers work in taking a "like-image."
5) Bottom line, GettyImages is making money by persuing damages against any good faith form of business. If a settlement can formed without moving through a formal legal process, they immediatly win. If you decide to let them pursue legal action, they have an extremely small chance of taking away a settlement from a court, and the cost of the legal process has lead their company to eventually give up after a few letters are sent out, so they can "pray" on someone else.
Piece.
-
I answered your question on your private messages. If you need more info just message me again with your new question and I will address it. Thomas - good post!
-
First , thank-you everyone for posting this issue and OM 's continued effort and support for the small businesses that find themselves in this unsettling situation . My business has recently be targeted with a Getty request letter back in April 2010 and we have had several emails back and fore trying at get clarification regarding cost breakdown and an offer of market value. Long short short , Getty is not interested in any discussion of any type other than full payment as outlined . Our particular case is for one web photo which was in our web database amongst many other photos 98% Istock photo , which is now owned by Getty . Their demand is for $1170 and a comparable photo purchased at the same time as 8 credits equals $12
and a comparable Getty license photo is $ 49 for 3 months , so either way a tremendous cash grab and proves this not an effort to protect their clients ( owners ), but a new profit center based of fear and the law of averages. I have read many blogs and letters of similar cases , and the same profile seems to emerge , sit tight and wait it out. My Question for any past victims , what have been their experience since the initial letters Getty , then Legal? or Debt collection ? and has anyone made it through , or has anyone settled at different stages ?
Eyeswide in Ontario , Canada .
-
While every case is different and Getty's response is not the same in every country. In the States generally Getty goes to a company called NCS Recovery which acts as a debt collector. But see my post on this forum about how they can't put you into collection actually. After that they go to the McCormack Law Firm out of Settle which generates a letter and settlement offer. We have not see McCormack file a suit yet, but Getty insists that the day when they do file suits is fast approaching. We are all still adopting a wait and see attitude though I remain hopeful that we can get to the point where Getty agrees to accept a reasonable figure for the infringement and lets people move on with their lives.
-
With regard to Eyeswide's post,
Companies like Getty and Masterfile et al are Copyright Trolls. They troll the Internet looking to scare money out of people under the guise of copyright infringement.
Getty hasn't registered any of their content with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, “Copyrights Database” at this time. So, it doesn't look like they're doing much in Canada to bolster a Canadian lawsuit.
These Copyright Trolls ask for a lot of money, so that even when you negotiate them down to half that (many think, 'what a deal!'), you're still paying ten times the actual retail price.
As Oscar mentioned, they can get a collections agency to pester you, but since it's simply a legal dispute, the agency cannot affect your credit rating or attempt any real efforts to "collect".
People are beginning to get wise to the extortion scams of Getty and their ilk; that's because word is spreading quickly that they haven't sued hardly anyone as yet. Surely fewer people are paying up; therefore we can probably expect that Getty will actually file suit against an "infringer" once the threatening letters are no longer as effective. Such a lawsuit could instill enough fear to get the gravy train moving once again, simply by these Copyright Trolls sending more 'extortion letters'.
I can't see them starting a lawsuit over a single image. It'll be over something much bigger, against an uncooperative opponent. Probably in a country having laws that are amenable to such a litigation. It has to be worth their while, and they must have a good expectation of winning in court.
S.
-
Hi Everyone
They are after me also. There is a whole other side to this. Getty and like, obviously have some kind of software that can scan your website for ID markers and/or image recognition.
So the really unfair part of this whole deal is that they are not sharing their technology with us.
Say you are a company owner and have a website and were told your images are lic’ed correctly. You don't actually know and there is no way to find out if the images on your website are lic’ed.
So you are stuck just waiting for them to find you. Getty and companies owned by Getty literally have millions of photos it could take you months to find the images that are on your website and probably will not find them as at some point you will give up.
This puts you in the position of having to replace all the images and they win again.
The fair thing to do, and a court somewhere should force them to do is share the technology that they are using to find these images, and give it to the public. This way it is a win, win for everyone involved.
Thanks for the rant.
-
Hey Friend,
'Copyright Trolls' such as Getty and Masterfile are using software called "Picscout" created by an Israeli company. It's my understanding that Picscout is an image recognition 'bot' originally based on technology developed for the Israeli military.
You can read some interesting tidbits here:
http://williamfaulkner.co.uk/2007/09/picscout-getty-images-and-goodbye-istockphoto/
Folks like you and I might be allowed to use Picscout... but, not for free, silly!! Where would the profit be in doing that? Additionally, while a nice person like you might want to check your site for copyright violations in order to avoid any trouble, remember that the Copyright Trolls will make less money if people like you do that. So, why would they help you and lose money because of it?
Another conscientious person like you had a similar idea to have Getty check their site, just to be diligent and sure that they weren't infringing on any copyrighted images. Here's a quote:
'This company sent Getty a link to their web site and asked them to review every photo and advise if they feel any were being used improperly. I had the same conversation with a Getty employee. Getty refused to do so. Instead, they sent their catalogue and asked that it be reviewed. The company returned the catalogue to Getty and renewed the invitation for Getty to check every photo they have. ' So, no help there..!
Read more here:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/gettyimagesonflickr/discuss/72157612849664574/
I guess that if you are making your own website, you should assume that if you didn't create a picture or photo yourself then somebody else owns said content. If you bought the content, then keep your receipt... even years later. If somebody else made your website for you, then you should ask to see receipts for photos/images that have been bought, and make copies of those. Perhaps, you could make up a contract wherein the people who made your site will sign that the images were either created by them and/or bought in good faith. That way if a copyright troll comes after you, then you can hold the site creators responsible for your costs. Keep in mind that if you have someone in another (third world?) country build your site, you may have little recourse if something bad happens. So, support your local web designer..! Maybe others have some other ideas too?
Good luck,
S
-
On the money SG as usual.
The best thing to do is take your own pictures or hire a professional photographer to do so. If you hire a pro, then have him sign a release agreeing that you own the pictures not him. Also check out government websites with picture catalogs.
-
Thanks for the info.
It is kind of like you are walking down the street and someone slips something into your pocket. It is a stolen item from a shop on the street. You notice it is in your pocket and you take it out. You look for the owner but can not find it. Then you are attacked by a SWAT team. Possession of item means you are guilty, now pay 100 times the lic fee and we will let you go.
Ok now for the real question. Say you pay this one violation just to get it off your desk; you assume the payment ends this issue. Three months later you get a notice for 10 more images.
You have already agreed to the fees previously, so have paying the fees previously ended your legal ability to fight the second notice and expect to win?
Thanks
-
My understanding is that once PicScout finds your site, it searches the whole site for all of the images of the particular image company it is working for at the time. So you should be in the clear as far as Getty is concerned. Some of your remaining images may be discovered by Corbis and Masterfile however, which also use PicScout.
In any event, a settlement is not an admission and evidence of a settlement is normally inadmissible in Federal court under the federal rules of civil procedure.
-
I agree with Mr Michelen. If you’re worried about it, you can ask for a ‘full release’ which would simply state that the matter is settled, and cannot be brought up in the future. If you have other images on your site whose origin you’re not sure of, you should remove those to avoid possible future trouble.
I’ve seen quite a few people on this forum state that Copyright Trolls such as Getty or Masterfile are harassing them over one or two images. There are some things that are important to keep in mind in such situations. These cases are extremely low-priority. At any one time, the Copyright Trolls are likely pursuing thousands of similar people. Although they make it seem that the copyright boogeyman is out to get you, you must realize that there’s no ‘war room’ set up with your name on the wall, they’re not saying “that ignorant John Doe who stole one image better pay up” in the boardroom, and they’re not saying your name in the lunchroom on break. They have a project management system on computer that reminds them of who they need to send letters (or even phone) to at preset intervals. The letters are simply form letters with your name stuck in there saying you’ve stolen “x” number of images on “y” date, and “here’s another photocopy of your web site” attached. Each form letter is pre-made to sound more serious in tone each time, to make it seem like things are escalating. Although the fact that they don’t negotiate on price makes it appear that they are confident and quite serious, the real fact is that they simply could not afford the staff that it would take to make deals with thousands of people, so the answer is, “just pay it”. Those who have allegedly absconded many images might wonder why they always phone on Wednesday at 1:30 PM, for example; that’s simply their project management system reminding them to bug you at a preset time; they’ll spend a couple of minutes a week on each target. They next guy always gets called on Wednesday at 1:32 PM…
Getty in particular hasn’t done much to copyright any of their content at this time. So, the likelihood of them winning anything in court is practically non-existent. Similar companies are presently losing court cases because they didn’t register their content correctly, so how could Getty win by not registering anything at all? To keep things in perspective, imagine that they sued you for use of their $49 image. Even if they won, and got their legal fees awarded too, they would net a big $49 dollars for going to court. That $49 dollars would be eaten up several times over by the labor of preparing a case. It’s just not worth it for them to sue you for one or two images. In addition, they cannot “invent” phony damages and seek them in court. Even if you used one of their images, this never prevented them from selling the image to others or damaged the reputation of the company, etc.
The more Copyright Trolls such as Getty, Masterfile and others harass people, the more their reputation is damaged. Type “getty” into Google search. Google attempts to complete the search with “getty images”. But how long before that’s replaced with “getty extortion”, or “getty copyright troll”? People will click on those to see what the rhubarb is about, then they’ll begin to approach any business with them with distrust, and they lose. You don’t need an MBA to figure that out.
S.
-
Good post SG - I just want to add that since the images were not registered at the time of the infringement Getty woul dnto be able to recoup their legal expenses.
-
I have been a web designer/consultant for over 13 years in Canada. I have always been very cautious of copyright. In fact, I use Microsoft's royalty-free clipart site (or my own camera) because I know they have the lawyers and money to ensure the free use of the images there.
Anyway, to my point and thoughts about Getty. One of my clients, where I took over the hosting of their website and conversion over to a content management system, wanted to maintain the same look and feel but I suggested to redesign the site. Fool on me for not researching the images that the previous web designer used! My client just contacted me and told me that they received THE letter from Getty demanding a large sum for 3 small images. They did show that these images were rights-managed, citing the photographer and such.
My issue is, what's to stop Getty from dumping these rights-managed images on image database sites and other sources themselves, hoping that someone grabs it and uses it, like bait? I would not be surprised if that is what they are doing. In any case, they should be going after the places that the end user got the images in the first place to rule this out, instead of laying ALL the responsibility on the end user.
Just my two cents...
-
Dear Jowik:
Many folks have suggested this theory that the digital image companies have "Seeded" their images into catalogs for the express purpose of having them be located by PicScout later on. While I guess its plausible, I personally don't think its likely.
-
In the wake of Earl Jones, Conrad Black, BP, and those responsible for the sub-prime fiasco, I would believe that it is very likely, the reason why I think it is likely, as I stated earlier, is because they are specifically targeting the unsuspecting end user. Greed has a way with people. The difficulty here would be proving it in court, and they know that it's next to impossible, so it's a win-win for them.
-
True indeed
-
Hi everyone... so... today I received an email from a website client back in 2006 saying exactly what everyone else here have already read.
Getty Images wants 3k for 5 images on the website. I have read that Getty does not copyright there images but is there a way for me to really check this? I have been referred to the copyright website but how would you search for an image?
I have read that most people choose to ignore these letters from Getty and others have resorted to using OM for help.
I really don't know what to do. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-
Hi Tsyle,
Sorry to hear that Getty's giving you some trouble...
I'm assuming that you're in the United States.
The United States Copyright Records Website is here:
http://www.copyright.gov/
To perform a search on the site, click on the red "Search Records" button to the upper right.
Now, under "Online Records", click on the text that says "Search the Catalog".
Next, you'll see text that says, "Search for" and a box wherein you can type in what to search for.
Type in "Getty Images" in the box, and click the "Begin Search" button.
At this time, you'll see only six entries. Not much registered by Getty thus far. That's bad for Getty.
You can check Masterfile for fun, too. Much more is registered; however note how many collections are registered in bulk. That's not so good for them.
Note that when an image or collection of images is/are registered; the registration numbers are 12 characters long. Usually it's 2 letters followed by 10 digits, or 3 letters followed by 9 digits; add zeroes before the number, for example:
VAu-598-764 is typed VAU000598764,
SR-320-918 is typed SR0000320918
If you happen to be in Canada, visit the Canadian Intellectual Property office online:
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/home
Click on the "Copyrights Database" button to the left.
Now, under the "Quick Search" section, type in "Getty Images".
Next, click the "Search" button.
You'll note that nothing comes up for Getty Images at this time.
Masterfile has a few compilations listed there, however.
I'm not a lawyer. But, (in my opinion), if one of these stock image companies is coming after you, and the images in question aren't registered in your country of residence, that puts them in a very weak position legally (in my opinion). In addition, the registration must be done properly by the company in question. Mr Michelen might choose to comment here if I'm mistaken.
I hope that this is helpful. I'm sure that others were wondering about this too.
Best Regards,
S.
-
Thank you SoylentGreen for your quick reply. I am in the United States and ran the searches. None of those images sound like the images that were on my website. I also looked up the actual images that Getty have registered:
Here's a list just in case any body is curious:
Copyright #2
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=creative&assetType=image&p=6442-001216
Copyright #3
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=creative&assetType=image&p=6442-001232
Copyright #4
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=creative&assetType=image&p=051106_Biking%20_075
Copyright #6
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=creative&assetType=image&p=200022106-001
I was not able to figure out what images were copyrighted for #1 and #2.
-
Getty rarely registers their images which is why they rarely sue (since without registration at the time of infringement they cannot get legal fees). Generally, only the entity that has registered the copyright can bring a lawsuit over an infringement. If Getty wanted to sue they would first have to register the images. As to how to proceed, that really is up to you but there are numerous posts and videos on this site to give you some frame work for making the decision. Good Luck!
-
One of my clients got one of these Getty Extortion Letters today. It was for an image I had purchased a license for from iStockPhoto (another Getty holding) a year ago for use in a montage inside a low-res web header in an HTML Email. They were demanding $1250 for this very common image. Just one small problem... the Getty Image they were accusing my client of stealing was not even the same image or image number they were accusing them to ripping off!
Needless to say, as mad as my client was at me over this issue, it may very well cost me a client that has been spending tens of thousands of dollars a year with me to design all their materials. If that happens, I guess I have the basis for a "LEGITIMATE" lawsuit against Getty and I can show REAL DAMAGES!!! This also cost me 6 hours today trying to dig up proof that I had a license for the image - who is going to pay me for all this time whenever they get their hands on a postage stamp! All this paperwork could put any designer out of business - even if they never used Getty or their images for anything!
I am also a photographer and I sell my images to clients that think they have value, but I have never personally agreed with the fact that any photograph constitutes intellectual property in any manner. Of course, my "feelings" are irrelevant - the law however convoluted, is the law (until they change it when it is suits them), but any child can snap a photo of anything and call it "art" or "priceless". Ultimately, it is virtually impossible for any photographer to PROVE that he even took a photo - simply cannot be done. And it is not like an oil painting or even an illustration that usually has only one buyer - it is a "technology" - especially since Digital Cameras are in every "phone"! I am all for Photographers getting paid for their efforts (that is why I have ALWAYS paid for stock photos I did not take myself), however, in the case of companies like Getty, they are just vultures that use Photographers and their client base for their own financial gain. Why, if they pay a photographer maybe 5 bucks for an image which they in turn try to sell usage rights on the Internet for maybe 20 bucks suddenly worth $1250 in damages? I wonder how much of this collected money is actually being shared back with the photographers in question? That would be a nice investigation for Fox News!
Waiting to respond to all these letters is another ploy in itself - these companies need to be drug into court with a real class action suit and get their clocks cleaned. Innocent people should not have to spend all their time and money to defend themselves against these predators. Why aren't the other stock photo suppliers not up in arms? This can ultimately kill the design industry completely in the U.S. and the only people left able to use photos safely on the Internet will be those countries that don't uphold such laws. A simple Cease and Desist is enough of a threat, until someone is PROVEN to actually be breaching the law on purpose or stealing and reselling images for their own gain.
-
This is just beginning for me. I have been in business for 12 years and am a web site designer and host. One of my clients that has been with me now for 2 year got a "Getty Image" letter yesterday. I have been very ill but have been through this before, but years ago and so did some research and found your site. They are demanding $600 from my client for 2 small candles in the top banner of her site. I spent hours going through the net and stock photo sites and could not find the image no matter what search words I used. My client was panicked and I was worried about that panic affecting my health and recovery so I started digging. I also know that Getty Images has, over the years, bought out alot of its competition so they might have fanned out and become more pesty.
Not so much now because of the current economy but a couple of years ago when I was very busy, I successfully worked for a long time ( and still do sometimes now) with a group of Indian programmers that would take over some of my projects acting as temp help. The site in question was put together by one of my Indian affliates and I put in some of the images from my library but she put in the candles cited in the Getty Images letter. My Indian affiliate would take my site and slice it then give me back the template and I would populate it as I got the info from the client, which happened in this case. This site has been up for 2 years so I wonder what took them so long to try to extort money. I told my client that it was a con and not to answer the letter but she is continuing to bug me and that is really bad for my recovery at this time. I also contacted India and as it turned out, this lovely woman that I worked with on the template for my clients site is no longer employed with my Indian group. So, that basically leaves nobody to harrass but my client and she is totally innocent, knows nothing about my work arrangement and there is really nobody that is holding this ball but her after 2 years of having this site that produced and still does produce clients for her, having nothing to do with the candles which are only a decorative touch on her site.
Please tell me how to proceed. When I did this search, what I was hoping to find was that this Getty Image demand was akin to a Nigerian Scam but apparently I was wrong; it's even more toxic. Can we just ignore it? If we do not answer, this letter was not sent certified, is there any way to prove that it was received? What do I do now?
Thanks in Advance;
M
-
I would not ignore it as their demand letters will continue to pile up and they will then send it to NCS Recovery "a collection agency." (though they can't put you into actual collection) Our letter program responds to their letter and they can no longer contact you directly. If you are interested you can reach me at xxx
-
Dear OM
I am based in UK and got a settlement demand letter for almost £2K for 2 images for my business website. I never received a cease and desist letter either. I have read that getty have been lying about sending c+d letters and are arguing that they did in fact send them when they didn't.
I am a sole trader and business has been really bad so to contemplate paying this to getty images is quite painful. I am even considering closing down my business because of the stress of this horrible situation.
I never knew anything about website design and all the technicalities involved so I relied on the expertise of my webdesigner to deal with the situation. I've read that once payment is made to getty there is nothing to stop them asking for more money for other images even if they are no longer on the website. As soon as I received the letter I asked the webdesigner friend to do the needful and remove the images. The entire website was removed shortly.
Do you have some sort of guidance you can give me without the need to go to an IP lawyer who will charge about £200 per hour and in the end just say pay it and be done with it. I have read alot of posts and some friends are also telling me not to give in to the scam. What should I do? I have been told not to do anything until I receive a summons for that would indicate if getty were serious. If I contact some say I would just be drawing their attention to me. I have only heard of one case in UK being taken to court by gy over £1,900 but it was not in the County court but in the High Court. The defendant agreed to settle out of court and the costs agreed to be paid as part of the settlement were in the region of £20K. Do getty only go for big companies where they think they will actually have a chance of getting the money or is anyone aware of any court case in UK about this? Alot of people are talking about class action class action but no one is actually doing anything about it! Can someone take the reins and compile some sort of a list of people both in UK and in USA to start this class action?
If the business is closed down what do getty do? Do they carry on searching for the owner of the business?
How long after the first letter is the second letter usually sent out?
Jokes aside, if the debt collectors come round what should we say?
Has anyone got any of their own stories to tell from start to finish which may throw some light on how getty deal with the situation?
I feel like I am being bullied when I innocently had the images on my website. In UK a Letter Before Action must always be served before action is taken. I do not believe that a settlement demand letter is a letter before action because it is not asking us to stop using the images (which, by the way I did not even know were not allowed to be used).
Are there any people based in UK who have been on the receiving end of these getty letters? Please let us know what happened and over what period as this would help us deal with the situation. It's fear of the unknown that is so frustrating.
Has anyone actually been taken to court by getty in UK? Has anyone been asked not to discuss their case by getty if they have settled with them? I have not seen anyone writing about having been taken to court? why?
OM please can you also comment here.
Thanks
-
see my response to your post at the other topics
-
I have been in the Design Business for over 22 years and doing web design for about 15 years.
Since my first client received one of these extortion letters, I have refused to take on any more web-related work as a result (already turned down 3 new website builds this month and warned the potential clients about this latest scam). Until last month, I have been spending several thousand dollars per year on stock photo license agreements - that will be ZERO in the future. I have NEVER used GETTY but once many years ago for a single image, but they keep harassing one of my clients and we have even proven to them that what they are claiming is a Getty Image is absolutely (and obviously) not even one of their images. So apparently they are threatening lawsuits against anyone you even has an image displayed that is even similar-looking to one they offer - even you you took the photo yourself. If I have to shut down the business due to the unwillingness of the Stock Photo Industry to police itself - so be it. I never thought that my clients might be put in a position of having to sue me when I did everything right and legal. I simply don't have the desire to and health to fight these crooks. This practice is nothing but a job and economy "killer" - the only winner is Getty, until they drain the trough.
I have bundled up all my research on this and forwarded it to one of my contacts at Fox News in hopes that they will look into the matter further and expose this practice. Once enough of these letters go out and the word gets around NOBODY will be putting ANY images on the Internet. Even if you can prove you have a license or took the photo yourself - I refuse to spend what little spare time I have proving to Getty that I did not breach their claims.
I have NEVER used a stock image for any of my clients that I did not purchase rights to, but if all my clients are going to start getting these threat letters, I will have to spend ALL MY TIME just looking up proof of purchase. Between Getty and the Government, the paperwork could put ANY design firm out of business. Even if everything is done correctly (as I did), it still will not stop Getty from threatening lawsuits to EVERY person that has any photos displayed on their website (even if the web site owner took them themselves apparently).
I can only imagine what it is going to be like when couple hundred of my web site clients receive these threat letters! They are all going to look to me and either I have to show proof of every single image Getty decides to challenge or rish a lawsuit from all my clients independently.
Responding to these letters is a waste of time - we just did that last week and the Getty idiots came right back with a response that we were using one of their images - we are not and never have! We even sent them photographic proof the the image is different - they are still pursuing my client.
Until these practices are exposed on nationwide television, this will continue. Once it is exposed, the law will need to be revised otherwise NOBODY will ever put ANY photo on a website again and EVERYBODY loses in the end! What a thing to be pulling in this spiraling economy... maybe that is part of their plan to trash another industry?
-
This has only gotten a modicum of press. The LA Times and the Seattle Times did pieces on it, but thats about it
-
a few questions regarding this thread:
-if getty didn't register the picture with the us copyright office, how can they enforce copyrights?
-when i search for the picture title with the us copyright office, i can't find it. would they possibly have registered the entire collection instead?
-when i took the picture from someone else's site, how do i know who in the world to ask permissions from if they don't credit who is reserving all their rights on the page?
i simply want to make sure that i'm searching correctly on the us copyright page. i've searched for "getty", "and" is clicked, "Masseuse pouring hot oil on woman's back, close up" with all of these clicked and search for keyword anywhere clicked.
it says it couldn't find anything. would they have registered the title? i found a registration for 5 images under the collection which is "stone", but i couldn't see what those images were, if they were mine or not.
all in all, i suppose it doesn't matter. i took it from a website where i had no idea where they got it from, and apparently i'm a criminal for that and should have known to know to look up if copyrights apply. i guess it just tells me if they sue me over 1 picture (which doesn't seem likely according to this forum), they at least couldn't get legal fees too.
thanks, all.