Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Sleepless in Canada

« on: February 24, 2010, 12:35:58 AM »

Still can't sleep...

Still pissed off.  What I have also come up with is that since their tactics are entrapment with a more than aggressive approach, they don't allow the unsuspecting any recourse in finding if their images are copyrighted.  With Microsoft at least they have a means to test if your software is legitimate.  And if it isn't you can get it a reasonable price.  If Getty is spending amounts with PicScout, then why not install it at their site and allow us to have it scan our site and show which pics are theirs.  That way we will have time to react and, if the price is right, buy/pay that fee to use the photo.  This will give us a vehicle for us to see who owns images that we may have acquired, and not get any surprises later on.  Maybe the other parties should do it, rather than copying each other's methods.

If they are not careful, they could ruin that "golden goose" for them selves.  Look what happened to the music business after Napster.  Now that Getty is "private" (ie not on stock exchange), it will be hard to follow if they are making any money or in a financial bind.  Unfortunately they are still too big to just go away.

What scares me is the suit that they won in the UK.  Yes, they didn't defend themselves, by not even responding to the letter.  Guess I'll have to get Oscar's wisdom.

Back to bed..

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Sleepless in Canada

« on: February 23, 2010, 08:58:22 PM »

My client just got THE LETTER.  I do the web sites for them.  My story is that a former client bought the business with an existing web site back in 2005.  At that time of the sale the understanding was that the photos were bought legitimately.  We redid the web site in early 2007 using some of the photos from the previous site (they liked some of the shots, and we aim to please).   They then sold the business in late 2008 to the current owner.  

We always make sure images are from either public domain or royalty-free.  Until this time, we didn't realize that the photos were "rights managed" by Getty.  I make it a policy to never use images of this type, just royalty-free ones.

One of  my concerns is Getty being up front with the status of the images that they are claiming to be "rights managed"?   Could they ever have been royalty-free at some point, especially if they are buying stock photo companies.  With billions of images on the internet and them trying to promote/sell on behalf of photographers, who's to say.  If I was a photographer and one company wasn't selling my photos much, I would try other avenues.  

In my case it's only 5 images, out of the many others on the site.  I have since removed them and replaced with royalty-free (not from Getty for sure).  What I did notice in their letter is that the opening page stated that they expect a settlement in 21 days from the date of the letter and stated the due date to get the 10% discount.  On the REMIT page it states a settlement date of before the date of the letter, and also on other pages (confusing on which date is which).  Regardless, it comes with a clause for each image, stating (from my interpretation), that even if there is a settlement, there is no entitlement to use the images.  Go figure.

Any suggestion on the recourse?  One of my arguments would be that I am at a disadvantage in seeing if the images are licensed, while they rely on third-party software (not available to the others) and cheap labour (this could have all been outsourced).  While I support royalty-free stock photos, it would be great to be on a level playing field.  

Cheers