Secondly, when it comes to the value of an image, you might as well ask how long is a piece of string. The rightsholder sets the fees and terms as they see fit; if someone feels that the fee for an image is excessive, then they're certainly free to shop around for an alternative elsewhere.
My personal belief is that you don't get the luxury of arguing over the fee after you've used an image - no matter if a lower priced, similar alternative exists. It's akin to sitting down in a restaurant, ordering without looking at the menu, eating the meal and then attempting to haggle over the bill when it turns out to be way more than you thought it would - all because similar outlets on the other side of town charge far less.
(Yes, it's not a perfect analogy, but you get the point)
We'll have to disagree here.
Your analogy is irrelevant to copyright infringement and the reason it is dealt with separately in law. I could make an analogy whereby if I buy a stolen car unaware it was stolen then I am not asked to pay damages to the owner. Simply return the car. Deleting the image is restoring the property to it's rightful owner under that analogy.
The rights holder may set their terms but that is the point here on the forum with Getty's model. I could take loads of photos, put them on the internet asking for £5,000,000 per photo and if somebody infringed ask them to pay me that despite knowing it would never ever sell for that price. I would not get that amount in court. The photos Getty are sending out their letters on the back of are simply not worth what they are asking and do not sell for that price which is why they are unable to ever offer up a sales history on request to prove the images worth.
Whilst I agree that most small businesses would not license a single photograph for a three figure sum (especially where the subject matter of the photograph might be generic, easily replicated or have similar alternatives available elsewhere for a lesser fee.) the company should have gotten a contract with the web design firm whereby they would be indemnified and held harmless for any legal claims arising from the acceptance of the work done by the design firm for them... absent such contractual protections, the company would be exposed to the risks and liabilities that operating solely on a trust basis can bring to their door.
A contract cannot indemnify you from the law. All it would do is strengthen your case in recouping any amount you had to pay out.
I think a lot of your comments are very relevant and appropriate for copyright infringements in a generic sense. However, here we are talking about the actions of Getty specifically and their actions are not compatible with a company simply seeking to protect copyright.
If you are protecting copyright why would you absolutely refuse to provide any proof you have a right to demand that money?
Why would you refuse to provide any proof of the value of the image?
Why would you threaten litigation but very very rarely even follow through with that?
Getty are not protecting their contributors. They are using a quirk of law as a revenue generator and many here disagree with that.
Topic: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Read 23006 times)