e-mail from Getty

[Cliff61]

I've recieved a reply from Getty by e-mail, although I've never e-mailed them, I've only sent them letters. It was on my business e-mail address which I rarely use, it was sent a month ago but I've just seen it.

"Thank you for your letter.
Copyright exists upon the moment of creation. The mere existence of the imagery protects it under copyright law. Getty Images represents the photographer who owns the copyright in these images. Getty Images is bound by contract with its contributing photographers to obtain and share the royalties payable for the use of their images and to uphold and defend their copyright in their works. Rights Managed images, such as the ones at issue, are exclusive to Getty Images and available for license only through our website. Therefore, when copyright infringement occurs, Getty Images is entitled to legal redress.
 
Please find below the link to our watermarked copy of the imagery as evidence of our rights in the same.
 
Image 83538792: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/beer-and-wine-high-res-stock-photography/83538792
 
Image 10041871: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/four-hands-male-and-female-toast-with-mugs-high-res-stock-photography/10041871
 
Should you dispute our exclusive right to grant licenses for this image, please send us written documentation by the relevant photographer TS Photography and Pat LaCroix containing their approval for the image to be used for commercial purposes". 
 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

A watermarked image, means nothing..and because the image is on their site means nothing..

[stinger]

I would ignore the email.  Some spam filter got it and you never saw it.

I would only deal with them in writing using snail mail.  They are making life painful for you.  Make it as long and painful for them as possible.

They seem to back off of people who make it clear to them from the outset that what they have to gain is far less than the effort they will need to go through in order to gain it.

[Cliff61]

Yes, thanks for that chaps. As I said the e-mail was a month ago, I've just seen it and it dosent mention the money which surprises me.

[Magicalmale]

Getty is trying to put the onus on you to disprove their claim to ownership, asking you to get in touch with the photographer and get a statement from them.

However, if Getty is asking you for money, the onus should be on Getty to prove their claim to ownership, not on you to disprove it.  This is common sense.  It's also difficult to prove a negative.

If you do want to reply, keep the onus on Getty to prove their claim to ownership, which as BuddhaPi mentioned, a watermarked image doesn't do.

Check out Couch Potato's 28th March answer in the 'Should I respond' thread which talks about what you should ask from Getty to prove their ownership, eg a copy of their agreement with the photographer, and other things.  A look through the forum may give you other ideas.

[DavidVGoliath]

Getty is trying to put the onus on you to disprove their claim to ownership, asking you to get in touch with the photographer and get a statement from them.

Not quite: what they're saying is "let us know if you have been granted a direct license from TS Photography and/or Pat LaCroix whereby they have given you permission to use this photograph commercially"

Select photographers have specific representation agreements with image agencies on matters such as revenue (royalties) split, non-compete clauses, exclusivity terms and perhaps even a clause whereby they agree to permit Getty to pursue infringements on their behalf - and the proceeds of such settlements will be shared with the photographer via their royalties statements.

(Yes, I've seen that language in some agency agreements)

It is within the bounds of reason that the photographer's agreement with Getty includes a clause whereby he is free to license his works directly if he chooses to do so (yes, this language is also present in some agency contracts)

As an editorial photographer in Europe, I've supplied content to several agencies over the years and the only non-compete clause that I've ever been bound by is that I cannot supply identical or similar photographs to a competing agency.

Here's an example: I go to a red carpet premier and shoot the celebrity arrivals, netting perhaps 300 photographs in total. I decide to split the images between three agencies and wire them in; by doing so, I've probably broken the terms of my agreement with all three individual agencies and exposed myself to having my contributor status with them revoked.

Conversely, a prospective client finds a photograph that they'd like to license in my online portfolio - the fact that, as a contributing photographer, I've retained all copyright in my work allows me to license the image to them directly.

This is most likely why Getty are asking you whether TS Photography / Pat LaCroix has given you a license to use the images commercially; if you had such a license, you'd simply provide it to Getty and - to all intents and purposes - their claim would cease after they'd checked the validity of the license with the photographer.

[stinger]

DavidV..., I am not sure you have seen the Getty letters.  They don't ask anything.  Their tone is "guilty until proven innocent".  And they provide no objective facts to back up their assertions.

I would vote for giving the benefit of the doubt to most photogs, but from what I have personnally seen from Getty, not them.

[justme123]

My advice is to completely ignore them. This is the stance I took, I had a total of 3 letter from them each getting more threatening & each one telling me it's my final warning. I ignored all of them & haven't heard anything from them for ages now. They are like little children - ignore them & they will go away.