Regarding copyright

[Cliff61]

Yesterday my situation (I havent replied to my original letter yet but I probably will), was told to a friend of a friend who is a judge in Italy. He said it might be best to ignore the letter(s), wait until I get one from their legal department and then ask for proof of copyright. He also asked if all Getty's photos were of the same subject matter(food & drink in my case) and when told they were not, they were on a wide range of subjects, he said in that case it would be doubtful that they would own copyright.Just his opinion though, he dosent have all the facts.

[Beanpole]

It's a small point, but Getty rarely own copyright in images and they don't claim to, they claim to be the exclusive licensee. This page is worth a read: http://www.inbrief.co.uk/intellectual-property/who-can-claim-copyright-infringement.htm

If they really are the exclusive licensee, that gives them more-or-less the same rights as the copyright owner had. Problem is, they usually (or always?) refuse to provide proof of this. It's likely that they never bother checking whether they really do have a licence because that would just slow them down.

Also, the "legal department" they refer to is a debt-collection company called Atradius Collections Ltd in Cardiff. There's no point asking Atradius for proof of anything, or taking any notice of their letters. Whatever the rights and wrongs of your particular situation, you don't owe Atradius a penny.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

@Beanpole,

Getty always refuses to provide proof.  It is only provided when they go to court and the last time that happened it didn’t go well for them.  They won their case by default but the court ruled the 35 images in question all had issues with the registrations and/or paperwork so Getty got nothing even though they won the case.  You can find the case here if you want to read it:

http://www.scribd.com/collections/3777307/Getty-v-Advernet

[Beanpole]

Greg, thanks for the clarification, I figured it was "always", but wasn't sure. Not a huge surprise.

I've read the Advernet case -- hard going, but weirdly entertaining

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Greg, thanks for the clarification, I figured it was "always", but wasn't sure. Not a huge surprise.

I've read the Advernet case -- hard going, but weirdly entertaining

Be careful BP, or you might get the disease like Greg..that boy needs treatment... 

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

@Beanpole
You are welcome!

@Robert (a.k.a. Ned)
 

Greg, thanks for the clarification, I figured it was "always", but wasn't sure. Not a huge surprise.

I've read the Advernet case -- hard going, but weirdly entertaining