Getty Images using bully boy tactics

jor199

A friend of mine has got a demand today from Getty Images for €1,000 for alleged breach of copyright on an image that she used on her website.The image was copied from google images where no reference was made to Getty or any copyright. The image was 96px x 96px and had been modified before she got it so it was different to the image they are charging for.She contacted them in Ireland and the US and explained to them that she did not know the image was copyrighted and immediately took it off her website but they insist they want payment. My friend is not in a position to pay this as she is not working and was using the website to get back to work.
Can anyone give me some advise as to her legal position and how she should procede

kensutz

Someone tried to use the google search excuse on me too and I told them they were in breach of copyright. She never asked anyone if the image could be used so therefore, she is liable to be charged for hosting the image on another site.

PCPhoto

she illegally used a pic - breach of copyright !!!

talk to a solicitor to get best legal advice

At a guess in a court of law the most your friend will have to pay out some money ....and I doubt that Getty would persue it to the courts, the image has been removed. (and your friend learned a lesson)

mneylon

It's happened to quite a few people in the past:
http://www.irishwebmasterforum.com/graphic-design/3501-getty-looking-for-2k.html

EKRIUQ

To me this is bordering on a scam by Gettyimages there was no indication that they owned the image, there was no cease and desist action where an order or request to halt an activity which would be reasonable. I'm guessing there hoping for the small percentage to pay so it makes it worth their while. I couldn't see a 91px x 91px getting far in a court case or at least I'd be willing to find out.

My advice is not to worry about it until after another 5 letters.

smcelhinney

do not follow the advice above, unless ERKIUQ you are indeed versed in internet copyright law, and I have done you an injustice?

Seek legal advice straight away, to prevent this reaching a litigation stage.

Fajitas!

EKRIUQ wrote: »

To me this is bordering on a scam by Gettyimages there was no indication that they owned the image, there was no cease and desist action where an order or request to halt an activity which would be reasonable. I'm guessing there hoping for the small percentage to pay so it makes it worth their while. I couldn't see a 91px x 91px getting far in a court case or at least I'd be willing to find out.

My advice is not to worry about it until after another 5 letters.

It's not a scam at all. Breach of copyright is breach of copyright. Just because something is posted on the internet without a watermark dosn't mean it's up for grabs.

jor199

Many thanks for all your suggestions especially Blacknight followed your link and it was most helpful found another which may be of help to others

http://extortionletterinfo.com/index.htm

matrixroyal

Here's my experience, hopefully it will help someone else because it can be daunting getting these big demands with threatening language.

First time it happened it was our fault for including 2 tiny images ( someone took their eye off the ball ) to help the client and supplement the poor images they had, we got a demand for 4000 for the 2 pics, the client put pressure on and out of a sense of good faith, we paid up.

Second time, it was the clients fault for supplying us with an image they took from the web, client thought it was our fault for not properly warning them, I agreed to pay half ( very grudgingly ) to ensure good relations in the future. It was 1500 + vat for use of one picture.

Third time, it was the clients fault ( their site was riddled with images they took from everywhere and supplied to us for inclusion on the website ) so I told them to fight it an any way they could but that I was not paying Getty any more money. Their solicitor drafted a snotty letter which stated they had never received a warning ( cease and desist ) and that they would not be paying anything, so bring it on ( kind of thing ).
They never heard anything from Getty again and never paid a penny in the end.


Draw your own conclusions.

In my opinion it's a horrible way to do business, although I don't condone outright plagiarism, they are going about it the wrong way I think.
I vowed never to give any money to Getty ever again, so I was gutted when they bought istockphoto

pauldiv

If your friend informs Getty that she is unemployed and broke then I doubt she will hear from them again. You cant get blood out of a stone.

Fajitas!

See, Getty's been made out to be the big bad wolf, just another faceless corporation and so on. This is something I have a problem with. I don't nessicarily agree with how they approach this, but I doubt they're doing it as a money making scam. Even to go to court, they're risking a case, paying legal expenses and so on.

At the end of the day, stock image sites are made up by the people contributing. Using an image off Getty without paying it might seem like a victomless crime, but there's a photographer, or a graphic artist, or someone, down along the line, that's losing their few bob on an image they created. And if a web designer had a site taken off them and used by another company, etc, they'd feel the exact same about it.

pauldiv

Fajitas! wrote: »

...if a web designer had a site taken off them and used by another company, etc, they'd feel the exact same about it.

Yeah yeah. The girl has obviously had a fright and learned her lesson by now.
No point in chasing her all the way to botany bay now.
Do you think we should maybe have a whipround for Getty in case we have hurt their feelings?

Peanut

I think the fact that it was a 96x96 image is a key point here.

Such small images are clearly just thumbnail quality and may qualify as fair use, depening on the context they're used in (at least in the US).

Look at how Wikipedia uses copyright images in many of their articles, the guidelines they go by are here.


IMHO actions such as those by Getty actually damage the cause for compensating artists/photographers by being entirely unreasonable with their demands. Enforcing copyright is one thing, being an a**hole about it is something else again.

Fajitas!

Size dosn't affect Fair Use over here afaik (and I'm pretty sure), and Wikipedia tends to stick to images falling under Creative Commons - Something which isn't worth the space it's typed on over here (yet), or the educational/critical side of the Fair Use laws. If the OP's friend stuck to that, she wouldn't be in the spot of hassle she's in...

As I said, I don't nessicarily agree with their approach, but at least they're reacting to a breach in copyright - It's far too common and easy to find the "ah shur, it's only a picture - what's that to anyone" approach. It's because people have stuck to thinking "Only a picture" that they're so shocked when they're approached over it.

IMHO actions such as those by Getty actually damage the cause for compensating artists/photographers by being entirely unreasonable with their demands. Enforcing copyright is one thing, being an a**hole about it is something else again.

That's like saying a shop owner is an asshole for coming after somebody (legally, not physically) for stealing from it.

tricky D

The thumbnail argument has been rejected by some courts, but it is a moot subject. However with the rise of mobile phones displaying similarly sized images the argument is going to hold less water in the future.

US case law here.

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Google%20Images%20Infringe%20Copyright%20According%20to%20Californian%20Judge.htm

Peanut

Fajitas! wrote: »

...
That's like saying a shop owner is an asshole for coming after somebody (legally, not physically) for stealing from it.

But it's the proportion of the response that's the main issue here I think.

I would suggest that a better analogy is a shopkeeper coming after somebody with a €100 charge for taking a pick 'n' mix sweet..
It may be legal, but is it moral, or even good business sense?

Fajitas!

As with everything, it depends :pac:

But to be fair, if someone is going to take something (at the end of the day, theft), chances are they would never pay for it in the first place, so you're not losing a customer. I probably should have elaborated on my analogy, in that the goods stolen were then used for potential gain.

Say someone robs an ice cream machine from a shop owner, just before the summer (And we had sun :pac: ), the shopowner is both out on the actual ice cream machine, and the proceeds he would have made from it. Not only that, but if he had hired someone to make the cones, they'd be out on money too.

Peanut

I think a lot of amateur web designers don't even know about micro-stock photo sites.

The quality is so much better than just searching google images - if I'm making a site I rarely use public domain images from a Google search, I will either search Flickr for Creative Commons licensed material or look on Fotolia or somewhere like that.

If Getty were smart, instead of sending out scare notices which they most likely have no intention of pursuing in court, they should issue them with a token fee and setup istockphoto accounts for the infringers, with the provisio of waiving the infringement fee if they purchase more then x amount of images on the site over the year.

infrared

Just so everyone interested knows, Getty has a digital signature of some kind on their images and can easily find them whereever they are used.

Be very careful using images on your site from 'google images'. It is unfortunate that this person is facing liability from using this image (especially as it was so tiny) but Getty hasn't spent the last 10 years buying up so many picture archives for so many billion dollars not to flex its muscles at some stage.

If it make you feel any better, that company bought an Irish stock photographic company 3 years ago for $130M. A company that would now be worth less than 5% of that because of sites such as istockphoto. Oh wait, Getty bought those as well didn't they!

kevteljeur

I've had people take photos from my site using the 'But I found it on Google' argument, and even use it in newspapers and other situations. It doesn't matter. If it's not yours, and you didn't ask, you can't use it, and you can be charged or sued if you do anyway.

I do think that Getty should be issuing a standard invoice, but then again, some of their images come under exclusivity agreements. You can pay a hell of a lot of money for exclusive usage rights to a good image.