[dtrenz]

yeah, seems like a good idea to keep records of every image you purchase in the event of an audit by getty or anyone else.

i think they reserve amnesty for personal, or small-time sites that might not know any better.

a professional design firm should know better, therefore, they won't grant amnesty.

[Justinraff]

Bit confused about this. Getty staff surf the net looking for their stock - but how did they know these images weren't paid for? What's the difference between a legitimate image and an illegitimate image?

[Justinraff]

Dunno why people even buy from Getty anyway for websites anyway, totally overpriced when you consider the high quality of the stock on sites like istockphoto.

[pixelpyro]

istockphoto = Getty

[pgo]

Uh...how's that? Getty images cost like $400. iStock images cost like $5.

We buy from both. Getty has better images.

Bit confused about this. Getty staff surf the net looking for their stock - but how did they know these images weren't paid for? What's the difference between a legitimate image and an illegitimate image?

Sometimes you can just tell that a website isn't coming from a source that can afford a $400 image. Or they check their records to see if someone from that organization has purchased that image.

[gray]

getty bought istockphoto

[jase1000]

Originally Posted by pgo

Uh...how's that? Getty images cost like $400. iStock images cost like $5.

We buy from both. Getty has better images.

Same here. It all depends on budget but Getty has more and better images. That Rights Managed stuff can fuck right off though. Totally out of my league.

[leginsen]

Originally Posted by kingdoz

Hi Guys,

I would like some comments and ideas of what to do now... Has anyone had any dealings with getty and breach of image copyright?

We built a small website for a client and an old designer who worked for me from India, used google images to find some images for the website. I think he took the images from another website or something without giving it a second thought, which I know is wrong but I cant check these things all the time.

Anyway, a year later my client gets a letter from Getty threatening to sue for breach of copyright for 2 images which they say is theirs. My client phoned me up in panic.

I immediately removed those images, but our client received another letter from Getty demanding £2937.50 for using those 2 small images otherwise they will sue and they say it doesn't matter that we removed them as they have already been used. Its a crazy amount to pay Getty for 2 rubbishy photos anyway (they charge approx £100 each for them but because we used illegally they can charge nearly £1500 in their small print). We had no idea they originally came from Getty anyway when found on google and this Indian chap now disappeared.

Does anyone know if they indeed will sue our client or us, or are they just flexing their muscles? Any advice or will be appreciated.

Thanks - James

Has anyone received a letter from Getty RE Unauthorized Use of Getty Images Photograph? If so what happened? I believe it is illegal as they did not sedn a Cease and Desist letter first.

[JesseLY]

I know this is an old thread, but I just had a similar situation.

I designed the client's site about 5 years ago. He supplied all of the photos to me and claimed that he had paid Getty for them. A few months ago Getty contacted him and said that he was using their photos illegally.

The client tried to push the responsibility off on me and asked me if I could provide him with the info that showed that he/we had the right to use the images. I reminded him (and it was clearly spelled out in my contract) that he provided the images and that the assumption was that he had obtained them legally.

So he had to deal with Getty, and even though we removed the images he still had to pay for their prior use. So it cost him about $5000 in the long run.

The client was a jerk anyway, so I was secretly glad that he got caught after what he put me through during our design process.

-Jesse

[mindbomb]

I don't mean to be abrupt here, but I have sold work to Gettys, and they are well within their rights to sue you, and they will do and rightly so.

They'll have all the proof they need to do it by now, they are protecting the copyright that they have bought/licensed from their artist/clients, it's how they make money, it's how artists make a living.

I agree with Mr Fred.
I would be forced to accept responsibility as the art director and again point out this mistake wasn't checked and offer to pay up for using them, I'm more than sure they will accept or at least meet you half way and accept half of the bigger sum.
If this goes to court, you'll end up even worse off financially.

However you may well have to do this through your lawyer, I'm sure they can put forward your best intentions better than you can, in fact go see one anyway, you'll get 15 mins free advice, and a letter or phone call from them is only £15 - £20.

If you freelance any work out, you must stipulate in your contract that they will be liable for any intellectual property theft, if you as the art director ever gets sued for breech of copyright.

It's a serious business, I'll sue anyone (and have done on several occasions), for I.P theft, but it's less hassle getting paid than going to court.

In this instance one could say that this isn't your fault, but in reality you as the director should have checked everything.

One question, I'm guessing that someone removed the Gettys watermark from the larger images or you used the tiny thumbnails without their watermark?


All the best, I hope you learn from this.

[IdealWebsites]

We have a clause in our contract (and would recommend everyone else does) that states that we will ensure all correct rights are purchased for any images we use and that the client must do the same.

I got a call from my neighbour just a couple of days ago who had been sent a letter by getty, just the same as the people in this thread (she didn't come to me to get her site done). I did a little research for her and it seems there are a lot of people with this problem.

While she should have had a contract with the designer to cover herself I found that there was precedent (in the UK) where a case had gone to court and the designer had been found to be at fault, even without a contract.

It basically came under the implied due care and diligence that you would expect when hiring anyone. The article was here:

Web designer sued for using images without permission | OUT-LAW.COM

[neka]

Originally Posted by IdealWebsites

We have a clause in our contract (and would recommend everyone else does) that states that we will ensure all correct rights are purchased for any images we use and that the client must do the same.

Good tip, time to edit those contracts!

[Snowshiro]

I would agree with an earlier comment. Contact Getty as soon as possible in writing and offer to pay the full cost of licensing the photos (the list price in their catalogue - not the penalty cost). Humbly apologize, say you were entirely unaware of the situation and they may well accept the offer to avoid the inconvenience of legal action. Really if you use any images without knowing their source, you're asking for trouble. In this case, I think you should bite the bullet and pay out of your own pocket, since you've made trouble for your client.

I'd also recommend istockphoto. The quality is usually plenty good enough for screen-based work, and they're remarkably cheap. Sometimes you jus

[Eximium]

We've had three letters from Getty too. We had our solicitor draft a letter asking to purchase the liceanse for the photo we used and if they would be prepared to reduce the fine. We got a NO. We can purchase the license, but it will be in addition to the money already demanded. Has anyone not paid? Are they likely to pursue it, or do they use bully tactics hoping that people will get cold feet and pay?

[joshuaguff]

We got the same letter, in America and they want $2400 for 2 images. I talked to my media law teacher and he said something about them only being able to sue for 3 years, and since the site's be up since 2004 I figured it was no big deal. Anyways, it's been about 3 weeks and still nothing else from them since the letter. Reading this has got me a little worried though, even though its not me thats responsible, I do care about the company I work for. And it was my advise to just ignore the letter- I had read a wiki source that claimed that ghetty has yet to sue anyone since like 2002 but that source was written in 2005.

[joshuaguff]

The Patry Copyright Blog: Statute of Limitations: Part One, Infringement

Section 507, states that the defendant has 3 years to sue civil and 5 years to sue criminal, but according to this blog post, the court defines what counts as "accrual or commencement" based on each case. So your site may have been made three years ago, but only stopped infringing two years ago, you may still be liable. You can just sit and hope that they don't read this post and act sooner lol, or that if you do get sued the court will say that it was too far in the past.

[Snowshiro]

I'm pretty sure Getty's lawyers know how copyright law works. It's kinda crucial to their business.

With respect, you're not a lawyer, and advising someone to "just ignore" a letter from another party threatening legal action doesn't sound like particularly good advice.

[fujiyama]

Originally Posted by spiderman

I too would be interested in a followup post from Kingdoz. I received three letters from Getty Images and they are really stressing me out. I designed two web sites for my children and got photos from the web. Now Getty want £15,000 from me.

I know that some posts here are not at all concerned with how people feel but this is very distressing.

Any update on what to do would be appreciated.

------------------------------------

I got same situation. how is your situation going? did you pay?

[joshuaguff]

probally going to pay, got a new letter in the mail re:unauthorized use of getty images' photograph.

Sounds like it would just be best to get this behind us.

[Cloudbase]

Getty Images are employing bullying and immoral tactics in claimed copyright infringement. They are pure bounty hunters for the following reasons:

1. They never contact the person using the pictures to ask them to desist. This is not the normal way to operate.

2. They impose an unrealistic penalty for usage that way exceeds the rate of normal picture usage - often for a 95 x95 pixel thumbnail pic.

3. They charge VAT when the charges are coming from the USA but they hide behind Getty UK address and are unable to supply a valid UK VAT receipt.

4.They use intimidating letters often on innocent third parties.

The fact is that they use software to trawl the web looking for their pictures and get heavy handed at once they find them.

Whilst I dont condone picture theft these guys are behaving like sharks.