Getty Imagies Letter

[WR5]

Hi Mighty minds of TEF

Today I received a Letter from Getty Images telling me I owed them 800 quid for an image of theirs that i used on a website.
I got the image on a disc of Royalty Free images that I have had for years, so did not realise it was owned by them.
Looked online and their is loads of conflicting advice. I have obviously taken the image down and am inclined to just ignore the letter now. Have any TEFers had experience with this?

Cheers

[Jimmy Glass is an Alien]

Not with images but with music acquired from various sources online. I was asked to pay £700, but ignored the letter. 2 years later I still haven't heard anything.

My advice is keep the disc and any receipt you have linking you to it, if anything comes of it then show the evidence.

[Samdy Gray]

Getty are a right bunch of cunts. They will do everything to get that money out of you. Not just a case of ignoring them like with the speculative music downloading letters.

If you have proof that the image was royalty free then I'd be inclined to write back to them with the evidence and ask them to drop their case.

[jonny72]

Them demanding £800 for one image seems somewhat over the top, unless it was a high end premium image. Even if it went the distance and they took you to court it's unlikely they'd be awarded much more than it is actually worth, which for a standard image on a website isn't going to be much - the libraries I use charge no more than £20.

I had a similar thing when I hadn't taken out a license for playing music in my shop. They were demanding thousands for damages and copyright infringement and so on - paid the license fee and they went away. Again, they wouldn't have got any more than that in a court.

I probably wouldn't ignore it though as that could look bad if it goes further. I'd reply stating I wasn't aware it was their image, explain where it came from and that I believed it to be royalty free and make clear it has now been removed.

[WR5]

Just sent a letter saying I have taken down the image, although I believed it was Royalty Free
Asked them to provide proof that they have exclusive use to license  the image and how they arrived at the figure of £800.00(plus VAT)

[Batch]

Did you send any evidence as to why you thought the image was royalty free?

[WR5]

Did you send any evidence as to why you thought the image was royalty free?

No as I could not find the disc or remember where it came from 

[guy66]

It sounds like they are similar to those self regulated car park thugs who just send out scary letters and then back off, I read this on Wiki about them;

"Controversial practices to enforce copyrightIn 2008, Getty Images caused controversy for its aggressive pursuit of copyright enforcement on behalf of its photographers. Rather than pursue a policy of sending out "cease and desist" notices, Getty typically mails out a demand letter claiming substantial sums of damages to owners of websites which it believes are using their images in infringement of their photographers' copyright. Getty commonly tries to intimidate website owners by sending collection agents, even though a demand letter cannot create a debt. One photographer noted: "courts don't like to be used as a means of extortion." In one case, Getty sent a church in Lichfield, Staffordshire, a £6,000 bill for photographs used on its website, apparently placed there by a church volunteer. In this case, the church offered to pay Getty what it thought was a reasonable amount. The diocese's communications director said, "Getty was not playing ball or following the normal litigation or dispute resolution procedures and [I advised the church] to ignore them. We don't deal with bullies; we deal with legal threats appropriately. I told [Getty] by letter that's what [the church was] doing, that we were not going to play, and didn't hear any more." The Guardian describes other instances in which Getty or other stock photo businesses dropped the matter when the website owner refused to pay or hired a lawyer. A law firm was quoted as saying: "Once we get involved generally Getty does back off."[16]

In 2009, Car-Freshener corp filed a case against Getty Images in U.S. Federal Court, Northern District New York (Case 7:09-cv-01252-GTS -GHL)[citation needed]. Car-Freshener claimed that Getty Images had in its catalog photos that included the famous "tree-shaped" trademarked car fresheners. In 2011, Getty Images had attempted to have the case dismissed, but the motion was denied.[17] In 2012, Getty Images agreed to settle by paying Car-Freshener corp, but admitted no wrongdoing.[18]"

[THE FLASH]

What was the image of??

[WR5]

man slipping over on a wet floor

[deltaincline]

Ignore it. No different than the car park fishing letters. If you bite in any way, they'll assume you give a fuck and will go after you.

If they do persist despite you ignoring them (unlikely) ask them to proove that they actually own the photons reflected onto the image that they are complaining about. Then remove the image from your website.