ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: CaliBoy on April 07, 2014, 08:08:21 PM
-
Hey ya'll! This website has been such a valuable resource for me. So, thank you!!
Getty Images and I have been going back and forth for awhile now. I used the image in question on a website that did not generate any income whatsoever. I thought that the image was "free" and in the public domain. After asking Getty for proof of ownership and offering them $200, this is their response:
"This is a Rights Managed (RM) image. We also license Royalty Free (RF) images on behalf of this contributor (Yellow Dog Productions)...Please find attached a price calculation for the use of this image, as used on your website, for the shortest possible duration of use for RM content (i.e. one (1) month)."
Then, they quote me $700 and tell me that this is the lowest fair market value for the image. They go on to reiterate that “Getty Images represents and warrants that it owns, or represents the photographers who own, the copyrights in the Image..."
What should I do?
Thanks for your help!
-
700 for one month? What was this a picture of?
I would still want to see proof that they have a signed contrast giving them the rights to license the image and collect on behalf of the artist. It has been shown that Getty has licensed and/or collected on images they don't have rights to or even permission to use. Agence France Presse v. Morel and Ron Raffaelli v. Getty Images.
Would you be willing to scan and email me a copy of your Getty letters, especially the one with the 700 for one month calculation. I can redact any and all personal information from it. I am working on changing the current copyright law and I would like to include this in the information when I send it to congress. My email address is [email protected].
-
Hi Greg and thank you for your reply! The photo was of a pier at sunset in Germany. It was on my homepage (single-page portfolio website), 96ppi, and 1920 x 1200px. That being said, would you pay it if they were to provide documentation of proof? The $700 was just based on the price calculator on their website. Thanks again.
-
No, I would not pay them. Getty is known to be very underhanded, untrustworthy, and inflate their numbers which their numbers do not necessarily represent true market rates. They will not do much of anything for you. You need to get educated from this side of the fence and not listen to their propaganda.
-
No, I would not personally pay 700. If Getty were to provide proof of claim I would try to negotiate in good faith with them and reach a reasonable settlement.
I seriously doubt that Getty will provide proof so it is most likely a moot point.
-
Just playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment; I ran some numbers using http://www.cradocfotosoftware.com/fotoQuote-Pro/ (http://www.cradocfotosoftware.com/fotoQuote-Pro/) and it returned a one-month license of $820 using the following criteria
Country: United States
Corporate Use
Web Only
Promotional (national market)
Up to full screen
Up to 1 month
Now, I'm just running numbers based on guesswork as to the image they claim you used. FotoQuote Pro is used by so many photographers worldwide it's practically a de-facto standard.
As to the merits of Getty's claim; you're perfectly within your rights to request proof that the image was either produced by one of their staff photographers and thus is their own copyright, or that they have the right to pursue the claim on behalf of the photographer who did and, until such time, you're within your rights to refuse to engage with them any further.
-
Thank you all, again, for taking the time to respond to my post and offer your insight.
That's a major reality check DavidVGoliath...ouch. Perhaps Getty's pricing isn't as insane as we all thought it was.
-
Or, maybe it is really insane.
Getty has been accused, by members on this board, of conveniently moving images around their collections. An image that one day is in their Royalty Free Images collection, later appears as Rights Managed. The RF images don't get nearly what the RM images get.
If one didn't trust Getty, they might even think that before sending out any letters, Getty moves the images to their RM collection. I only say that because, at any given time, you can find some fairly unimpressive images in that group.
-
Very true, stinger. Well, I guess I could ask them (for a 3rd time) to provide me documentation showing proof that they own, or are authorized to license, the image. And, I could request a sales history in order to find out whether or not the image has always been a Rights Managed image. But, I think I'll just ignore them instead of wasting more of my time.
-
I also think, that what some may be overlooking, is not the high prices, but the fact that most mom and pops, bloggers etc..would not purchase these high priced images, add to that that there are most likely very similar images available for much less...at the end of the day the only folks using any of Getty's RM images are most likely large corporate accounts, and big media.
-
My biggest issue with them is they send out an invoice yet refuse to show they have the rights to collect on an image. To me there is no point in trying to negotiate with someone who won't produce supporting documentation to their claim. Getty's response is always we'll show you when we sue you.
Once you get past that I do feel that IMO Getty, MasterFile, Corbis et al do ask for more than the image is worth and more than they could win in court (based on the truly innocent infringer).
-
I totally agree, Robert and Greg. If I'd had known that the image was not "free" and that it would've cost me $700/mo, I would've gotten off my ass and taken a picture of a pier myself. I live on the coast! So ridiculous... On the letter, they addressed it to my name and described me as "a California Corporation." Ha, I wish. I'm just one person who took a web design class and decided to challenge myself by making a website. Anyway, thank you kindly for ALL of the responses!
-
Not a problem, please keep us updated. :)
-
That is NOT a major reality check. It is only one person's opinion and that person is not a "regular" fighter or opponent of Getty and their ilk.
Also, Robert brings up an important point. Even if the price is "legitimate", it doesn't mean that any ordinary person would have ever bought or agreed to such outrageous pricing.
You seriously need to learn who you to listen and pay heed to.
That's a major reality check DavidVGoliath...ouch. Perhaps Getty's pricing isn't as insane as we all thought it was.
-
I also think, that what some may be overlooking, is not the high prices, but the fact that most mom and pops, bloggers etc..would not purchase these high priced images, add to that that there are most likely very similar images available for much less...at the end of the day the only folks using any of Getty's RM images are most likely large corporate accounts, and big media.
Robert, you're right on all counts: RM imagery exists to offer a measure of exclusivity to the image user; the amount of exclusivity is based on the fee paid and I have first-hand knowledge of instances where a licencee has paid a premium to get exclusive rights to use an image for a set period of time - usually "paparazzi" images or newsworthy shots, for what it's worth.
-
That is NOT a major reality check. It is only one person's opinion and that person is not a "regular" fighter or opponent of Getty and their ilk.
... hence my prefacing that I was playing Devil's Advocate ;)
Like I said: FotoQuote is very widely used software and provides third-party data without bias, especially if you want to answer the question as to what a fair rate for an image license might be. In a recent UK court case, FotoQuote was referenced by both the plaintiff and defendant in their arguments - you can read how that played out here
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2013/26.html
Also, Robert brings up an important point. Even if the price is "legitimate", it doesn't mean that any ordinary person would have ever bought or agreed to such outrageous pricing.
Again, you're mostly correct: in a free market economy, a prospective buyer does indeed have a choice when it comes to how much they want to pay for a given commodity in advance; value judgements are made based on a raft of considerations, with budget almost always being one of the core factors. Freedom of choice allows you to elect for an alternative, lower priced commodity - or perhaps pass entirely.
However, when it comes to the legal aspects of copyright infringement, we're no longer talking about one's opinion as to whether the fee is outrageous or not; instead it becomes a question of actual damages - and the plaintiff has to show that the sum they're asking for is reasonable and in-line with industry averages.
This leads me back to the Sheldon vs. Daybrook House case I referenced earlier; in the ruling, the judge was not concerned about how much the Daybrook House offered or wanted to pay - the judgement was rendered based on how much Sheldon could have legitimately licensed the image for to a genuine buyer.
Coming back to CaliBoy's issue: he's perfectly free to refuse to engage with Getty as they're not offering up the reasonable evidence that he's asked for. I personally detest their we'll-furnish-you-with-evidence-when-we-file-suit tactic as it implies that such evidence does not exist.
From my own perspective, making an offer to settle a civil claim for any matter is best done by presenting all the evidence and facts at the offer stage... otherwise, it's all noise and static.
-
I fell to sleep last night thinking about Getty and the possibility that I could be one of the few "lucky" ones who accidentally used an image that was already registered with the copyright office. The first thing I did this morning was double-check the online copyright records database, searching for anything having to with the image (image name, image number, Getty Images, Image Bank, photographer's name, etc). The photographer does appear in 1 listing, but the copyright claimant is Masterfile Corporation. Other than that, I guess the image could be part of a compilation and that would limit my ability to find it via a records search. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Getty sucks.
-
CaliBoy - another point on this issue is that anyone's pricing scheme is just one piece of evidence. Actual licensing fees among similar uses and similar users for similar images would also be admissible proof of the market value of the image.