Letter from Getty

[newbietolaw]

I got a letter asking to pay $875 for using 1 photo I found on the internet.  I email them asking for a lower rate, and thay say $740 by Sept 9, 2011.  I been doing some research and alot of people say dont paid.  I was willing to paid $200 - 300 to get this matter done with.  But the lady refuse.  So what should I do? Should i wait for another letter or just ignore them until further matter

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

read thru the posts on this forum, then make an educated decision, I personally wouldn't pay them a dime, but I would not ignore it either..

[newbietolaw]

i been reading the post and everywhere, all the advise are all over the wall.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

in a nutshell here are your options

1. don't pay and ignore it... would not look good in front of a judge, and more letters will come as well as the collection agency

2. negotiate them down and pay that amount... still to much IMHO

3. pay the full amount and be done with it......why anyone would do this is beyond me

4. retain OM services to draft a letter for 200.00.....cheaper than paying them, they can no longer contact you, wait to see what happens.

If this is for one image, they "probably" won't file suit, as it would cost them to much..

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

There is a fifth option that is related to these. Here is how I would play these demands:

First, look around and see if there is the exact same image offered elsewhere for license. If it is, point it out to them and tell them to buzz off. Second, find out the actual going rate for that "rights managed" image. It will be fairly high, but you should see what that is. THEN, find similar royalty free stock images. These are often prices at around $10 to $50. Document a bunch for your records.

Compose a letter to the stock image company. Without any admission of guilt, explain that you simply do not have time to research their claim on this image and give them a low-ball offer. (Maybe $50 more then you offered.) Put a deadline on it, giving them 30 days to respond. Tell them if they pursue this
you will need poof of a registered copyright and if they are not the original copyright holder, to please provide a chain of title to this image. Also tell them that since this is the value they are claiming for this image you will require proof of how many times this "rights managed" image was licensed and on what web site and for what price.

So far they have been rejecting these offers, but I predict the day is approaching where they will accept them. If they don't you have to white-knuckle it and hope they don't file suit for 3 years. But even if they do, you have documented evidence that you tried to make a fair offer and you have examples of other images that sell for much less.

In any case, you probably want to go through your site and replace any images you "found on Google" with images in the public domain or images you have taken yourself.

Good luck.

[photographer]

THEN, find similar royalty free stock images. These are often prices at around $10 to $50. Document a bunch for your records.

I dont disagree with all your points apart from the one above. You have to compare apples with apples. You cant get a price from a microstock site and compare it to a Tony Stone collection image.

Its like comparing walmart underwear with calvin klein. Yes they are both underwear but have different market values and price points.

Of course if the same image (not similar, the same) is for sale at microstock prices then you have them over a barrel.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

You cant get a price from a microstock site and compare it to a Tony Stone collection image.

Thank you for your opinion, your honor.



People can gather whatever evidence they want and argue it however they wish. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the examples of the images I have seen and have had first hand experience with, are not materially different than the images available on microstock sites.  By and large, the images that GI is claiming to have an exclusive rights-managed agreement in place are not exceptional. It appears to many that they are inflating the price and then arbitrarily doubling it.

So when one of these finally do go to court, I hope the defendant will have examples of similar photos, priced at a one one hundredth of what is claimed. And sure, if it is the SAME image that would be fantastic.

[SoylentGreen]

Yeah, I agree with mcfilms.  It's a price-gouging scheme for the most part.
Who the hell is "Tony Stone" anyway?  lol.

S.G.