Got A Getty Letter Today

[TMonroe]

I was surprised to see this letter come. They want me to pay $875.00 for one image that I googled and used. If you google free coming soon image it is the first one that comes up and does not seem to be the same image as the one in their picture. Although it does look close there are some differences in the image. I always search for free images and never have I used any with copyright or image marks on them or were not listed as free. The image in question was used on my personal site that I have for keeping information on my dogs and how they progress. Should my next step be to write them and ask for explicit proof that Getty has an exclusive, legal claim to the image?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Welcome to the forums TMonroe. First off you should know that just because you Google an image using the term free it does not mean the image is free. Copyright exists from the moment a picture is taken and it does not need to have a watermark or copyright notice on it to show that it is copyrighted. You may wish to reevaluate any other images on your site or sites that you have obtained this way.

Unless you take the image(s) yourself or hire a photographer with a contract that says you obtain all rights to the images you purchase you can never be completely sure nowadays. As in my case I obtained my image from a personal website where the owner of the site had several image galleries including one labeled for the public in which all the images in that gallery had his name on them along with a title he gave them. When I selected the image I felt very confident it belonged to him and he was offering it in his public gallery, so you see why I make the statement that I do.

Now having said that, yes absolutely I would request proof of Getty's claim and their exclusive rights if they have claimed them in their demand letter.  I would not mention anything about the Google search or no watermark for the reasons I have stated. Read the forums and educate yourself as all the answers you need to defend yourself are contained within. Please keep us posted as to your progress.

[lucia]

Before you wrote: Did you copy and upload the copy to your server? Or is it hotlinked?  If it's hotlinked and you are in the US: no worries. So check. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

yeah FREE images are a joke...or FREE anything....nothing is FREE ever..except the FREE advice you will recieve here on ELI, that's the only exception.

[TMonroe]

Contacted them today and told them it was a site that my daughter keeps for our dogs and we will never use the image or any images from the internet again, also told them we were very sorry and they closed the case.

[stinger]

I like that.  Finally, a case where Getty seems human.  Please let us know if they ever come back at you for this same incident.

I also like the concept of "blame it on a minor" for simple web site infractions.  I wonder what Oscar would have to say about their ability to pursue a minor for copyright infringement???

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

See, if this is the way Getty would handle ALL of these types of cases it would severely diminish the need for this site.

I like the idea of accepting TMonroe's explanation and then maybe introducing him and his daughter to their microstock affiliate and maybe even pointing out where a similar image to the one that was used could be had for a few bucks. THAT is how you turn infringers into customers.

What do you say Getty? Is this the new direction?

[Lettered]

I'm not sure he "blamed it on a minor".  He only said it was used on a website his daughter "keeps".  No mention of who actually owns the website, nor how old the daughter is.

In any event, applause for Getty.  Hopefully this is a new trend.