I got hit by GI. $9860!

[rd]

I have gone through lots of posting here and educated myself. I am so grateful for this site.

My case is that all 5 images in questions happen to be Not royalty free images(RF) but Rights-managed(RM) . Therefore, there’s no fixed pricing and the longer the use, the more expensive it gets. When I checked the prices of usage for 4 years(questionably the images have been used for that long), the total license fees was $8300. The bill sent to me by GI was $9,850. GI said they added some lost licensing fees.

Here’s the brief history:

I own an incorporation with 2 employees. (Small company. Apparently a good target of GI). My former part-time employee built my corporate web site about 4 and half years ago. I didn’t know what image were used nor where they come from.

In July 2011, GI e-mailed me asking for license proof for the images in question. (I think those images could have been obtained from google image search.) I had images removed immediately and responded that I didn’t have the license proof.

I followed a lot of people’s advice and asked for the proof of copy right registration. Their response was “The proofs of copy right registration are only available if we can’t settle.”

Those 5 images were used in a 110 x 50 pixel (very small!) menu bar on every page. They were cropped and re-sized. The colors were converted to black and white.

GI asked me how long I had used the images for.  I hesitated to respond, because the images could have been used for over 4 years, and that would get very expensive.($8300 in my calculation). Honestly some images were replaced from time to time and I don’t know exactly how long. I told GI “8 months”, because it could have been 8 months for all I know. However, GI says that their database shows that the images were used for over 4 years, and they would have to bill me for 5 years.

I learned that now there’s a web technology called “Way Back machine” http://www.archive.org/ and anyone can check any web site appearance at any point when any change is made.  I checked my site here, and indeed, those images seem to be up for over 4 years. It is believable that GI uses this site or even they have built a similar in-house archiving system and have all information of when and what changes have been made on my site.

According to my other employee, when they replace images, they don’t change file names. So maybe those systems have overlooked such changes. I hope I can argue this way.

GI asked me to create an account with them, make a username & password so they can bill me. It seemed strange, but I did as they asked.  Then GI sent me a bill of $9860. This was not a scary settlement demand letter that everyone’s talking about. It was simply a bill with a payment instruction. Will the famous settlement demand letter come next?

While most people get hit by loyalty free, one-time-purchase images, Why do I get hit by very expensive RM(Rights-managed) images? And all 5 images happen to be RM? Coincidence? Or nowadays, maybe GI switch from RF to RM when they catch the images in question so they can justify their outrageous fees. Any thought?

I hear that they don’t sue with 1 image use, but how about 5 images and for 5 years? Is $9860 enough for them to sue?

Oscar Michelen said that $8000 isn’t likely worth suing. The posing is at http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/cease-and-desist-letter-received-from-getty-images-5053.html) I hope I am not quoting him out of contexts. The posting is over 3 years ago.

However, “Righthaven’s lawsuits are typically around $75,000.” Quoted from http://law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202514423358&Righthavens_House_of_Cards&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1 

Wikipedia stated as follows :
“More than millions of these letters have been sent out, yet as of October 2010. Getty had not taken any of these potential cases to court because they knew they had low chances of winning the court case.”
I checked back today and this statement was removed from the page, and the above statement is apparently inaccurate, and they have sued before Oct 2010.

How often does GI sue really?

According to Justia (http://dockets.justia.com/) where you can search law suits, the last time GI sued was on 3/2/2009. Another time on 7/9/2008, and several other times between 2005 – 2008. Really?  They have sued about  dozen times and that’s it? Can someone confirm this? I have never searched for law suites and I don’t know what I am doing. I can’t trust my research.

And if I do get sued, will the fine be reduced  being considered as “innocent infringement”? Another posing says “The law provides the infringer with an opportunity to persuade the judge that the infringement was “innocent” which, if proved, gives the judge leeway to reduce the amount of damages the infringer owes to the copyright owner.”
At http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/cease-and-desist-letter-received-from-getty-images-5053.html

I am happy to find $195 letter program here and I will apply.
Also, I can admit that my web site had been benefited (ornamentally) by those images without paying, and I’d be willing to pay up to $2000. Apparently they won’t accept offers, but you think I should offer anyways? Perhaps it would be in my favor in court that I have attempted to settle with a reasonable offer?

Thank you for reading. Any advise and thoughts are appreciated.

[SoylentGreen]

Just a couple of quick thoughts here.

In most regions, there's a statute of limitations that lasts only three years.
So, they could only legally attempt to collect three years of fees.

I'm not sure why Getty wanted you to "sign up" so that they could "bill you".
But, folks should avoid doing this, as this could be an attempt by Getty to "invoice" people, and then send it to a collections agency.
If you're "invoiced", some might consider it a legitimate debt.

I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts, too.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I think you nailed it SG, he now has an account and an invoice, I'd be willing to bet it goes to collections, this may be a new tactic.

In regards to archive.org ( wayback machine) file names don't matter as it shows the site, and is very easy to get a screen capture, I would highly recommend you visit the site and request they remove the archive of your pages.. There are also other sources where your site is archived, but this will help..

Another item if the same image appeared on all of the pages of the site it would be considered 1 infringement as opposed to one per page.

[Matthew Chan]

They do accept offers if:

1. It meets their minimum threshold.
2. You do so from a position of strength & conviction.

If they don't accept your offer especially after you made a good faith effort (given one's particular situation), it is incumbent upon them to do something about it to prove their case. Historically speaking, Getty's "threats" work quite well psychologically despite the fact they have not filed suit much less won a case against anyone over a few images.

The more you beg them to accept, the weaker your position. As several letter recipients can attest to, by making a strong stand for themselves and against them, is also a valid tactic and strategy.  For that, you don't have to ask anyone's permission. Of course, a nice middle ground is to simply hire someone like Oscar.  You are fighting it but with someone knowledgeable and experienced in your corner.  And if paying $195 is an issue, as it frequently is, then you have to make up for it in learning, education, and having the gumption to deal with it.

Matthew

Apparently they won’t accept offers, but you think I should offer anyways? Perhaps it would be in my favor in court that I have attempted to settle with a reasonable offer?

Thank you for reading. Any advise and thoughts are appreciated.

[SoylentGreen]

Given the experience of the original poster, I wonder how many potential customers will be scared away from doing business with Getty Images by their new invoicing practices?

Recently, people have been accused of infringing by Getty, even though some of those people have legitimately bought the content from Getty years ago.
If you've lost your receipt, they'll just say that you're guilty, and won't send you any documentation to back up their claims of copyright ownership.

Now, if you have an existing account (or are unfortunate enough to create one), Getty will just invoice you for it.
If you don't pay, they'll send it to collections and thrash your credit rating.

Something to think about when sourcing images...

S.G.

[Oscar Michelen]

 The Copyright Act is a federal statute so the 3 year statute of limitation applies throughout the entire US. So 3 years form the date of the FIRST Getty letter someone receives is the date the case drops dead forever (provided you have ceased and desisted of course).