Image on Getty is no longer available

[ursus]

I recently received a letter accusing us of Unlawful Use of a Getty Image.  I tried to search for the image on Getty but got the following message:

We're sorry. Item 200144575-003 is no longer available.

Does this mean anything important? I wanted to look at the image they were accusing us of infringing but it seems they no longer have a relationship with them.

thanks

[Matthew Chan]

That is mighty convenient. It appears they have gotten wise that letter recipients go back to the many Getty site to verify the image terms and pricing and comparing it to the amount being extorted.

I would most certainly make note of this interesting coincidence.

I recently received a letter accusing us of Unlawful Use of a Getty Image.  I tried to search for the image on Getty but got the following message:

We're sorry. Item 200144575-003 is no longer available.

Does this mean anything important? I wanted to look at the image they were accusing us of infringing but it seems they no longer have a relationship with them.

[ursus]

So it doesnt mean they no longer represent the photographer for this image? They are totally removing it just for the sake of a demand letter?

thanks!

[Peeved]

So it doesnt mean they no longer represent the photographer for this image? They are totally removing it just for the sake of a demand letter?

thanks!

I do not believe that it is no longer present due to an "infringement" case. I do however question that perhaps Getty is no longer representing that particular artist or photographer.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Is it by any chance the fourth from the last image on this page?

http://fotobank.ru/creative/2404.html?page=573

If so, someone else claims to represent it. (They might just be a Getty broker. But you can still inquire what they would charge to license it for a year or two.)

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

So it doesnt mean they no longer represent the photographer for this image? They are totally removing it just for the sake of a demand letter?

thanks!

I do not believe that it is no longer present due to an "infringement" case. I do however question that perhaps Getty is no longer representing that particular artist or photographer.

I concur with Ms Peeved, tho we have seen in the past how some images all of a sudden jump in price after a demand letter has been sent..

[ursus]

yes thats it! what language is this? greek? russian?

[lucia]

I'd be cautious about thinking they are not showing images merely because they sent a letter. The image they wrote me about is still listed.   There are many possibilities. Some I can think of:

1) If it's rights managed, someone might have purchased a license to display and that customer wants to be the only one with the right to use it during the licensing period. Companies do that.

2) The photographer may have severed their relationship with Getty for whatever reason.

Be sure to look for your image at google. Look on photoshelter. Google the photographers name and see if they have their own site. Etc.   What you find may provide information to guess whether (1) or (2) are more likely. Or maybe it's something else entirely.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

If I'm right about the image, you could always contact the author of this book and ask what she paid. I bet it wasn't in the hundreds.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Friends-Tracy-Culleton/dp/1842232002

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

If I'm right about the image, you could always contact the author of this book and ask what she paid. I bet it wasn't in the hundreds.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Friends-Tracy-Culleton/dp/1842232002

DAMN MC!! thats a great find, you're out sleuthing me.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

haha Thanks. Now I gotta go back to work. But to the O.P.:

That is a Russian site. So you have three places to get a price quote from: GI, fotobank.ru and that author.

Keep in mind the stock companies monitor this site. So you should probably get on this. I have a screenshot of the Russian site if you need it. I'm curious about how much are they trying to jab you for. But I understand if you don't want to post it here.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

The artist Deborah Jaffe has a very hefty client list, which makes me wonder why she do do any business with a stock photo site, unless she only does RM images which are more costly..

http://www.deborahjaffe.com

[ursus]

wow..thanks for all the help..

[ursus]

Update.  After trading correspondence with the original photographer, discovered she terminated her relationship with Getty.  Not sure of the timing (whether is was before the supposed violation) but its clear she no longer works with Getty and they no longer manage images for her.  She seems pretty dissatisfied with Getty overall and she said Getty doesnt even know which images they managed for her.

Getty just sent me a letter reducing the settlement amount by 20% (~$155). Should i counter offer a low amount mentioning the above? Or should i dispute their authority for the supposed image violation?

any thoughts? thanks!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I would find out when the artist cut ties with Getty ( get this in an email for your records), if was before the date of your letter, i would not offer them anything, and i would bring it to their attention that they have no rights to try to collect on an image they do not manage or have rights to.