Letter from photographer over Getty image

[popcorn1234]

Hello, I am new here - I hope I am posting this in the correct place - it is Getty-images related, but the letter is from the photographer. I was a part of a blogging team that frequently featured artists in our posts. We were not claiming ownership in any way - we thought promoting the arts was a nice thing to do (I also realize now that ignorance of copyright law is no excuse - but we thought we were doing a nice thing by periodically sharing low-quality images of art we liked and directing our readers where they could buy the art prints directly from the artists).

Recently, we received a notice from a photographer who says their image is now a Getty image, and that we are to remove the photo at once (we did). They also said it would be polite to pay them (the photographer) an obscene amount of money, and gave an address to send it to (the address DOES match the location of the photographer). They said that if we did not remove the image by a certain date, they would send a cease and desist to our web host to have them remove it.

I just do not understand what type of letter we have received. The second half of the letter matches word-for-word a DMCA takedown notice, but I am thrown-off by the "would be nice" attitude of payment. We have taken down the image and removed it from the server - what now? Do we reply?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Welcome to the forums popcorn1234.

This does not sound like a normal type of letter and I would be suspicious of it. The fact that they are referencing it is part of a Getty images collection sends a red flag to me as I believe the Getty images contributor contract requires the contributor to give full and exclusive rights including the rights to determine when and if compensation is required.

If this person's image is part of the Getty collection they may be trying to get a little something on the side or they just may be trying to use the Getty name and reputation to frighten you into paying.

Irregardless it is wise that you have taken the image down and if you are using images in the manner you have stated you may wish to contact the artists directly letting them know you wish to display a picture of their art with a link back to them for purchases. I think most artists would be happy and flattered you have done this in grant you permission. I would keep and hold onto any emails granting you permission for ever as if Getty should ever obtain rights the image and find an archive of your webpage they will come after you and you will want the email proof you had rights to display the image.

I would look into this whole situation a little bit more as this contact seem somewhat suspect to me.

[popcorn1234]

Hi Greg,

Thanks so much for your reply, I really appreciate your input. The photographer did state that if Getty finds out about it, we will receive a much less friendly letter. I searched Getty and was able to find the image for sale there. It has been years since we featured this photo - for the duration and context that we used the image, Getty would have asked us to pay a fraction of what this photographer is suggesting (not demanding) we pay them. The photographer is still selling prints of this image on their site, which is where we were directing readers to go and support their work. I'm still not sure how to respond to this letter, or if we even should.

[lucia]

I'd suggest writing back. Thank them for their letter and then let them know you looked into the matter and telling them the image is now not displaying at your site.  Say little more.  I don't think you need to enter into a debate about whether paying them would be "polite" or "not polite" or so on. Just ignore that for now.  If they wish to say more, let them write back.

It reads as if Getty is not involved. The artist may have just listed with Getty, but Getty didn't send you the letter and Getty doesn't seem to have been listing it in the past. You don't need to say anything about them in your letter to the artist.

[popcorn1234]

Thank you very much, Lucia - I'll be sharing your opinion with my blog team.

[lucia]

The thing to bear in mind is since we don't have history with this photographer, we can't predict what they will do. So I think it's best to not over react to a suggestion that words their request for money as "it would be polite to".  If they come back and say they are asking for a settlement, then you can begin actually negotiating. Learning whether the image is registered at the US copyright office, when it was registered and would be useful things to do. That information would help you know what you might do. It might also be useful to see whether you have any comments by the photographer made back when you posted the image. If they commented more than 3 years ago, that would mean they've used up the time they are permitted to file the copyright claim.

Mind you-- if you did copy-- at some point you might decide you should offer *something* but give yourself a bit of time to decide how much.

[Matthew Chan]

Popcorn,

Why don't you email us a copy of the letter so we can look at it?

[popcorn1234]

The thing to bear in mind is since we don't have history with this photographer, we can't predict what they will do. So I think it's best to not over react to a suggestion that words their request for money as "it would be polite to".  If they come back and say they are asking for a settlement, then you can begin actually negotiating. Learning whether the image is registered at the US copyright office, when it was registered and would be useful things to do. That information would help you know what you might do. It might also be useful to see whether you have any comments by the photographer made back when you posted the image. If they commented more than 3 years ago, that would mean they've used up the time they are permitted to file the copyright claim.

Mind you-- if you did copy-- at some point you might decide you should offer *something* but give yourself a bit of time to decide how much.

Lucia, I just did a registered copyright search on the photographer, and they do not have the photograph registered (they only have one thing registered, and it's not what we posted). They never commented on it. Thanks again, you've been very helpful.

[popcorn1234]

Popcorn,

Why don't you email us a copy of the letter so we can look at it?

Thank you, Matthew - I'll do that now.

[Lettered]

After reading this, I wonder if you could make a good argument for "fair use" in this case.

Welcome to the forums popcorn1234.

This does not sound like a normal type of letter and I would be suspicious of it. The fact that they are referencing it is part of a Getty images collection sends a red flag to me as I believe the Getty images contributor contract requires the contributor to give full and exclusive rights including the rights to determine when and if compensation is required.

If this person's image is part of the Getty collection they may be trying to get a little something on the side or they just may be trying to use the Getty name and reputation to frighten you into paying.

Irregardless it is wise that you have taken the image down and if you are using images in the manner you have stated you may wish to contact the artists directly letting them know you wish to display a picture of their art with a link back to them for purchases. I think most artists would be happy and flattered you have done this in grant you permission. I would keep and hold onto any emails granting you permission for ever as if Getty should ever obtain rights the image and find an archive of your webpage they will come after you and you will want the email proof you had rights to display the image.

I would look into this whole situation a little bit more as this contact seem somewhat suspect to me.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Yeah in this case I don't even know if I would engage this person. If he is truly being represented by Getty, then he is violating their agreement. Is the photograph in question the actual artwork? Or is it a picture of another artist's work?

[Oscar Michelen]

I agree with Jerry I would not overly engage this person any further. I would like to see the letter though

[SoylentGreen]

Yes, don't reply.  Something's strange about this one.

If a photographer sought compensation on their own, that would be a violation of their contract with Getty.
It's Getty's job to settle these matters.

Getty hardly ever owns the copyright to its images.
You mentioned that the photographer didn't register the copyright either.
So, neither of them (whether separately or together) could get more than the retail price of the image awarded in a lawsuit (in US law).

Note that Getty images have never filed a lawsuit over a single image, so it's unlikely that anything would ever come of this.

S.G.