So I indemified a former client...

[JohnInAZ]

I indemnified my client to the tune of $850.  It was originally $1400 that Getty demanded from him, but I took the responsibility and contacted Getty on behalf of my client.  I explained my case that the photo was obtained from a "free" photo site 7 years ago and that I routinely purchase from Getty and their subsidiary IStock Photo (Why would I steal?).  I pointed this out to them in hopes that they could see that it was unintentional as I am a client of theirs.  In gratitude they shaved off $550.  Gee thanks Getty.

The only reason I paid the fee is that I was worried because my client wanted to get their own attorney involved to fight it.  My concern at the time is that Getty might win and that I could have been sued by my client for what Getty wanted, plus their attorney fees.

Because of this I no longer buy stock photos from them, however it's getting harder since they are buying up competing libraries every year.

I assume I am out the money I paid Getty?  These bastards need to be stopped.

[Oscar Michelen]

No, the money is gone and I am sad to tell you  that you definitely should not have paid. Getty has never sued anyone much less someone with only one image claimed. They do not want to sue because they know there are any legal defenses to their claims and don't want a bad precedent. It is difficult for web designers who are caught int her middle and just want to appease their clients so I understand the pressure to settle and put an end to it.  Of the approximately 45 clients or so that we presently represent  on this issue, about one third or so are designers who retained us on behalf of their clients, so believe me when I say I know where you are coming from. If any more clients get the Getty letter refer them to this website so they can get educated about their legal position. Thanks for the post