Retired Forums > UK Getty Images Letter Forum

Letter from Getty's solicitors re. Getty settlement demand (London, uk)

<< < (2/3) > >>

getty victim:
Hi Ian Wylde,

I was in similar situation as you mentioned above. I replied to SIMONS MUIRHEAD & BURTON  (Getty Image's Solicitor) by post.

They sent me reply of my letter by e-mail. They have asked to pay 25% discounted settlement figure which comes out around £2000 + Irish VAT within 14 days.

I outlined in my letter that, I will not be able to engage in any future correspondence unless they prove me the ownership / right to managed the image by provide a copy of agreement. However they stated as follows:

* Getty Images (UK) Ltd. under their "Rights-Managed" licence model, and our client's previous correspondence with you should be taken as confirmation of their exclusive rights to license this content.

* Our client shall not be providing you with precise details of their exclusive licence agreements for the Images as they are confidential between Getty Images and their photographers. In accordance with Patents County Court guidelines there is a default position of non-disclosure of documents until the Case Management Conference level is reached.

* In view of the Civil Procedure Rules, we aim to settle all matters in a cost-effective way that is proportionate to the case in hand. This is in line with the overriding objective set out in Part 1 of the CPR Rules. Should you wish to pursue this matter in court then we will disclose documents as above.

* Getty Images base the settlement amount on the cost to license the Images in addition to other losses to them and to their photographers that flow directly from the breach. The settlement amount due is compensatory and not punitive in nature. Please note that the commercial value of the Images is not open to judgement, and is something Getty Images use their expertise in this field to calculate.

Have you got reply to your letter?

I would appreciate if you or someone in a similar situation or expert share their experience.

Thank you,

Getty Viticm

Mulligan:
If the British translation is the same as the American, it appears to me that they're telling you, "Well, we have no legal proof or legal right to demand this money that'll stand up in court so send us the money anyway because we've just made it sound like we do have the legal proof or legal right."

The nonsense about paying the photographers and what a commercial image being worth being not open to judgement is what we call bullshit in America. I'm not sure what lies and misrepresentations like this are called across the pond.

getty victim:
Hi Mulligan,

Thanks for your comments.

I would appreciate if someone from UK who is in similar situation as me would drop their comments or experience.

Thank you,

Couch_Potato:
Getty Victim,

The only direct experience I have, of which I was not personally involved but knew the person who was, ended when the person made a final offer and informed Getty's lawyer that they had remitted that amount to their own lawyer which would be sent to them when they confirmed acceptance of the offer. The amount was fairly close to what they had asked for. That was about 7ish months ago I think.

Surprisingly there was no reply that the offer had been accepted or rejected so the person I know consider the matter closed and will enter into no further correspondence.

If I were in your position personally I'd write to their lawyer and say that Getty having the "exclusive" rights to the image does not actually give them exclusivity, they have acted in good faith that the photographer is being honest and also that the photographer actually owns the copyright. I'd state that being asked to pay a large amount of money means I am not willing to extend the same good faith and so documentation will be required to prove that the photographer who claims the rights to the image actually does own the copyright and proof by way of a signed letter that the photographer has given exclusive rights to Getty and that while assigned to Getty that have never licensed the image elsewhere.

There is no right or wrong way to handle this but you have to understand that anything but paying the full settlement means, however unlikely, that they can file suit against you.

Your reply should not be based on what you solely read here because ultimately you are dealing with it yourself. If you have the stomach for the fight because you honestly believe you have done nothing wrong then your next move will be very different if you either don't have the stomach for a fight or took the image from the web yourself without regard for the copyright.

Nodge:
Just thought I'd give an update on my own situation. My first Getty letter was dated 23 Feb 2012 and demanded £1000 + £230 Irish VAT. My reply to this letter confirmed that the image in question had been removed and stated that it was my belief that the image had been obtained legitimately from a source other than Getty Images and so hoped this would be a satisfactory end to the matter.

My second letter from Getty was dated 27th April and was pretty much a repeat of the first. There was no acknowledgement of my letter. My reply was dated 14th June and while admitting no liability, included an offer to settle (much reduced) if they could supply me with proof of copyright etc. Coincidentally the same day that I posted this letter I had a phone call from Getty Images trying to get me to pay their settlement demand in full. I told the girl that there was an offer of settlement in the post but she said that if I couldn't settle there and then the matter would go to their legal department.

On the 9th July I had a letter from Simons Muirhead & Burton repeating Getty's claims of copyright infringement. However, the amount now being claimed has risen to £1,722 inc VAT with 21 days to pay. There was no mention of my previous letters or offer.

I'm now in two minds whether to ignore them completely as they have done me or to reply stating that any further unsubstantiated demands will be regarded as harrassment intended to cause distress and that they would then be reported to their local trading standards office for possible breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Adminstration of Justice Act 1970. I suspect it really doesn't matter what response I make but I welcome your comments.
Thanks
John

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page