Retired Forums > UK Getty Images Letter Forum

Getty in the UK

<< < (3/13) > >>

nixlyn1:
Hi Matthew

You do make some compelling points - so this is how I see it;

1, Whilst we produce template letters - they are all personalised to the specific circumstances e.g. in my case I am the website designer and I was very keen to relieve the clients of the Getty stress and so was able to use some legal terminology to ensure that Getty came after me. It was interesting that the UK based solicitors who came after me did not appear to have any copies of previous correspondence that I had with Getty direct. As many people have surmised I believe it to be a 'numbers' game of speculative invoicing. All the correspondence form them was poorly structured and packaged.

2, This does not mean that you are safe if you ignore. As previously mentioned the British courts would probably take a dim view of people who ignore due legal process. There was one 'case' in the North of England where I believe that although the accused took the images down they ignored the correspondence. They 'settled' on the court steps so that the case was never tested in court. Even if you respond aggressively, as I did, there is no guarantee that there will be a final end to it as I found out two years after I thought it was all over. However, I don't think that the courts in the UK will appreciate a 2 year gap for no reason plus ignoring the original correspondence.

3, Evidential proof provided by Getty. We all know that one of the key areas of defence (In both the UK and US) is the demand for proof of ownership by Getty that the images have been properly registered. Currently, they do not seem to be in a position to provide this but they are not stupid and it may well be that all this time they have been busy properly registering these images.

4, There is an argument that you should be taken to the small claims court which has a maximum limit of £5,000. However, due to the nature of the claim it is much more likely that any test cases would be heard in a much higher court.

5, There is a general assumption - with which I agree to some extent - which is that Getty will never take anybody to court as the resulting decision will immediately set a precedent. I think that there is a lot of truth in this as Getty have so much to lose should any decision go against them.

6, So, the basic elements of defence are;

a, Taking the images down.
b, Admitting the offence but offering a much more reasonable amount per image.
c, asking for proof of ownership of the images

There is the usual legal framework around this but in essence this is what is covered. Copyrightinfringement.org.uk have ways of of making these letters more effective and will cover your correspondence for up to 2 years.

I want to talk about the no win no fee but need to confirm wording with Liz the solicitor.

I know that many people are shocked, distraught and incredibly upset when the letters are received and, even if the images were originally purchased correctly Getty don't care unless you can provide proof.  They don't care anyway and tracing the origin of these letters is incredibly difficult. Getty have acquired a huge number of photo libraries in the last few years - why?
The obvious answer is to use with their picscout software to find innocent users of these images and then claim back large amounts.

Where I take slight issue with you Matthew is in the case of self-representation. I am sure that you are excellent at this but most people would not survive in a courtroom atmosphere in the UK. I can be pretty aggressive myself but recognise that you want the right person attacking with knowledge.

I agree that many solicitors don't have either the knowledge and/or the 'fire' to do this but I think it is important to try and find one.

It is interesting regarding the reputation of solicitors. In the UK we have the SRA the solicitors Regulatory Authority and in theory you could complain to them if you felt that a solicitor was behaving unethically. I think that would be a big job.
There are ombudsmen and the like but frankly they have not proven useful in most cases as this is such a specific allegation and a complicated area - copyright law and the web.

I must go now but will happily respond to any queries!

nixlyn1:
In my previous post I made a mistake it should have read "tracing the origin of these images" - not letters!
Sorry.

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi):
Good discussion, I hope the UK version of the letter program works to the benefit of the UK recipients!

One item that does not sit well with me is:
"b, Admitting the offence but offering a much more reasonable amount per image."

I don't think one should ever give this to them, it is an automatic win for them, here in the states it is up to them to prove these allegations..

nixlyn1:
Hi Buddhapi

This maybe terminology but in the UK ignorance of the law is no excuse and I think that in some cases, like mine where I right-clicked on small google image icons I had no idea that I was not allowed to use the images. They were of Australia and an image of the world as this was a travel agents site so they were small images for illustrative purposes.

Anyway, I can't and won't deny that I used them so the only questions are;

1, Did I get any financial reward = no!
2, Would I be prepared to pay a reasonable financial penalty - I found very similar images on istockphoto and others for less than £10 each - yes, I would. I would even have considered paying a fine of say £100 per image - I would never expect to pay nothing for a mistake, however genuine, that I made. As a matter of fact I only received a total of £500 for the whole website - which was done for a friend of a friend.

However, I would pay nothing to someone who can't prove that they have rights to charge for using an image and likewise I will not pay huge amounts to someone who is using the whole situation as a ploy to make money!

I understand your reticence and in many cases people did think that they did have the right to use an image but unfortunately can't prove this anymore because they don't have receipts and/or the image was on a template or the website designer doesn't care etc

In other words there are a huge variety of reasons why people are being approached by Getty and these have to be pursued individually. I can only speak from a personal perspective but I am not scared of Getty and am happy to stand before a magistrate/jury and put my case.

My view is that in an English court they will have to prove the value of the images and support their case for damages as they will have to prove that I sued these images for financial gain - which I did not.

This does mean that the letters to getty have to be carefully worded and which, despite my aggressive stance, I am happy to have a lot of legal  support behind me.

Khan:
I tend to stick with buddhapi. Admitting something to someone who can’t support his allegations properly or is not willing support his allegations is no good idea. Just think who they are: They are not the state attorney or the judge. They are just people you do not know personally and who you despise because of their conduct and attitude. Look at all the cases against Getty Images they do not  admit anything (never) :-X.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page