Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Where to get images?

« on: November 11, 2010, 12:54:19 PM »

Having had my umpteenth client receive the Getty Images letter for images that we purchased/acquired from another party I was reflecting on one of the suggestions here and that's that 'we should just take all of our own images and not try to acquire them from online sources'. We've begun to use fotolia extensively, but now keep track of exactly where the image came from on their site. In any event, it's pretty clear that there are some... ok, many... images that I'm not going to be able to take a photo of for myself. If I need a picture of Stonehenge then I'm not going to be booking a flight just for a photo. That said it would seem that making us feel like we can't acquire images from other sources is EXACTLY what Getty Images would like. Wouldn't it be great for them if the $1 images from fotolia ceased to exist as a competive alternative?

I used to think these threat letters were just a cash grab and while I'm sure that's a big factor I now think there's also the goal of making people feel insecure unless they use officially licensed Getty Images images. I also think their third goal is to push the little guy out of business, but that may just be collateral damage.

- Alan

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: banner exchange, but still liable?

« on: December 17, 2008, 04:11:59 PM »

Wow, I really sympathize with your situation (not that I don't with all, but to have a 'Getty Image' show up from ad exchanges and have the blame cast on you). Getty unfortunately doesn't really like to listen and I think that's why it's really nice that Mr. Michelen is here.

This does remind me of my analogy where they claim (and it sounds like it might even be correct?) that because the images appear on company X's website web designer Y (that put the images there) isn't liable, but rather company X is. My counter-example to that is "what if I set up a site for a competitor and load it up with Getty Images?". Does this mean I can 'create' infringement against other parties by setting up dummy sites with their address/contact info on?

Furthermore, I doubt copyright law was written factoring in things such as banner exchanges on websites.

- Alan

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Strict Liability

« on: December 17, 2008, 04:00:38 PM »

That's interesting. So even if someone gives me an image under the guise that it is theirs to give, and it turns out to be owned by someone else then I'm liable for infringement with that someone else if I accept and use the image?

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty and CENTURY 21

« on: December 08, 2008, 05:15:32 PM »

I have several CENTURY 21 franchisee clients that we provide websites for and back before 2006 CENTURY 21 corporate offered something called an AD/PAC from Merrill Marketing. Then around April 2006 corporate sent a letter saying that these images were no longer available for use in advertising and any use of such images by their franchisees needed to be pulled.

At that point we had already merged these images into a clip art gallery with many other images for us on CENTURY 21 client websites. However, no information was provided as to what images were no longer available. Circa that time two of my clients received letters from Getty for $1000 and I think they both caved in and paid. We tried as best as we could to remove any of these images. We also tried reasoningwith Getty and as we all know that doesn't work. They even checked to see if CENTURY 21 and/or parent Cendant had past rights to use these images and claim they did not. Finally, I did ask Getty to audit all of my clients for bad images, but they ignored that.

What's most interesting to me, though, is that there's NO interest in pursueing CENTURY 21 corporate over these images if they weren't being used legally in 2005. I have to think that's because they have deep enough pockets to fend off such a suit.

Now in 2008 a 3rd client receives the letter however this time it's for $3600. They work with me on it and now it's moved on to NCS for collection. I wrote NCS a letter today on behalf of my client and within minutes they called me and I talked with David Gray. He was a typical belligerant collection agency employee, but stated two things: 1) Getty has already provided proof of registration which they have not and 2) he's calling me as a courtesy and doesn't have to. He also claimed to be familiar with this site, but when I said I'd let Oscar handle it for me he had no clue who that was. Does that not seem odd for someone familiar with this site considering he's key to it? I ended up hanging up after getting into that ended "no you didn't, yes we did" logic circle where he claimed he'd fax me this proof, but doesn't actually want to do it presumably because he knows he can't.

Obviously they prey on you just wanting it to "go away" and I'm appreciative that this time I have a client that is willing to fight as all of the companies that have caved have just made Getty's appetite for doing this stronger.

One thought I had was "How about a letter writing campaign to all of the websites that use Getty Images photos?". Personally, I'd like to see them use the photos of a more ethical company. I know that sportsline.com is one such site.

I'm also a bit confused should this continue to escalate as to how I have Mr. Michelen write his letter on my client's behalf. Just contact him and provide the letters we're received so far?

- Alan