Messages

46

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: help: what is exclusively representated ?

« on: January 25, 2013, 09:50:58 AM »

When a photographer uses Getty to sell their photos they have to sign an agreement stating the photos aren't being sold elsewhere. Therefore Getty holds the exclusive rights to market and sell the images.

If you don't have a license from Getty they believe you owe them money. There are a few problems with their statement though:

1) Getty acquire a lot of images long after they have been taken. In that time the images could have been licensed to anybody and Getty would not know.
2) Getty never ask for proof from their contributors that they own the copyright to assign to Getty. I believe they have been sued in the past for selling photos that had been uploaded by somebody who didn't own the copyright.
3) Getty never offer any proof of claim and just expect you to pay.

If you have replied to Getty already asking for proof of their claim and they haven't supplied it then don't waste your time replying any further. Especially to Atradius.

47

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: help: what is exclusively representated ?

« on: January 25, 2013, 08:00:47 AM »

If it's an email don't bother responding. If they really felt the matter was serious and had any intention of pursuing this case further they'd send the letter registered mail. How many spam emails do people receive a day asking for money....

As I've mentioned before Atradius can not actually take any action against you. They aren't licensed to treat the amount as a debt and they can't take you to court as they aren't the exclusive licensee of the picture. All they can do is refer the matter back to Getty when you don't pay.

If Getty contact you again I'd ask for proof of when they became exclusive licensees for those images as if it was after the date you acquired the website they have no claim against you.

48

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ipprotection.net letter

« on: January 24, 2013, 11:55:55 AM »

Seems they are connected with Picscout

http://www.picscout.com/press-releases/picscout-enlarges-legal-partner-program-to-support-image-revenue-recovery-throughout-the-united-kingdom-for-photographer-and-stock-agency-clients.html

49

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Office of Fair Trading [OFT] Response re: Atradius

« on: January 23, 2013, 05:50:03 AM »

Another forum poster here called them out on that already and their response was that they are simply pursuing you for copyright infringement on behalf of Getty rather than debt collection.

Regardless of the legality of their actions there is no question that if they cannot chase a debt then it is just a claim. Refusing to pay Atradius would not hurt any case that may be brought to court because they have no right to claim copyright infringement from you as they are neither the copyright holder or exclusive licensee.

As I've stated here before I personally would tell Atradius to go fuck themselves. What recourse would they have? They cannot take a copyright claim any further and I doubt Getty would finance pursuing you in spiteful revenge.

I would follow up as the OFT suggests and see where it leads. If what Atradius are doing is illegal it would also have repercussions for Getty who have employed their services although pursuing Getty would most likely have to be done yourself and they have considerable resources. At the very least we could link Getty to them and ensure that information is viewable in as many places as possible.

50

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Atradius Letter - various thoughts

« on: January 16, 2013, 08:17:56 AM »

If you do happen to speak to them tell them to put everything in writing and post it registered mail otherwise it will not be dealt with.

See if they are willing to spend money chasing you.

51

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: January 09, 2013, 11:15:44 AM »

If you want to do things by the book then you could make them an offer because you have basically admitted to them that you committed copyright infringement (even though it was entirely mistakenly).

I am no lawyer but my understanding of the legal process for civil cases is that before Getty can even launch legal proceedings they must go through the mediation process with you which would involve trying to negotiate a settlement. If it did end up in court (extremely unlikely based on past evidence) and the judge decided that during mediation you had made a good faith offer of settlement that he felt was proper he could decide not to award Getty any costs for litigation.

This would make taking you to court a very high risk strategy for such a small potential reward.

As for Atradius, they can't do anything. They can't chase debts and they can't take you to court for legal proceedings because they don't have the authority. I'd wipe my arse with any of their correspondence.

52

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: just received an email

« on: January 04, 2013, 04:33:53 AM »

Doesn't the US have a law that any organisation situated outside the US trying to sue in the US can be made to post a bond in case they lose?

Can't see anyone posting that for a small copyright claim.

53

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Atradius Letter - various thoughts

« on: January 02, 2013, 04:25:29 AM »

You should read some of the other threads here which have discussed Atradius and their tactics.

The first thing you should know is they aren't licensed to collect any debts here in the UK. One poster here called them out on that and their reply was that they are pursuing copyright infringement rather than a debt.

I had the same thought as you i.e. why do they ask for payment to their account, especially since they aren't chasing a debt so no debt could be assigned to them. The only people that should be able to pursue anyone for copyright infringement are the copyright holder and the exclusive licensee if applicable, neither of which is Atradius.

However as this hasn't, and most likely will not enter formal court proceedings Atradius won't worry about any of that.

If it were me, I'd reply that they have no authority in this matter and any further correspondence will be binned but ultimately you have to handle the situation how you feel comfortable.

54

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PDN Article on ELI, Copyright Extortionists, and my position on the matter

« on: December 28, 2012, 05:35:55 AM »

The thing that annoyed me most about that article was this comment from Getty

"and the agency has invested resources in photo licensing education efforts."

I have never ever seen any initiative from any stock photo company that addresses the real issue which is that sites offering free images should be used very carefully, and probably never for any corporate imagery because the risks are too high.

People obviously know that downloading an image from a site like Getty and using it without payment is wrong and I believe that almost never happens.

The film and music industry have launched large scale initiatives in the past informing the general public of copyright issues and I'm guessing the photo industry just hoped to piggytail on the back of that for free.

Until I see a large public awareness campaign then what companies like Masterfile and Getty are doing will always be seen by me as copyright extortion regardless of whether the amounts they ask for are reasonable or not.

55

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: graphic from another site

« on: December 21, 2012, 11:52:41 AM »

The problem in this instance is Atradius are not licensed to chase a debt and they stated they were pursuing copyright infringement on behalf of Getty.

I maintain they have no right to do this because only the copyright holder or exclusive licensee can pursue copyright infringement but I suppose that would only really apply in a court of law.

That's what people need to realise. This is not a legal claim and is operating outside of the courts so any legal threat is purely to scare you. Treat it like you would with any claim operating outside of the legal arena.

I'd definitely tell Atradius to go f**k themselves.

56

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Corbis Infringement Claim on Images that Former Designer Never Paid For

« on: December 12, 2012, 05:36:08 AM »

Regardless of where blame lies I do find it incredible a web design company charging those sorts of sums would allow a site to go live with images they know violate copyright.

Surely they would have arranged the hosting too and would have therefore known the site was going live with those images?

57

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: BBC News image

« on: November 19, 2012, 10:47:26 AM »

This isn't relevant to Getty but have you checked out that you comply with the BBC terms of use for businesses? http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/business.shtml

I am unsure how affiliated your blog is to your business but the website seems to be commercial in nature.

With regards to Getty the decision on how you proceed will all be down to how you personally prefer to handle things. Broadly speaking you have 3 options.

1) Decide you don't feel their claim is valid and refuse it.
2) Seek legal advice (This is costly and probably more than they are asking for as you'll need to seek the opinion of a barrister).
3) Pay them.

I personally would not pay them, certainly not £750, but the ultimate choice has to be yours.

Even though this website is predominately US based the copyright laws of both countries are similar so anything information you learn here will be useful. Read through the information provided in the main site and on some of the threads in the forum and decide how you want to handle it.

If you want short term peace of mind send a reply to Getty and tell them you have investigated their claim and can confirm the image never resided on your server so you deny their claim for copyright infringement. Do not tell them how it came to be displayed on your site as that is really none of their business at this stage.

If nothing else it will buy you time to get educated. This is not a criminal matter, this is a civil matter so don't worry about their threats of court action which is not an option at this time. Civil matters must usually be mediated before court proceedings.

58

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: November 15, 2012, 06:34:05 AM »

Good work Jackslad and thanks for keeping us updated.

Please let us know when Trading Standards reply.

59

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: November 14, 2012, 08:50:15 AM »

This gets more and more sketchy.

If Atradius doesn't collect debts (which they confirmed because they aren't licensed to) and they are only collecting for a copyright infringement (although not for themselves because they aren't the copyright holder of exclusive licensee) then who is authorising the 75% discount?

As I see it only Getty could ever authorise the discount. If Atradius haven't been passed the 'debt' then they are in no position to offer a reduction in settlement amount without Getty's consent.

If Getty have authorised this then they'll surely never take anybody to court unless they have evidence of a wilful infringement. Imagine trying to convince a judge that the amount you asked for was fair when you are offering other customers a 75% discount.

Jackslad, it might be worthwhile replying and asking whether it was Getty or Atradius offering the 75% discount.

60

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: November 01, 2012, 11:16:21 AM »

The only reference I can find to a JENS J. AAGAARD A/S AS is to some Danish jewellery company

http://byaagaard.com/uk/contact

Seems odd Atradius would want you to pay them. Perhaps Atradius handles collections for them and has accidentally left their payment information on the invoice.