Messages

91

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Contacting getty before receiving a letter

« on: July 25, 2012, 09:39:09 AM »

Wouldn't be a smart move to contact Getty first because it would be proof that you did not confirm the licensing of the images before putting them on your site or at the very least had some reason to suspect they weren't correctly sourced.

If Getty contact you then you at least have the fall back of being able to say that you took the initiative to remove any imaging that you couldn't locate a licence for.

I would never admit to Getty I knew the images were on their site, even after I had removed them.

92

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: July 25, 2012, 06:03:31 AM »

According to the great fountain of knowledge Wikipedia, class action cases may be brought to purposely change behavior of a class of which the defendant is a member.

Still, Getty would fight it tooth and nail, especially now when they are looking to sell.

93

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Yet another recent blog post

« on: July 19, 2012, 05:31:24 AM »

Interesting post and link.
I've taken note of the entire "theft" and "stealing" spin.
Sigh.

S.G.

I stopped reading after that point.

94

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Review of StopGettyImages.com

« on: July 18, 2012, 03:03:47 PM »

I assumed TinEye because it's a free service the average Joe may have stumbled upon. Not much chance of that with Picscout

95

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 16, 2012, 05:38:36 AM »

I appreciate that there is a cost in bringing some of these images to market and since I haven't heard of any copyright infringement claims in relation to these images I suppose it doesn't really matter.

I guess if you used the photo without permission they couldn't claim copyright infringement but perhaps they could claim damages in relation to lost income. However with the cost of the use of the images fairly modest in relation to some of Getty's creative works it might not even be worth the effort.

96

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty's solicitors re. Getty settlement demand (London, uk)

« on: July 16, 2012, 05:18:50 AM »

Well as pointed out on a different thread the FAQs on the letters now state VAT is payable because legal settlements in Ireland are subject to VAT.

However I don't see why it should apply when the letter comes from their UK office and the letter from their lawyer states you should pay them and not Getty. There is no service whatsoever being supplied from Ireland.

97

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty's solicitors re. Getty settlement demand (London, uk)

« on: July 14, 2012, 12:52:46 PM »

Are you sure? The wording usually states that in return for payment it guarantees they will not pursue any further action for that infringement. Without that you'd be crazy to pay (it's crazy to pay anyway.)

If they aren't claiming it's for a settlement then they can't be claiming an infringement and you can simply decline their offer.

98

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new collection Agency working with getty

« on: July 13, 2012, 03:49:20 PM »

Yeah it wouldn't hurt to throw in a complaint.

If you're going to harass a lot of people for money you better ensure your own house is in order. We'll find out soon enough.

99

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new collection Agency working with getty

« on: July 13, 2012, 11:40:05 AM »

VAT is complex in the EU but the link below is the best summary.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/vat_on_services/index_en.htm

One thing of interest though is when Getty pass the case over to their lawyers in the UK the letter from the lawyers ask you to make payment to their bank account and not Getty's but Irish VAT is still charged. That is something I'd check with HMRC along with whether Irish VAT should be applicable when you are dealing with a company in the UK even if their head office is in Ireland.

I know from painful experience how difficult HMRC can be but when if I find myself with some spare time in the near future I'll phone them and get their opinion on all of this.

100

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new collection Agency working with getty

« on: July 13, 2012, 05:45:24 AM »

I'm not familiar with VAT regulations in Ireland, however the letter has come from Getty Images in London and they have a registered office here. If it is the case the copyright is owned only by Getty Images International then Getty Images UK office have no right to collect on the infringement as they do not own the copyright and cannot be assigned that right by anyone other than the copyright holder, which is not Getty.

If Getty Images here in the UK do own the copyright then the demand is from them, and no VAT should be due.

101

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty's solicitors re. Getty settlement demand (London, uk)

« on: July 12, 2012, 06:37:03 AM »

Again, why is VAT being charged when HMRC guidance is clear. I'd call them out on it. I've reviewed the HMRC website and it is clear VAT should not be charged on a settlement where there is no supply of taxable goods.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/vat-settlement-disputes-0

This website sums it up quite well, it is dated 1992 but I have reviewed the HMRC website and this is still currently valid. If there has been a change in law then I cannot find it and I'd ask Simons Muirhead & Burton to clarify.

I would post the HMRC link but their website breaks up that summary into various pages.

Here is what is states:

"Press notice 82/87
The press notice had been issued with the object of restricting its application to genuine disputes only. If a settlement agreement was worded in terms that the plaintiff was giving up rights to sue the defendant in exchange for a sum of money, this was not a supply."

Don't the Getty letters state that in return for payment they are giving up their right to sue?

It goes on to state:

"Payment by way of compensation in respect of a past transgression was outside the scope but payment in consideration of allowing the future use of the copyright material was in respect of a taxable supply."

The bottom line is there should be no VAT payable on these settlements and the only reason they would want to charge VAT is to balance off against their VAT expenditure in the hope of claiming it back.

If they are trying to agree a price for past use so that it becomes a sale they should not be threatening any legal action if you don't pay. Imagine walking into a shop, picking up a pair of shoes to look at and then being told if you didn't buy them they'd sue you.

If they confirm that it's not a settlement but a debt, then normal debt laws apply (not that a debt exists) which they've breached several times already and you can complain to the OFT.

102

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 12, 2012, 05:41:05 AM »

Doing a little research into this issue I've read, but have not confirmed, that some companies will order negatives of the pictures for a fee and then scan them in at a much higher resolution which is why they charge for use.

However, I also read they can't claim copyright on that photo because it's a public domain image and the copyright is held either by a Government or some other organisation.

Probably why we've never heard of an infringement for editorial pictures. Surely they'd have to prove the image was taken directly from the Getty site to make any kind of claim that their copyright was infringed.

Editorial use also seems cheaper than their other licences so I imagine it's not worth them chasing.

103

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 11, 2012, 04:58:42 AM »

Looking at their editorial policy they do state they access images from the public domain and their charge would be for the service provided of putting them in one place.

They don't offer the images for use in anything but editorial.

However, if they have collected any settlements for the use of public domain photos they couldn't prove were taken from their website they'd be open to a lawsuit.

I imagine they probably are a little more careful with editorial images as I've never come across anyone being asked for a settlement demand for their use.

104

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 10, 2012, 11:59:54 AM »

I found it on the Getty site under the editorial images rather than creative images which means you can use them in editorials but not for advertisements.

Not sure about licensing but they do charge for the images use if you run it through their quote engine but not sure if that's just the legal guarantee. Leaving work now so can't check it myself until tomorrow, perhaps somebody else could.

105

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 10, 2012, 11:39:49 AM »

Something I'm curious about that perhaps someone here could help with.

I've been searching for more information about Getty's potential sale and came across this website

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304708604577504923941988382.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Nothing much of interest but out of slight boredom I read through the comments. The last comment mentioned that the picture in the article which is accredited to Getty Images is actually a public domain image and provide a link to http://www.lbjlibrary.org/collections/photo-archive.html

If you run a search there for Lyndon Johnson you'll find the image in question. Click it and it confirms the image is public domain and can be used free of charge.

Is it possible that Getty can own the commercial rights to the image but non commercial use is public domain?