Messages

31

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

« on: April 25, 2013, 04:44:17 AM »

I've often wondered if they move images from royalty free to rights managed when they detect an infringement because there is always a delay of around 6 months between them detecting an infringement and actually contacting companies. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me although I have no evidence of this practise.

I've worked for Getty as an editorial photographer as both a stringer and contributor, so please take the following opinion with the caveat that I have never supplied "stock" images to them.

Shifting a photograph from RF to RM pricing models would, at best, be a very messy affair; the key reason behind this would be because it would necessitate a change in the contract with the photographer / collection: it's generally up to the contributing photographer to decide whether they want their shots to be offered as RF or RM in the first instance and their contract with Getty would reflect this.

Consider this other point: people seeking RM images are usually on the look-out for something they simply cant get from RF 'stock' shots - and quite possibly they'll be looking for some sort of exclusivity along with it. It would make no sense for Getty (or any library) to shift an image from RF to RM unless it had no known uses and the client was seeking exclusivity.

Just my €0.02 worth.

http://prophotocoalition.com/tdonaldsonppc/story/getty_really_makes_me_mad/

Getty absolutely can move images between licences although there are some terms for them to do it.

I would be willing to bet that nobody pays their standard RM price for the images Getty pursue with the letter programme.

Go on the getty site to their rights managed section and look how many of those images are generic that you can get almost identical copies of under a royalty free licence.

I would also be willing to bet that nobody uses those rights managed photos exclusively. They just aren't unique enough.

As I stated before there are a lot of images on the Getty site that are legitimately unique and you can expect to pay appropriately for their use. No issue there.

I do feel a little for photographers because I also work in an industry where there is currently a big focus on price and there is a worry of a race to the bottom. However, you have to see where you add value and price accordingly. Taking yet more pictures of dudes in suits shaking hands and thinking they are worth hundreds of pounds to licence is going to fail as a business model.

32

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

« on: April 24, 2013, 11:18:44 AM »

Companies like Getty exist because they do licence some pretty rare photos, usually of famous people or of certain sporting events where good pictures are very hard to find and you can expect to pay appropriately.

However there is another side of these companies whereby they place photos, which look like standard stock photos that should have a royalty free licence in their rights managed section and charge amounts they would never be able to get because similar images can be bought for pounds with no restrictions on other sites.

I've often wondered if they move images from royalty free to rights managed when they detect an infringement because there is always a delay of around 6 months between them detecting an infringement and actually contacting companies. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me although I have no evidence of this practise.

I'm not sure of your particular exchange with Getty but unless they have informed you they are dropping the case do not be surprised by long periods before hearing from them again, or more likely, hearing from one of their claims chasers.

33

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

« on: April 24, 2013, 04:35:15 AM »

Yes, this has been quoted many times. Ignorance of the law is usually no defence however it would also depend on the circumstances.

If you took an image from google, however innocently I would always make an offer, because you obviously infringed.

If you paid a third party to design the site and they used images I think you may be able to argue that you have innocently infringed regardless of what Getty tells you in their letters because you acted in good faith at all times.

Ultimately what Getty hope is that you are insured under either PI cover if you are a business or some home insurance policies have add ons to cover legal action and they pay up in a settlement, or you pay up yourself.

If they really cared about protecting copyright why not join with others in the same industry and launch a campaign to educate people. That is what the movie industry did to great effect.

34

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image

« on: April 17, 2013, 07:04:12 AM »

It is interesting in so much as Getty have newish owners but most likely there is a particular reason why this single image case was filed.

If I had to guess I'd bet on the image actually being taken from Getty's website or the image was exclusively licensed to somebody at the time so Getty can more easily prove damages.

It would be too expensive for Getty to start filing suits against every infringer because most wouldn't have the means to pay even if Getty won. It also wouldn't be long before it got noticed by a politician a lot more than sending threatening letters would.

I'll keep an eye on it with interest though.

35

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Should I respond?

« on: April 17, 2013, 06:38:56 AM »

We already know what their reply will say. They will refuse to provide proof of their claim at this stage citing various reasons before declaring you still owe them money.

They seem to think it's perfectly reasonable that the standard of proof a court would require is not the same as you or I may require.

The burden of proof is always on them and until they prove their claim don't entertain it.

36

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

« on: April 17, 2013, 06:35:24 AM »

"If you are experiencing any financial difficulties we are prepared to discuss the possibility of a payment schedule or reduced settlement upon receipt of evidence of your financial deterioration. Please contact us immediately with any payment proposal you may have.".

This is a requirement of any company trying to collect a debt in the UK and possibly the EU (although I'm not well enough versed in EU law). Any company attempting to collect a debt must offer the option of a payment schedule for anybody in financial difficulty.

Not sure why they are offering it if they aren't pursuing a debt, but maybe they are. Nobody actually knows. They've created a deliberate grey area in their activities so it's hard to pin them to a set of regulations.

I'd still tell them to go fuck themselves.

37

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got 3rd Getty Letter Now I'm Not Sure

« on: April 10, 2013, 07:22:42 AM »

You'd be surprised how many companies actually pay up to settle out of court if you do take action once you've invoiced them. The cost of sending someone to represent them, even an in-house legal is usually more than the amount you're requesting. Ironically it works on the same basis they use to extract money. The cost of defending is more than you're asking.

I'd only recommend the tactic if you are sure you have committed no infringement though, sent them proof and they continue to harass you. If you've unintentionally infringed I believe Getty would fight any claim on the basis that it could impact their current business model.

38

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Should I respond?

« on: March 28, 2013, 11:57:33 AM »

There is no solid answer because it's not possible to provide one for two main reasons:

1) This is a civil claim so each case will be unique to the circumstances of the individuals.
2) There is no case history of Getty actually taking people to court and winning for people found using images.

The best advice I can give you is to treat this as you would with anybody who walked up to you on the street and said you owe them money. At the very least you'd want proof of their claim.

Proof of claim for me would be:

1) A copy of the agreement whereby the photographer assigned copyright to Getty.
2) An affidavit from the photographer confirming the image was never offered free anywhere or sold through another site that wasn't owned by Getty. If it was then dates and the image cost (if applicable) should be provided.
3) A breakdown of how Getty arrived at the figure.

That is the minimum proof I personally would require before even entertaining a claim for money.

Given Getty's history the likely course of action would be you ask for proof. They refuse to provide it. You ignore them. They keep sending you letters. Eventually pass it to a "debt" collector, likely Atradius who will send you a letter. You keep ignoring it. Eventually they go away.

Of course, it could be possible that out of the hundreds of thousands of letters they send you are the one person they take to court but assuming you do send a response asking for proof of claim at least you would have attempted mediation which may be favourable to you.

39

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Marietta Daily Journal Reader Comment: Gun Threat Against Matthew Chan

« on: March 19, 2013, 06:02:07 AM »

I do like the third comment from missb1 though.

40

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a letter... No longer own the site

« on: March 12, 2013, 09:53:56 AM »

One thing you should do is write to the new owner and advise them not to use the image on the site if they put it back up or any other site.

I don't know where legal liability falls but don't make it easy for them. Just write back stating you are not the owner of the site in question. You do not need to tell them at this stage that you ever owned the site.

Never provide more information than necessary to make your point.

41

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile seeks "damages" in Canada

« on: March 07, 2013, 05:57:00 AM »

If they think the image is worth $2,000 let them prove it. Regardless of what they will tell you, just because you may or may not have used an image they have the rights to it doesn't mean they can charge you what they like.

Most likely the image is generic and similar images can be bought for pennies elsewhere. I've noticed many images "rights managed" by companies like Masterfile and Getty are so plain that I find it hard to believe they sell any at the prices they expect but would be happy to be proven wrong if Masterfile want to provide the sales history.

If you can find a very similar image elsewhere for a cheap price offer them double that if you wish to settle. That's all their image is really worth.

42

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: found on another site

« on: February 12, 2013, 08:11:52 AM »

Getty never sues anyone.

How do I know? You only need to look at their extortion letters. In their letters they only ever mention one case which is Getty vs JA Coles which settled out of court after the summons had been sent so they did initiate proceedings.

That was a victory for Getty only in so much as the company settled. There is no proof they would have got that amount had it gone to court. If they do send a summons your barrister will definitely tell you to settle because they have a legal obligation to tell you that as the costs for fighting in court can be huge.

They never mention any other cases because there are no others.

In the small event there are other cases they obviously didn't end well for Getty otherwise they'd use them in their letters.

43

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Other companies selling the same picture that Getty wants me to pay £900 for!?!

« on: February 06, 2013, 07:50:01 AM »

I find the best way to deal with Getty is to stop thinking of their letter is as a legal problem. It isn't at this stage. It's a demand for money.

What would you do if somebody walked up to you on the street and asked for money? Assuming you didn't tell them to get stuffed, you'd at least want proof you owed them the money besides a letter stating you do and justification for the amount they are seeking. Start there.

That's assuming you even want to bother responding to them. Some advise that you do, some advise that you don't. It's up to you how you handle it.

44

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Now Illegal to Unlock Your Cell Phone

« on: January 28, 2013, 11:50:49 AM »

Here in the UK I think they have something similar.

However if you ask your network provider will always provide the code for unlocking your phone.

I also think that the rule only applies while you are under contract which is usually 12 - 24 months. After that you can completed your obligation to the contract and can then unlock your phone without permission.

45

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another UK Getty Letter - Sign the Petition - Change the Law - Stop th Extortion

« on: January 28, 2013, 05:09:11 AM »

I wouldn't be so sure the UK Government gets a share. The letter I've seen although from Getty based in the UK here is to pay their international account owned by Getty in Ireland. It will avoid any UK Corporation tax.

Getty probably doesn't create that many jobs here either.

The problem isn't that politicians side with Getty. It's that they don't give a shit.