Getty Images are invoicing website owners for $1000 per image for violation of copyright even if you bought elsewhere or got it from an image website claiming to be copyright free.

It seems like some very popular web template site has illegally been using images that belongs to Getty Images.

So, even if you purchased a web template from a 3rd party site and was completely unaware that the image you bought with your template was actually stolen from Getty, then you are liable for breaking (c) - well according to Getty Images!!

Google "Getty Images Cracking Down!" for more information.

Well you are. You're using their images on your website...whether or not it came through someone else, it's still on your website and it's still their copyrighted image which you're using without their permission.

They'll no doubt go after the companies selling these images illegally as well. Best thing is just stop using the images, explain the situation and see what happens. Technically you can claim ignorance because you didn't know. You could take it to court and I'm guessing you'd win because not everyone would know whether or not the image is copyright Getty Images.

I am not disputing that is it wrong to use copyrighted material at all.

I am just warning people to be aware that they are still liable even if you claim and can prove that they paid money for the images from elsewhere. How can anyone verify an ownership of an image? By asking everyone else in the world, is this yours before you can use it?

I am led to believe that a notice must be issued to the site owner who then has a chance to remove any copyrighted material within 7 days or legal proceedings will take place.

What Getty Images are doing is issuing people invoices without first giving them notice to remove the copyrighted material from their site. No matter what you do to rectify the problem, you have to pay their extorted fee.

Refusal means that they then pass the recovery of money onto a company who then turn up on your door step in an attempt to recover the money and all this is done without going through the proper channels, i.e. the courts.

That was what my understanding of what is going on, please do the google search and visit the most obvious result it returns. I will not post a direct link because posting this kind of link is probably against forum rules. From that link, draw your own conclusion of what is going on.

I have since had to drop two photos from my website for which I have paid for from IStockPhoto.com because IStockPhoto.com takes no responsibility of copyright ownership. I agree that they must do this to protect themselves from liabilities due to the system that they have in place.

Where does this leave people like me who have genuinely paid for their photos? In the hand of a complete stranger who uploaded it, that where. And how can I verify that they own the copyright to that photo to which they have granted me premission you use such image on my website? I can't, so I have just wasted my money.

So here we are, we have istockphoto telling us we can use them on our website when in reality we run a slight risk of being sued if we do from the likes of Getty Images who will not listen to your explaination what so ever.

Is that fair?

What next?

Will Sheffield Forum be liable for storing and displaying avatars of image that are copyrighted work and be given absolutely no chance of recifying the problem and then be faced with a £££££ bill?

I think the whole thing stinks.

I will not be contributing anymore to this thread on the right or wrong of this.

It was just my intention was to forewarn everyone to be very careful on what you put on your site.

If they aren't applying for court orders then you are not obliged to pay their demands.
If they send around people who take property without a court order, they are comitting theft and the police should be called.

If they aren't applying for court orders then you are not obliged to pay their demands.
If they send around people who take property without a court order, they are comitting theft and the police should be called.
Do they need a court order to send a statement of how much you owe to a credit reference agency though?

If you haven't formed a contract with them then you don't legally owe anything.
If you choose to pay then you're forming a contract and thereafter have a license for those images.
If you choose not too, then you are in breach of the various copyright laws and they need to go to court to prove it, to then get a court order for damages and to then instruct bailifs if you refuse to settle the court order.

Otherwise I might declare that you're signature was copied from me (it wasn't, but hey, who's to know), send you a bill (which you ignore) and then send the lads round to take your tele.

The behaviour of this company sounds little different to what i'm suggesting above.

Typital letter you will receive
http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=5151



I know of a guy in UK who got an invoice from Getty earlier this year and he took the image down pronto. Getty still sent him reminder invoices etc but then eventually gave up and passed it on to a UK debt collections agency called Moreton Smith who are hassling him.

His solicitor says to don't do anything as they can't legally enforce a disputed invoice.

It looks to me like Getty just pick an arbitary figure and hope enough people pay up the full amount to make it worthwhile.

If you are in breach of copyright, you are in breach of copyright. You are in effect handling stolen goods.
However if you bought images in good faith from someone else, they should be liable for your costs as a result of their negligence. Or if Getty were a bit more sensible about it they would charge the company responsible for each violation and not an innocent 3rd party.

There's a moronic Bill floating around Congress at the moment [Orphan Rights Bill] which will allow anyone to steal any creative piece of visual art if there is no name attached to it. Seeing as images on the web often have identifying data stripped from them, it means all the big companies can rip off all the small guys and say FU. It's very similar to walking up to a car in the street and shouting loudly a few times does anybody own this car and if nobody answers you can claim it as your own.
Just another example of corporate rights grabbing.

If a company suspects someone of being in breach of copyright law then they should pursue the matter through the appropriate legal channels, not by sending out unlawful demands for payment.
Just because I suspect you of pinching my car radio, it doesn't mean I have the right to go round your house and steal your TV and Video as compensation.

I have since had to drop two photos from my website for which I have paid for from IStockPhoto.com because IStockPhoto.com takes no responsibility of copyright ownership. I agree that they must do this to protect themselves from liabilities due to the system that they have in place.

So here we are, we have istockphoto telling us we can use them on our website when in reality we run a slight risk of being sued if we do from the likes of Getty Images who will not listen to your explaination what so ever.
I wouldn't worry about being sued by Getty as they own iStock.
You cannot declaim responsibility either. If you don't do a a good enough job. you cannot simply say 'I take no responsibility' as there would never be any liability cases if it were that easy.


Will Sheffield Forum be liable for storing and displaying avatars of image that are copyrighted work and be given absolutely no chance of recifying the problem and then be faced with a £££££ bill? If it is copywritten work and they are aware of it, then they are liable.

I think the whole thing stinks.
I will not be contributing anymore to this thread on the right or wrong of this.

It was just my intention was to forewarn everyone to be very careful on what you put on your site.We live in a culture where anything online is seen as free and can be used by anybody else. And a lot of people knowing nick things and don't give a toss. You just have to look at news stories/reviews and you will find the same text in a thousand different places, with no credit to original source. MySpace is full of copyright infringements and Warners [I think] is gearing up to sue. It'll be interesting to see what Google are going to do about that. But they seem to have no regard whatsoever for copyright.

If a company suspects someone of being in breach of copyright law then they should pursue the matter through the appropriate legal channels, not by sending out unlawful demands for payment.
Just because I suspect you of pinching my car radio, it doesn't mean I have the right to go round your house and steal your TV and Video as compensation.
I don't think the demands are unlawful as such. They are simply billing them for usage. However, sending bailiffs around without a court order for non-payment would be dodgy.
Your analogy is not quite right. If you saw someone stealing/using your nicked radio you could demand it back and also bill them for damages to the car, loss of no-claims etc.

Getty are not the first to bill people for image theft and businesses normally cough up immediately when caught as they know it's cheaper than not doing so. Nuts and Zoo are known for using pics without checking copyright, but it's cheaper for some companies to do that and quickly cough up for the odd photographer that spots their image being used than it is to pay properly for all shots.

Your analogy is not quite right. If you saw someone stealing/using your nicked radio you could demand it back and also bill them for damages to the car, loss of no-claims etc.

Perhaps, but I doubt it would be legal if I just sent them a letter stating 'You owe me <Insert arbitrary amount here> pay up or else' which is effectively what is happening here.

Nuts and Zoo are known for using pics without checking copyright, but it's cheaper for some companies to do that and quickly cough up for the odd photographer that spots their image being used than it is to pay properly for all shots.
Well, again this is slightly different because they are actually selling the copyrighted material and making money from it. Displaying something on a website is not the same.

That's scary. One more reason to use original photography.

Well, again this is slightly different because they are actually selling the copyrighted material and making money from it. Displaying something on a website is not the same.Actually it is exactly the same, you are using imagery without permission. The fact that you think web and print imagery are different shows a lack of understanding of image copyright. Whether or not you make money from it is not relevent either, other than the bigger the usage/print run/display size/more popular etc the more they have to cough up.
To be honest I'm in favour of Getty to some extent, Photography is being devalued constantly and if this makes people more wary about using cheap images, that's a good thing. I should point out I have a vested interest, being a photographer, where the cost of doing photography is rising all the time whilst the amount paid out is ever decreasing.
Though what Getty should do is send a warning letter and charge the usual rate + 100% for usage without permission and then whack it up to a $1000 if not paid/sorted out within a certain time or even more as the fees may have been over a $1000 to start with if licenced properly.
Though if they state on their website upfront, $1000 minimum fee for unauthorised usage and then people steal their work, then they shouldn't complain when they get big bills.

The fact that you think web and print imagery are different shows a lack of understanding of image copyright.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
If you check the guidelines for pursuing copyright infringement it's quite clearly stated that the preferred initial course of action should be a cease and desist order and that if you believe you are entitled to financial compensation then you should seek legal advice. You can't simply charge whatever you feel like, that would be a ridiculous state of affairs.
I'm sorry if the law doesn't suit your particular viewpoint, but there you go, it works both ways.

Can't go wrong with www.sxc.hu ;)

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
If you check the guidelines for pursuing copyright infringement it's quite clearly stated that the preferred initial course of action should be a cease and desist order and that if you believe you are entitled to financial compensation then you should seek legal advice. You can't simply charge whatever you feel like, that would be a ridiculous state of affairs.
I'm sorry if the law doesn't suit your particular viewpoint, but there you go, it works both ways.
But it is what you said!!
I did suggest Getty proceeded in a less aggressive way.
When people use photos without permission and get caught they usually pay up PDQ and charging extra for them doing so is the norm in the business. It's extra work after all and if you charge by the hour..... Nothing new to Getty. There is nothing in law to say how much you can charge for an image/your services etc and you can charge whatever you want. People are not forced to pay if then don't want to, but if they steal, they should cough up if caught. And the reason companies tend to pay up when they get caught is as they know they will lose a court case and have to pay lawyers which is even more expensive.

If you are in breach of copyright, you are in breach of copyright. You are in effect handling stolen goods.
Not really, the latter is a criminal offence for which the police will come around and arrest you. The former is a civil offence which the copyright holder needs to enforce in court if they wish.

I don't think the demands are unlawful as such. They are simply billing them for usage. However, sending bailiffs around without a court order for non-payment would be dodgy.
Sending the 'invoice' is unlawful, and if someone chooses to pay that's fine.
If they decline to pay then sending people to steal property is theft.

Your analogy is not quite right. If you saw someone stealing/using your nicked radio you could demand it back and also bill them for damages to the car, loss of no-claims etc.

Getty are not the first to bill people for image theft and businesses normally cough up immediately when caught as they know it's cheaper than not doing so. Nuts and Zoo are known for using pics without checking copyright, but it's cheaper for some companies to do that and quickly cough up for the odd photographer that spots their image being used than it is to pay properly for all shots.

Sending the 'invoice' is unlawful, and if someone chooses to pay that's fine.
If they decline to pay then sending people to steal property is theft.
So why do you reckon sending someone a bill for your services is unlawful?
I said sending in Bailiffs was not a good idea BTW

For those worried about your web designers using other people's images this will be if interest.
http://www.out-law.com/page-816

Not really, the latter is a criminal offence for which the police will come around and arrest you. The former is a civil offence which the copyright holder needs to enforce in court if they wish.
I looked up the American laws on Copyright, Getty being American and it is a criminal offence there and the reason why people would be advised to pay up is as I mentioned above, it's cheaper than losing a court case.

The standard rate for unauthorised usage in US is at least 3 times the nominal fee and the costs if you go to court can be astonomical, esp. as 5-6figure payouts are not uncommon.


Back in the UK, invoicing them first and treating it as a bad debt is actually recommended as being in your interest as the court will see you took reasonable steps before involving the court.
"Before issuing court proceedings you must send your debtor a “letter before action” – LBA – to give them advance warning that if they don’t pay up you will proceed with court action. That’s after you’ve tried other reasonable means to get them to pay. Countless phone calls and cul- de-sac conversations later, you can see no other way to get what’s rightfully yours other than to go through the courts.

A LBA is a exactly that – a letter – not a copy of an invoice with the threat of legal proceedings typed in small print at the bottom. That may well work in itself and you may have already done that to no avail. But, if you don’t send a LBA and steam roll in there with a court summons, you may have to fork out the court costs – even if you win. The courts like to think that you gave the defendant warning in the hope that a court hearing could have been avoided. An unambiguous statement of your intent is necessary."

Yep, seems pretty clear then that in the uk if you send in men to take goods without first having warned off and then taken court action, you are conspiring to commit theft, and the men are committing it.

So why do you reckon sending someone a bill for your services is unlawful?
I said sending in Bailiffs was not a good idea BTW

Sorry, didn't mean to say that, my fingers got carried away.

I think I meant that sending the invoice was Not unlawful.

Yep, seems pretty clear then that in the uk if you send in men to take goods without first having warned off and then taken court action, you are conspiring to commit theft, and the men are committing it.
Nobody is suggesting doing that though, I believe.

Sorry, didn't mean to say that, my fingers got carried away.

I think I meant that sending the invoice was Not unlawful.
If you didn't post several thousand times a day on various forums you wouldn't make mistakes like that!:P :D

Nobody is suggesting doing that though, I believe.

from the original discription, that seems to be exactly what Getty are doing, unless I misunderstood it completely.

Yup you misunderstood.
Getty will invoice, then take you to court, if not paid. And then the bailiffs may come to visit if you don't pay the court order.
Somehow, sending the thugs to nab your toaster and expresso machine, rather than going the legal route which favours Getty anyway, isn't that likely or good business.

Yup you misunderstood.
Getty will invoice, then take you to court, if not paid. And then the bailiffs may come to visit if you don't pay the court order.
Somehow, sending the thugs to nab your toaster and expresso machine, rather than going the legal route which favours Getty anyway, isn't that likely or good business.
If you reread some of the articles, debts have been passed to collection agencies WITHOUT any kind of court order first.

If you reread some of the articles, debts have been passed to collection agencies WITHOUT any kind of court order first. A collection agency to recover bad debts not the same as bailiffs. Lot of firms do similar.
It's called factoring and is legitimate busines practice.

What Getty Images are doing is issuing people invoices without first giving them notice to remove the copyrighted material from their site. No matter what you do to rectify the problem, you have to pay their extorted fee.

Refusal means that they then pass the recovery of money onto a company who then turn up on your door step in an attempt to recover the money and all this is done without going through the proper channels, i.e. the courts.


Quite difficult to misunderstand this. It clearly says that if you refuse to pay they pass the debt to a collection agency, not go to court.

Quite difficult to misunderstand this. It clearly says that if you refuse to pay they pass the debt to a collection agency, not go to court.

You are correct cyclone, if I mislead anyone then it was not intended.


I like to add...

Normally the first step in any removal of any illegal material to do with abuse of copyright is to issue a cease and desist order - I was not aware at the time that this can be done via a lawyer as well as the courts. Beside the point, this process is not being executed by Getty Images.

Getty Images seems to think (and maybe they can do this?) that they can issue invoices without both party ever agreeing to a transaction and therefore bypassing proper channels (cease and desist order) to dealing with copyright abuse.

Even if they can issue fines invoices, what they also doing is not listening to people who in have in good faith bought it elsewhere or got a company to develop their websites and have not realised that they have violated Getty Images copyright through no fault of theirs.

Another word Getty Images are acting as judge and jury of everyone who have abuse their copyright and they do all this by avoid having to go through the courts.

Getty used to do cease and desist, but for some reason they seem to have dropped that part of the process. Stupid really as they are in the right and would easily get the money they are demanding in their new heavy handed manner, via more sensible processses.