Getty Images are asking for $1000 per image for violation of copyright even if...

[John 11]

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 © - well according to Getty Images!!

 

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

[Guest]

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.

[John 11]

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.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

[DaBouncer 13]

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?

[Cyclone 10]

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.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

[John 11]

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.

[troyhark 10]

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.

[Nazo 10]

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.

[troyhark 10]

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.

[troyhark 10]

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.