Sued by Getty images

<p>My wife runs a small website concentrating on project management. No money changes hands through it, but it does enhance her professional reputation. To illustrate her articles, she uses photos and illustrations from various free-use sources. Apparently she picked up one photo that belonged to Getty Images and posted it to her site. Now she's charged with copyright violation. Getty is seeking $850, after opening with a four-figure demand. </p>

<p>Though she keeps records for most pictures she uses, my wife can't document where she got the Getty image. She's certain that it had no warning of copyright attached. She took down the photo as soon as she got a notice from Getty.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any experience to share in dealing with Getty Images? I'm looking for specifics, not general rants on the overall importance of copyright. I'm a photographer too, so I get that. She should have been a little more careful, but I'm suspicious that an agency could, hypothetically, salt the internet with unmarked photos and bring in a nice payoff by charging unsuspecting bloggers who pick them up?</p>

 

<p>Not sure, but $850 is pretty cheap for this kind of situation. Maybe try and get it down to half that.<br>

My stock agency partners with Getty and when they find a violation they send an invoice for, I think, 5X the actual usage fee. The artist rep told me they always win. <br>

You might get some better advice here.</p>

<i>She's certain that it had no warning of copyright attached</i><P>

The lack of a copyright notice does <b>not</b> mean that an image is free for everyone to use. As Ian suggested, you should try to negotiate a lower settlement.

<p>I'd say Ian has it about right.<br /><br />As for "salting the internet with unmarked photos" ... every image is owned by the person who creates it or the person/entity to whom they've transferred copyright. Unless you see it accompanied by license language that makes it clear you have the right to use it on your business promoting web site, you can very safely assume you don't have that right. We're many years past the change that removed the need to assert that on the image itself.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I'm finding plenty of advice from a simple Google search, among them http://www.extortionletterinfo.com. Evidently this is a widespread issue among web content creators. </p>

<p>Yeah, "web content creators," sounds better than copyright infringers. There was a Las Vegas law firm (IIRC) that made it a practice to get transfer of copyright from a local paper then they searched out websites which used full copies of the news articles and tried to hammer them. They got away with it for a while but then think they overdid it and got hammered as well. </p>

<p>There are "fair use" situations which might allow for use of random "found it on the internet" images but the rules change when you are working for a business compared to a history report in fourth grade.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>I feel for you. It sucks that they wouldn't just send you a " Take our image off your web site ! " letter. but... when you build a web site with someone ELSE'S stuff, you are not really a content creator, your a content borrower. Some license holders take offense at that. </p>

<p>John, was the image used in a transformative way? This Wiki page might be of interest to you:<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(law)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(law)</a> </p>

<p>I came across one of my images used in a blog whose author is located in Greece; an apparent academic. From what I can gather, she used it as an illustration for her poetry which I had no knowledge of, but I believe her transformative and non-profit use makes it fair use. I would not have objected even if it wasn't.<br>

<a href="http://lygeri.pblogs.gr/poihma-apo-dhmhtrh-einai-kati-meres.html">http://lygeri.pblogs.gr/poihma-apo-dhmhtrh-einai-kati-meres.html</a> - top picture is mine.</p>

<p>You need to hire a lawyer if you are indeed brought to court. Lawyer's fees vary a great deal but I estimate lawyer fees, in the USA, to be around $250 an hour. Every letter that you get from Getty Images will have to be reviewed and most likley responded to by your attorney. Estimating one hour to review and one hour to respond will end up costing you $500 for every letter you get from Getty. How many letters do you think they will churn out? $850 is less than two letters would most likely cost you. As others have recommended - try to negotiate a lower settlement, pay it, and learn from your experience.</p>

<p>Your wife did something that was illegal. Whether this was intentional or not really does not matter. I would not hire an attorney but explain to Getty that this was an innocent mistake and see if they are willing to negotiate. In the end though, you are going to need to pay.</p>

<p>I am sorry that you and your wife have to pay but I actually applaud Getty for what they are doing. Too many pictures are being stolen and used without proper licensing. By Getty doing this, it actually protects us small photographers.</p>

 

It would be interesting to know if the image was rights managed or royalty free. Some images are licensed for pennies or

a few dollars. Also, there are degrees of misuse. Some people and agencies steal images for profit, and reprint them on

merchandise or media, etc. But most of the interned seems to be a curated agglomeration of other people's photographs.

Shouldn't everyone on Pinterest and tumblr be sued then? Plus, isn't editorial use acceptable? I'd like to know what the

licensing structure for that image would be. I don't know all of the circumstances, but this seems like a kind of intimidation

and bullying tactic to scare people who are not media buyers.

<blockquote>

<p>people who are not media buyers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes people who are not media buyers SHOULD be media buyers. One should not confuse "editorial use" with "fair use." These are different things!</p>

<p>John, in addition to considering the advice given above, have your wife take a close look at this site:<br>

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/</p>

<p>The extortion letter info website is outstanding. I read through one of the articles and enjoyed it immensely, as well as finding it very educational.</p>

<p>Using the DMCA as a model (in the US), the first thing Getty should be doing is submitting a takedown request. Only after that is ignored should a bill be submitted.</p>

<p>The reason I think thusly is that, for example, if I hire someone to do some work for me, and they claim that the images are usable (by whatever mechanism) then I should trust that, in conducting business, they're doing their job. I shouldn't have to vet every image. Once it's brought to my attention, I should be given the opportunity to rectify the situation before anything further steps are taken.</p>

<p>I do know that I would not roll over just because Getty attempts to conduct business in this way.</p>

<i>the first thing Getty should be doing is submitting a takedown request. Only after that is ignored should a bill be submitted.</i><p>

So the only "penalty" for using a person's copyrighted work without permission is that you have to stop after you get caught? Then the incentive is to never pay for any use unless and until you get caught . . .

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>So the only "penalty" for using a person's copyrighted work without permission is that you have to stop after you get caught? Then the incentive is to never pay for any use unless and until you get caught . . .</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

I'm always amazed at some of the anti-photographer statements I read here. If someone is using an image for a commercial web site that they didn't pay for, they should pay. Anything else is screwing the photographer. Getty is, of course, enforcing their own rights, but the photographer loses the sale also, so they are enforcing the photographer's rights also.

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Evidently this is a widespread issue among web content creators."<br /><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? Content creators are going around, in mass, making legal claims against themselves for using content they created?</p>

<p>You mention you're a photographer. Why couldn't you come up with some nice images you've taken yourself for her little website? I'm assuming you have a modicum of talent. Cheaper way to go.</p>

<p>Picking up on the last sentence from the OP. What you surmise should not happen because people who use images in promotional materials should be aware that they can't simply use other people's images without prior agreement of terms. Just because an image is "unmarked" does not mean its available at all or available free. If the image is not clearly identified as available for commercial use free then you need to assume that you need permission for your purpose and agreement on terms from the owner or agent. </p>

<p>And if you proceed to use an image without these, or you fail to pay, then its pretty obvious to me why the penalty is much greater than the fee that would have been charged if the issue had been handled properly- it's called disincentive and a need to avoid running your business on the basis that no-one pays until they get caught or get sued. </p>

<p>I guess in negotiating with Getty you're going to need to judge the point at which they tell you that they've now briefed lawyers and they now expect you to pay their legal fees as well as the penalty. Best not to slip past that barrier whilst you think you're debating another $25 off the penalty amount. I have a Getty contract and iirc such penalties are rightly shared with the photographer, even though we might all debate the fairness of the proportions.</p>

<p>It's cheaper to settle than to hire a lawyer. See if you can get it down from the $850.</p>

<p>Blogger beware. If you can't determine the owner, then don't use it.</p>

<p>Just for clarity since there are several definitions for "IIRC" especially pertaining to legal matters as well as a collection of images, how is that acronym being used in this thread?</p>

<p>Is this it... "Image and Identity Research Collective"? from this list...</p>

<p>http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IIRC</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Certainly on my post, the first on the list you reference, also identified as the most common.</p>

Even as a photographer, I find the responses disingenuous. These are not fair practices. It's extortion through the use of

the copyright laws, and it hurts photographers. Aren't most of these fees collected going to lawyers? How does it help

photographers' reputation when agencies and individuals go after bloggers with obscure websites for $8000 for an image

in a blog post that a few people have read? Give me a break! That' shy so many consumers who previously had to deal

with photographers are running away. Can you imagine paying for a wedding photographer, and then having said

photographer hold on to the images until you pay again for printing, etc., because the copyright belongs to the

photographer? National magazines pay as little as $200 for a cover image, how in any conceivable way, even with

punitive or sanction intentions, can you justify this sort of legal extortion? Just because it's possible?

<i>National magazines pay as little as $200 for a cover image, how in any conceivable way, even with punitive or sanction intentions, can you justify this sort of legal extortion? Just because it's possible?</i><P>

Actually, some magazines pay as little as $0 for photos. Does that mean that no photos have any value? Choosing the lowest paying option as the guide for fair pricing isn't a reasonable means of assessing value.

I guess then since the market won't sustain editorial photographers then suing bloggers for exorbitant amounts is a

reasonable business plan. Particularly for lawyers and multinational picture agencies.

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>You mention you're a photographer. Why couldn't you come up with some nice images you've taken yourself for her little website? I'm assuming you have a modicum of talent. Cheaper way to go.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right on! Clearly the easiest and most ethical solution for all photographers, other content providers and internet commerce in general.</p>

<p>That way those bloggers can see what it feels like when their work his lifted and used to draw eyeballs away from their site to other sites run by the less talented.</p>

<p>I think the scorched earth, take no prisoners law suit policy is the best and probably only way to go to teach folks wanting attention on the internet to use their own work. </p>