Sued by Getty images

[goldbergbarry]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't throw out high and mighty accusations if you are guilty of the same thing in some other venue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are arguing that stealing is fine since everyone else also steals, and that it is particularly okay to steal if you steal from a mega corporation. I am saying that stealing is wrong. I am not judging you as you are free to do whatever you want. But don't tell me that stealing is not illegal.</p>

<p>Also what accusations did I make, and how do you know that I am guilty of stealing from Youtube? We need to take the tone down a bit. PN is supposed to a friendly site where opposing views are encouraged. If you want a street fight, maybe you should go elsewhere. </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>TinEye.com is an image search engine.</p>

<p>OP, I suggest you use TinEye.com to determine where the image might have come from.</p>

<p>Photographers can use the same site to check for uses of their images.</p>

[enlightened-images]

<p>One thing I'll say, if your wife was using the image for something that relates to her business, it's especially bad PR for a PR person to shown to be making such a critical mistake like using someone else's intellectual property. Your problem is that Getty is the big angry gorilla in the room, and your wife happened to be caught holding one of the gorilla's bananas. The sad fact that even if your wife got it from a place which said that it was OK to use, it's really the end users responsibility to ensure that the proper permissions have been secured. Your wife's problem now is also the is public, and there's a chance that someone researching her as a potential expert may come across this, which as I said is pretty bad PR for a PR person. I'd try to settle for $500 (the cost of a large RF image - if it was an RF image, and close the books and lick your wounds and be grateful the gorilla let you off easy.</p>

[john_martin19]

<p>Stealing is stealing, whether it's from Getty or YouTube. Case closed. Those tho like to throw stones live in a glass house.</p>

[spruce_parkman]

<p>I'm very surprised by the lack of proportionality and fairness. This is an image used in a blog post. There doesn't seem to be any sense of understanding for how the vast majority of people use the internet. There is this absurd discussion about the equivalency of stealing in a store to using someone else's image in a blog post by a general user, not someone who would ever consider licensing an image. Not someone where there would have ever been a sale. Not someone who would regularly license images, which they could do literally, for a few pennies from any microstock site, or for free from a creative commons source.<br>

It's telling of the level of frustration in the industry, that no one has addressed the central issue, of the exorbitant amount, that even considering punitive damages, has no relation whatsoever with reality. Why can no one admit that by any sense of fairness, this is clearly a way for a powerful corporation to go after a soft target for a random amount of money, <em>just because they can</em>?<br>

Why don't they then go after Tumblr? What would happen if Getty images started to sue the millions of Tumblr users individually who's feed is entirely made of other's intellectual property. Each instance for each image could be arbitrarily set at $8000. Why is this not happening? Because the easy pickings are made by abusing a law to go after people who make innocent mistakes. These are blog posts people. How would a billion dollar corporation, on the other hand, respond if its users, the source of its valuation, started being sued, even though the scope and level of their copyright infringement is on a scale exponentially greater than the OP's?<br>

I will tell you the general public that reads this will have an even lower opinion of the value of photographer's work in today's market. They will say, why, they really are intractable. I thought in the old days, there really was a sort of practical reason to hold on to their negatives after a wedding, and charge again for printing, and drive the hard sell for prints and fancy books. I mean, a negative is a physical thing, and printing can be quite difficult to do properly. But photographers still think like this in the digital age. Do you realize how outrageous it is for the general public to pay for a wedding and have a photographer hold the original files hostage? To put crazy restrictions on their use for sharing on social media? To watermark them?<br>

By any sense of fairness, an offense such as using an image in a blog post by the average internet user would require a take down notice if it really bothers you that they're using your image. There are degrees of copyright infringement. But the responses here, about "stealing" and "breaking the law" and the moral equivalency of posting an image from the web in a blog post to stealing from Walmart or a store, really seem to point to a misplaced anger and frustration, a misplaced vindictiveness, a lack of common understanding of how people use thee internet, a lack of proportionality, a lack of a measured response, because I guarantee that a take down letter would be sufficient in 99.9% of these cases, if the interest of Getty would be in protecting photographers and their work.<br>

Do you know that if use a template that you purchased for your website, that the images that were originally legally licensed to whoever created the template, have not been licensed to you? At least, that's my understanding. So most people would change the banner and backgrounds, especially if they're photographers. But it's my understanding that if you use it as is, you could be sued for any random amount. Let's say, how's $8000 for the banner, and $8000 for the background image? "Well, well, I'm so sorry, but stealing is stealing. I don't want to hear it. You didn't know? Who doesn't know? Do you walk into Walmart and steal? This is the same my friend. I have no sympathy for people like you who have ruined the editorial and stock photography business. It's all your fault. And if it isn't, we're still all going to gang up on you, and start calling Getty a defender of photographer's rights."</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>not someone who would ever consider licensing an image. Not someone where there would have ever been a sale. Not someone who would regularly license images, which they could do literally, for a few pennies from any microstock site, or for free from a creative commons source.</i><P>

You keep making the same bizarre "argument:" if someone doesn't value something enough to pay for it, then the penalty for using it without permission should also be zero. Do you genuinely not comprehend that, in practical terms, that equates to "if I don't want to pay for it then I'm entitled to use it for free until someone tells me to stop"? I've explained the consequences of that reasoning, and John H. has spelled out how that devalues all intellectual property.<P>

<i>that no one has addressed the central issue, of the exorbitant amount, that even considering punitive damages, has no relation whatsoever with reality.</i><P>

See Dan Marchant's reply earlier in this thread.<P>

<i>I will tell you the general public that reads this will have an even lower opinion of the value of photographer's work in today's market.</i><P>

Please don't presume to speak for the "general public." I could just as easily claim that members of the general public who read this will have a better appreciation that they're doing something wrong when they use photos without permission.<P>

<i>By any sense of fairness, an offense such as using an image in a blog post by the average internet user would require a take down notice if it really bothers you that they're using your image.</i><P>

Actually, no, by <b>your personal opinion</b> about fairness, that's what should happen. If people use your images without permission, you are free to do nothing more than send a takedown notice. Other photographers and agencies can clearly have other ideas about fairness.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Well, with sites like tumblr and especially pinterest, who is surprised that many don't understand that it is not OK to simply "re-pin" any image they can find on the web? It appears that pinterest protects themselves with some legalese in the TOS - but it doesn't seem that many are adhering to it.<br>

<br /> I just found out that an image I took is re-blogged more than two-thousand times (without a clue on how many times the re-blogged image got re-re-blogged) - not even once was I asked for a permission to use (and in many cases, the image isn't even credited). Don't even have the slightest idea on how many hours I would have to spend tracking them all down and issue DMCA take-down notices (and/or issue invoices).<br>

<br /> And if I was to address some of the bloggers myself, I wouldn't be too surprised to be told that I should know that everything on the web is free for the taking and that if I didn't understand that, I shouldn't post images to begin with.<br>

<br /> Seems to me I need to contend myself with "how most people are using the internet" but I wish that Getty would secure me some licensing money for that image.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>John, when's the last time you downloaded something from Youtube without paying a licensing fee ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's impossible to answer since I have never done that and the question is also unresponsive to what I wrote rather than a discussion of the merits involved. </p>

[goldbergbarry]

<blockquote>

<p>Stealing is stealing, whether it's from Getty or YouTube. Case closed. Those tho like to throw stones live in a glass house.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed! Stealing is stealing.</p>

[spruce_parkman]

<p>This thread is a stark affirmation of how deeply a certain sector of the photography world really does not wish to reasonably address and face the realities of current technology and media use. It's telling also, that as a photographer I value copyright, and that I never advocated against it in any comments here, but instead was making a case for fairness and common sense in the application of fines. Yet the responses are indignant self-righteous admonishments of moral absolutes. Stealing is stealing! Stealing at Walmart and posting an image in a blog post are morally the same. It seems like misplaced vengeance. The general public, I can speak to, because they have already made abundantly clear what they think of dealing on the consumer side with photographers. </p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>This is absurd. I agree that the punishment needs to fit the crime but don't tell me that it is not stealing. If the world was the way that you want it to be, then there is no value is producing content, whether that be pictures, stories, movies, music, tv shows, fonts, software or anything else. If that was the case, why would anyone bother developing content if others can steal it with no repercussions? Just because the OP did not realize that his wife was stealing content does not make him innocent. I give the OP credit for trying to make it right, but the fact is that his wife used the image with obtaining the proper licenses. I am happy that Getty is protecting their IP, and the rights of the photographers who created the content.</p>

<p>I also did not realize that that the general public has made it abundantly clear that stealing content should be allowed, nor did I realize that they voted you as the spokesperson. </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Aside from the morality or innocence (ignorance) initially displayed, the copyright laws spell out what the potential penalties are for infringements. The question becomes, what is the reality of Getty turning to federal court to enforce their rights and what are the likelihoods of success. Another gorilla in the rooms is the possibility that some day Getty will choose to make an example of someone to prove that they can - not necessarily unlike the recording industry hammering someone who was a small potato downloader/file copier, etc.</p>

<p>And that is something only an attorney well familiar with the practice and results of litigation over infringements can tell the OP. At probably some cost as well, although there are professional attorneys who might work for free just like some professional photographers might. At the risk of devaluing the profession and taking the food off the other attorney's tables, etc.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Agreed! Stealing is stealing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Yes, but this is about infringement, not theft.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>The lawsuits by Getty and other stock Photography companies to protect their licenses also protect the photographer. The use of these images is how many photographer make their living, so when you misuse the photo you really are stealing their income. There is no excuse for naively, ignorantly, accidentally on purpose because its my own personal blog, grabbing someone else's photograph without their permission, period, unless they have a rights statement saying it ok. This whole matter will be a good lesson for only a few hundred bucks that you always find the owner of a photograph when using it, unless you can establish a fair use for it. If you can't find the creator or owner of the license then just don't use it. Really very simple. If you do think its "no big deal" then be prepared to get tagged for using it. It actually is fair and people should stop whining about it, learn from it and move on.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I was thinking about that. Its really the same thing. It is illegal and when caught people are made to pull off the content. Its just so widespread its difficult to police it. But you do see content pulled off of you tube all the time. Also if you make an album of music without attribution to the rights company, you can also get tagged. Even with so called traditional music that has some exemptions but also in many cases gets tagged with a ownership by someone who has claimed it. That really gets fun sorting that out. Wedding photographers like Joe Buissink always use stock music he pays a modest license fee for to accompany his slide shows so he doesn't have a license problem. The issue is not whether people are or not doing it, it is that if they do, they may get caught and then their may be consequences. When it happens, know you are not legally right and may get popped with a lawsuit.</p>

[john_mcmillin]

<p>"Just because the OP did not realize that his wife was stealing content does not make him innocent." Wow! If not innocent, I wonder what I'm guilty of? Not supplying every image on her site? For years, she's taken images from a number of free -use or subscription sites, AFAIK. This is the first time she's been caught off the reservation. Getty prices the small, low-rex image she used lists for $45.<br>

<br>

Quite a heated debate going on here. Struggling stock photogs, I feel your pain. But I also value Spruce Parkman's comments about proportionality and justice. The opposing view, which I might call Copyright Fundamentalism, could be used to justify any amount of excessive claims and penalties. Getty is demanding we pay 18x the value of the image! If this is fair, what's the bar to a demand for 50x, or 100x? </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Generally YouTube and copyrights enjoy a twisted, often symbiotic relationship. I've been introduced to some great new music indirectly through unauthorized use of that music as background audio for someone's video. And I've been introduced to some marvelous movies as a result of finding familiar music attached to video clips from movies I'd never seen or even heard of.</p>

<p>As a result, I've purchased new music, books, and movies I might otherwise have missed.</p>

<p>From that odd perspective, YouTube and copyrights have an uncomfortable, non-traditional but often symbiotic relationship that benefits creators of intellectual property in ways that defy pre-internet modes of distribution.</p>

<p>I suspect that's one reason YouTube and traditional media giants tend to disregard many instances of copyright violations, and at worst usually just take down material in response to DMCA complaints, rather than attempting to collect fees from or prosecute offenders.</p>

<p>But with still photography use on persistent pages of websites and blogs, the waters are muddier. It's difficult to define an equitable benefit to the photographer. Most of the immediate, measurable benefit appears to accrue only to the owner of the website or blog. Particularly if the photo is uncredited, and directly uploaded rather than linked back to the authorized site/host chosen by the photographer or agent.</p>

<p>In the past I've proposed methods that might help photographers earn something for such usages, such as combining Google's automated image recognition with an automated billing-or-takedown notice generator. This would be easy to do with Google Blogger, most of which earn little or no money for the blog owners but which might generate a bit of money for photographers via Adsense partnerships.</p>

<p>For that matter, Google could itself become a sort of image agent/broker, by Googling images that have usages agreed upon by the image creators/owners. Make it easier for website owners and bloggers to choose and pay, and many of them will do so. The independent music industry has moved toward that type of scheme - admittedly, with mixed results, depending on whom you ask.</p>

<p>Personally I would support such a system for my own images, which don't fit any traditional stock photography model. Some of my photos have appeared on other sites, but I haven't pursued any remedies because none of the usages were commercial - just personal blogs or very low traffic websites. It might work out if Google offered a way to use a pool of designated images, such as those uploaded via Google+, Flickr, etc., authorized by the owners, with fees collected via Adsense revenue.</p>

<p>But some photographers will still prefer to retain exclusive control of their images, with all transactions handled only by designated agents. So it's still up to the end user to be sure they're not using photos without authorization.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I also value Spruce Parkman's comments about proportionality and justice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Unfortunately they are oblivious to those same issues.</p>

<p>We are told that notices should be sent instead for small time users. There is no insight at all of the draining financial costs that employing people to perform these tasks requires. No recognition that such efforts are pointless, snickered at and that such infringing uses so often continue unabated. No understanding that non sales or non profit type uses of other images makes the images have less value overall. No concept that the one time fee for using an image isn't the value and the continued licensing is which what these users are eroding. <br /><br /><br />We are told that the claims are for the sake of extorting people for profit. Its utter nonsense. These are stock house businesses. They make money by licensing photos. They incur costs, real money, to acquire photos. It requires obscene amounts of money to hire organizations and law firms to help prevent loss of property they paid for. These companies have no interest in suing people. Its a cost of doing business to preserve their business and, because of it, word to gets around. It has to somehow. In the end, these infringers are paying chump change, not $8,000.00.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Yet the responses are indignant self-righteous admonishments of moral absolutes. Stealing is stealing! Stealing at Walmart and posting an image in a blog post are morally the same. It seems like misplaced vengeance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They most certainly are not the same. The Waltons are the richest people in the world! There are numerous photographers that are barely living paycheck to paycheck. People just going around and ripping off images on the web is far more detrimental than someone living on poverty stealing some soap to bath their child. I just found out today one of my favorite local photography stores went out of business. Meanwhile Walmart stock is at an all time high. Times are tough in photography.</p>

<p>If you want cheap images go to Shutterstock. If your wife can't bring herself to buy an image for $1 then she deserves the metaphoric back door violation the Getty gorilla is giving her. Frankly I view the $1/image Shutterstock photographers are prostitutes. But the type of person who can't even pay a $1 for a whore is really incredible.</p>

<p>Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It never has been. Just because it is 2013 doesn't mean I can go and catch a baby alligator in Florida (which is a felony) and tell the judge, oops I didn't know. By the way I just found out about that law last week. This is the society we live in. There are laws that regulate everything. Why should photographers be second class citizens? When I go out with my camera I have to know a ton of laws to prevent myself from getting slapped with a civil suit or being detained by the federal authorities (post 911 y'all). So why should I eat the costs and give the end user a free pass?</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Quite a heated debate going on here. Struggling stock photogs, I feel your pain. But I also value Spruce Parkman's comments about proportionality and justice. The opposing view, which I might call Copyright Fundamentalism, could be used to justify any amount of excessive claims and penalties. Getty is demanding we pay 18x the value of the image! If this is fair, what's the bar to a demand for 50x, or 100x?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its not a matter of philosophy, or proportionality or justice. These are all irrelevant red-herrings. Such a statement shows naivety to the process of managing image rights. There's law that covers these issues, period. I'm no expert, but I understand the cost of doing things. $800 dollars, especially if they can negotiate it down from that is not unreasonable, nor exorbitant. John H has the right of it, IMHO.</p>

[Rod Sorensen]

After having read most of the posts to this question, I went back and read the original post again. A few comments. (1) It would actually

be interesting to be able to look at your wife's website to put this in perspective. (2) You mention that she almost always keeps records of

where she gets her posted photos, but on the first one she gets caught she hadn't done it. Interesting coincidence. She'll want to make

sure she doesn't slip up again. (3) Yes, Getty is a big company, but I highly doubt they are specifically trying to trick people into using

their photos inappropriately so they can nail them with a fine. I'd guess they'd be perfectly happy if people just didn't misuse their photos.

(4) Using the photo without permission gives Getty the right to do what it did. $850 is a lot and of course it is more than what you would

have paid to use it legally. What would you expect? The fine is meant to be punitive and the amount is not out of line. Do what others have suggested and try to get them to accept a lesser amount - say $425. And don't do it again. And let others know not to do it.

[dave_redmann]

<p>OP: <em>For years, she's taken images from a number of free-use or subscription sites, AFAIK.</em></p>

<p>Whether the website is free-to-view / use, or charges users subscription fees, is irrelevant, and the rule is the same: your wife cannot take pictures from it and use them elsewhere unless there's explicit permission to do so.</p>

<p>OP: <em>Getty is demanding we pay 18x the value of the image! If this is fair, what's the bar to a demand for 50x, or 100x?</em></p>

<p>Well their images probably get infringed 20x for every instance they can find and address through legal channels, so 18x strikes me as pretty reasonable. They only way to deter unlawful conduct that is difficult to detect and/or prosecute (criminally or civilly) is to make the penalties high enough. Sorry, I'm with Getty on this one. If the law allows awards that are unfairly high, the answer is not to blame Getty, but to blame Congress (which has primary responsibility to make the laws) or the courts (which have primary responsibility to enforce the laws, when breaches are brought to their attention).<br /><br /></p>

[spruce_parkman]

<p>What a photographer has to do when Getty Images, the supposed defender of photographers' rights, willfully steals his images. Trial opening in NYC:<br>

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540204/photographer-takes-on-agency-giants-at-copyright-trial</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>If Getty in fact did what that article says they did--is any of us actually privy to the evidence?--then they were completely in the wrong, and deserve to be lit up (forced to pay the photographer a lot of money). Big question: was this the result of a rogue employee doing something wholly unauthorized, or part of a pattern of corporate misconduct, or what? Anyway, that Getty may well have done wrong in the cited instance does not negate that the OP's wife certainly appears to have also done something wrong (there being no apparent grounds for a fair-use or other exception to copyright). If the legal system were to vindicate the rights of only those who are utterly legally and ethically blameless for all times and in all circumstances, then it wouldn't do much.</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>Don't think it really changes anything. Photographers sue agencys all the time over rights usage and agencys go after users. The main concept here is that many quarters of the professional photogaphy world take rights usage very seriously, and you don't take other's images. Whether a consumer or an agency.</p>