Warning: Image Copyright & Getty Images

[Flightmapping]

Tweet

I was discussing issues relating to rewriting other people's news content the other day, and the question of images and copyright came up.

I've never used other people's images myself - my thinking has always been that if I haven't been somewhere, I'm not going to try and pass it off as if I have - but inevitably people are always going to need to find images for their site.

The easy temptation is to tap whatever you need into Google images, and just cut & paste whatever comes up. 'I'm only using it for a postage-stamp size icon, what's the problem?'

Problem is that some companies are very aggressive in pursuing royalty fees when their images are used without permission.

I have thought that the 'worst case' scenario would be a 'cease & desist' letter - essentially a warning to stop using the image within 7 days, or face legal action.

I just got a letter from Getty Images asking for £968 for alleged misuse of one of its images. The website in question is actually nothing to do with me - it is a pills & potions site in California, WHOIS in Virginia - so how they got my address is a mystery - but they are still seeking a royalty fee for usage of the image to date, even if it were taken down straight away.

Now I'm not sure if Getty have some kind of bot which seeks out uses of their images, or if they use human checkers, but claiming that an image came via a third party source is no excuse in their eyes.

So next time you hit CTRL+C, make sure you know exactly where it is your image came from.

[allthediscounts]

I wonder what the scenario is when images appear on multiple image bank sites?
I personally use fotolia because it's a few pence per image, but have noticed that the images available are also available elsewhere (for vastly increased sums).

Is it a case of they only track exclusive images? How do they know the author didn't do something different with the image prior to uploading on Getty? Surely the only concrete way to pursue this is to buy exclusive rights to the image under contract from the author.

They may well put some hidden mark in the image. You can easily read/write out image data in .net and other scripting languages so I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of possibility to change it.

Then how do they know that you haven't legally purchased it? After all you when you download a image you don't specify that it's for site xxx.com do you? When I make purchases they go in a folder and are used wherever I see fit?

Or are they just playing the game in the hope of a response?

[ascentem]

With Getty images you have to detail lots of info as to where/how and for how long the image will be used - they are pretty hot on the logistics of it all and making sure the author of the images gets paid.

[JohnnyCash]

Just ignore Getty and they'll go away, don't enter into any communication with them and certainly don't pay them. They never take anyone to court and can't enforce these demands they are making...

[highlander]

Just ignore Getty and they'll go away, don't enter into any communication with them and certainly don't pay them. They never take anyone to court and can't enforce these demands they are making...

Might explain how befuddle.co.uk manage to have all those celeb photos on their site. I have never understood how they manage to get away with it

[Flightmapping]

Just ignore Getty and they'll go away, don't enter into any communication with them and certainly don't pay them. They never take anyone to court and can't enforce these demands they are making...

I'd already sent them an email effectively saying it was nothing to do with me, please cease & desist from any further claims.

Essentially, is this not the same as any other 'theft' - ie you are innocent until proven guilty. This notice had the feel of a 'fixed penalty' parking ticket - except the price tag was obviously much higher.

I've had a company try to take me to court before - ignoring isn't really the way I do things, but I created a long paper trail of counter-claim essentially saying they were so badly in breach of contract that they couldn't possibly enforce it. They went away after 3 or 4 rounds of this.

Any future letters from Getty can go straight in the shredder.

[scriptmonkey]

Over time, I've had many of these letters from Getty (not through my wrongdoing, but through template designers not knowing what they're doing). What I do is remove the image and then ignore them.

[Rocky]

Now I'm not sure if Getty have some kind of bot which seeks out uses of their images

Yes they do have some kind of bot. more info here:

Getty Bot

[allaffiliatepro]

I don't trust Getty at all. What's to stop them or one of their artists uploading a protected image to a free archive? Then they just sit back and let the bot reap in the rewards. When that nasty letter comes through the post I best many businesses just pay it straight away.

[Flightmapping]

Rocky, thanks for the link, interesting blog post.

I don't trust Getty at all. What's to stop them or one of their artists uploading a protected image to a free archive? Then they just sit back and let the bot reap in the rewards. When that nasty letter comes through the post I best many businesses just pay it straight away.

It is a rather odd business tactic. You can understand councils issuing dodgy parking tickets, because councils like to think they can treat people like mugs - they are the government after all, and few people bother to appeal - especially businesses as it takes time to make an appeal. Oddly enough, way back in another millennium I did have a job administering parking tickets & speeding fines for a large leasing firm. If asked to appeal a parking fine, I nearly always won. I wonder what portion of these 'tickets' get paid - what court hears claims relating to copyright? How about personal blogs, or does Wordpress HQ get thousands of these each day? I'm guessing they have calculated this 'fee' very cynically to extract maximum payment, whilst being just below the threshold at which most companies would engage a legal opinion.

[theDaveB]

I am a photographer who supplies images to stock libraries. Basically when you supply a image you decide if its a rights managed image or royalty free. If RM then when you sell the image the client has to say exactly what they are using it for and for how long etc... and the agency comes up with a price, RF images don't have that restriction.

Getty will be chasing only RM images, as RF images can be uploaded to multiple libraries, so there is no way of them knowing you haven't purchased it from elsewhere.

But some RF libraries (like iStockphoto, which is owned by Getty) allow you to become a exclusive contributor. In this case Getty would know you haven't got it elsewhere as the image is exclusive to that library.

The reason for RM and RF licenses is clients sometimes don't want to use a image their competitor is using or has used. There was a story a while back of a political party using a RF image of a nice smiling lady saying she was voting for that party. Some bright spark in another party found the image and also purchased it, they then ran their ads with the same lady, saying "I have changed my mind".

Also the BMP use RF images in their ad campaign, showing a nice happy british family, again this was found on RF image libraries and it was actually a American family.

Dave

[Flightmapping]

Also the BMP use RF images in their ad campaign, showing a nice happy british family, again this was found on RF image libraries and it was actually a American family.

Dave - take it you mean the BNP?

[theDaveB]

Dave - take it you mean the BNP?

LOL, yes I do.

Dave

[88dbsakthi]

I have heard lot of similar horror stories about gettimages .Its better to stay away from this.

[Flightmapping]

I have heard lot of similar horror stories about gettimages .Its better to stay away from this.

Not sure how often they will send follow up letters, but I'm not good at ignoring things. My nature is to take them on, but my experience last time someone tried to sue us was that you get wound up if you reply, you get even more bothered if you don't.

They haven't even had the deceny to acknowledge the email I sent asking them to cease & desist.

that does make them a lot easier to ignore