Copyright Warning
- Started
- Last post
- 15 Responses
- BusterBoy
We took over management of a website for a client of ours a few years back. The site had been designed by a freelancer about 3 years previous to that and not much has changed since – we just tacked on a CMS.
The owner of the site has just received a letter of demand from Getty Images claiming that 3 images on the site were not authorised for use on the site and that they had to pay something like $1200 per image!
I was asked for advice on this but I'm, not certain what course of action I would recommend. At no stage was a cease and decist letter received – just this demand.
Have Googled a bit and most say to just remove the image and ignore and it's very unlikely they would take the matter further other than the occassional demand letter.
Anyone else had this type of experience? Any advice appreciated.
This is in Australia BTW
- __TM0
original designer = accountable
- Zenith_Kudos0
My advice is to get it sorted. They won’t walk away.
- d_rek0
I would say the owner of the site and the original designer are the ones accountable.
The owner should have recieved PO's for the images used on their website, thus documenting a legal transaction to aquire the images. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that these things would get overlooked. If you're a business owner you have to cover your ass.
The designer should have also gone through the necessaries to acquire the images legally. If he didn't then shame on him - although I wouldn't put it past someone to do something like this.
Question is: Who pays up? The owner of the site or the designer? Or do you just pull the images and convince the owner to legally purchase rights to new images - which might just be a much cheaper alternative.
Decisions, decisions.
- ETM0
Yeah, Getty is in the extortion business now. The stock photo thing is just a front.
- airey0
start a dialogue with getty but first take down the images. state the case and see what amends need to be made. shaft the initial designer as much as possible, even if they're awol.
- Amicus0
Sounds to me as if the designer is accountable. How does Getty know that the images weren't purchased legally? If they are rights managed images the designer should (morally anyways) be held accountable if the terms of use had expired, if the legal information was not passed along.
- BusterBoy0
The people who own the site now aren't the people who dealt with the original designer so we have no idea who it was. It's a piddly little community website so they never would have paid to have images put on the site so my guess is the designer may have just used portions of the images on the site - I have no idea if they are indeed Getty images that were used in the first place.
It is a racket if you ask me. If they were sincere, surely they would send a cease and decist letter first,
- raf0
Emecks had the same problem where he worked some 2-3 years ago, should be in qbn archives. Or was it someone else?
- raf0
Bear in mind they know all your possible answers before you do, they've been running this picscout thing for a few years now. And they don't give a shit. If they wanted the pics down they'd send a cease and desist. They want the money.
- ukit0
That company is basically bankrupt, you're telling me they are going to actually pay lawyers and take you to court over a couple images? Sure they will send you an e-mail...
- _niko0
Fuck Getty.
from wiki:
Getty Images uses a firm called PicScout to scan the web for unauthorized and unlicensed usages of its protected images. Websites that are found to be in violation are sent financial settlements that retroactively licensed the image. However, the settlements also demand damages, which are said to have been incurred against the copyright holder. Thousands of these letters have been sent out, yet according to the Wall Street Journal in October 2005, Getty had not taken any of these potential cases to court.[8][9] However, Getty published a notice to its contributors describing how a court decision in New York makes it more difficult to obtain damages for infringement.[10] The article does not state whether Getty Images was a party involved in the court case.
Recently, Getty Images lost a lawsuit in Germany[11]. Getty claimed unauthorized usage, but the defendant could prove authorized usage as he had bought a retroactive license directly from the photographer.
- monNom0
change the photos and ignore the letter. DO NOT CONTACT GETTY. (you don't want to get on the radar).
The goal of the letter is to dupe you into paying their pie-in-the-sky 'damages' without a lawsuit or court order. There's nothing legally binding about it.
Had a client go through a very similar situation (new ownership, old designer never purchased the rights). They changed out the photos, threw the letter away and never heard from getty again.
- this was their legal department's advice. Your client should talk to their own LAWYERS about it.monNom
- 23kon0
Wasnt it Getty who sued a student lass who'd copied a getty image to make a painting from and entered it into a competition and won, through all the press she got from the competition, the stock photo firm saw the pic then sued her ass.
Proper c*nts if you ask me. Particularly as artists do this kind of ripping all the time - see Shepard Fairey thread lol.Not sure where the law stands if your designer is accountable.
If you buy a stolen car then it's your problem.
I'd do what everyone else is suggesting, take the images down and get into some dialogue with getty to clear the air, tell them you's had nothing to do with sourcing the images in the first place.Mind you the advice from monNom might be right about not contacting getty cos it'll only get you on their radar.
- fiesta0
That girl sounds like a talentless cunt anyway, glad she got sued.
and getty pfft fuck using anything from there anyway.