Getty caught me
- Started
- Last post
- 279 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
200! Gulp!
- lvl_130
200! Gulp!
TheBlueOne
(Jul 25 07, 12:35)nope.
- ladyboy0
and everybody - istockphoto is getty. So everyone of you is probably fucked by Getty if they want to do it.
damn, getty
- k0na_an0k0
well if you bought it for a dollar and they are going to charge you 7x that amount then fuck it. think they can break a $20?
- mrseaves0
well if you bought it for a dollar and they are going to charge you 7x that amount then fuck it. think they can break a $20?
k0na_an0k
(Jul 25 07, 12:43)hahaha.
- MrD0
and everybody - istockphoto is getty. So everyone of you is probably fucked by Getty if they want to do it.
damn, getty
ladyboy
(Jul 25 07, 12:37)actually they had this since they opened up shop
i dont know how they would make money with this fucked up rule
- OSFA0
the way the make money? ... Well making sure nobody else owns it... business 101 for ya.
you know like those psycho chicks...
if I'm not gonna own you, nobody will!!!
- JamesLaRoq0
i didnt read everything so excuse if im repeating.
how big was the image used, is it the original file, because if it was used in a comp in a psd file, it make it really hard to trace unless the copyright information still exists in that image file. you may want to check your files for that...if so, then i can see why there might be a legal issue and how they caught you.
i really want to know how they found out. getty = the new riaa
- rafalski0
QBN Sessions
Getty Center, Los Angeleshahahahaha
- BH260
Back in the day before Picscout, all the Stock agencies hired a team of "Humans" to scour the internet looking for "borrowed images" and images still being used after the license had expired. Even though it sounds like finding a needle in haystack, These Image Detectives made their stock houses millions a year.
Good luck with your legal woes, I'd try to get them down as far as possible. Unless you dump your company name and Identity, the chances are pretty good you're going to pay something.
Maybe you could elect a fictitious CEO of your company and throw the charge on his/her shoulders.
and then fake their death.
- forcetwelve0
"Sounds like big trouble. You're going to need plenty of legal advice before this thing is over. As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. And you'll need the cocaine. Tape recorder for special music. Acapulco shirts. Get the hell out of L.A. for at least 48 hours."
- SteveJobs0
i'm just thinking out loud here, but if you had just 'found' that image somewhere without knowledge of it being copyrighted, and used it as to accent your work, like one might do in a collage, can they really seek litigation against you (with any hope of winning)?
i mean, had they sent you a cease and desist, and you failed to comply, then i can see justification. but in this instance, you acted on good faith, having no knowledge of this image being copyrighted.
it sounds like a lot of money to waste on their end in attorney fees, etc. to pursue something that's not so cut and dry.
- JamesLaRoq0
Have you removed it? (I'll assume so) Just say it was there for 1 day only (or a short period), for promo only, no matter what date the file says it was created on. In fact, they allow and welcome people to use their images as comps. you can call them and ask them for a larger comp to use for your pitches and such as well. Your defense will be that it was solely used for promotional purposes, no monies was made off the piece and you'll gladly remove it. Hopefully, they are kind folks.
Also, if you did use it while working on a contract gig, had you CYA (covered your ass) and had the client sign away all liabilities, the client can be help responsible for any legal actions and not yourself.
Just throwing some thoughts out for ya. Good luck.
- slappy0
bit late now but you could have denied knowledge and maintained you obtianed the image from a third party.
Section 97 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
"Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy."
- slappy0
I wouldnt pay yet, I did a bit of a search and it would seem these letters have been going out for 13 - 18months depending on where you read and no-one has been taken to court.
Some interesting reading here.
http://www.fsb.org.uk/discuss/fo…
- ladyboy0
Thanks for all the great advice folks - I appreciate it. Unfortunately the general consensus is I'm fucked in some capacity.
On a sidenote the letter was addressed to my sitename and not a person. Think that has legs in court? It's like Getty images vs. peanutbutterabortion.com
I'm sure they can find me if they want to.
- ladyboy0
Thanks for that link Slappy. I was reading that last night but spent more time reading it and found some good stuff this time. Seems a lot more of this happening in the UK
- slappy0
The people who are paying are getting second fines for larger amounts, the people who are getting a letter drafted by a lawyer asking for proof that getty own the original images amongst other requests are getting ignored.
I would rather be ignored :)
- ladyboy0
so slappy - it sounds like your basic shakedown. Send out a bunch of "scare" letters and see who coughs up cash. I bet a bunch do right away. Not that that's wrong in a sense.
The ones who make it difficult (obviously don't have any cash, or have representation) aren't deemed likely cash prospects and are eventually dropped. Same methods collection agencies use.
It was so weird talking to them - it's like there's no law or protocol there. It was just like a collection agency (which I guess it is). What's with the 15% off if you pay in the next week. I asked them to send an invoice for that amount and they wouldn't. WTF
- slappy0
Yeah they are calling it a scam in the UK. That site had some very interesting info and I would be following their lead.
They are invoicing people who bought the images before getty aquired them, its BS.