SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 24 of 33 FirstFirst ... 14202122232425262728 ... LastLast
Results 576 to 600 of 808
  1. #576
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by danny20 View Post
    What intensely annoys me is that I am sure when I looked at Getty’s site 3-4 years ago, firstly it said the images were royalty free which to me implies it was in the public domain and secondly when it did refer to a license, the cost of that license was about £70 for the same image they now say is £700. It’s a scam as illustrated by my blog.
    Hi Danny

    Do you think we could use archive.org to look at Getty's site 3-4 years ago and see if we can find the image in question - whether it was royalty-free?
    I might do this tommorow and see what I can find

  2. #577
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it a good idea although i suspect pages written in ASP will take a long time to display.
    I will also give a shot as i'm convinced 3 or more years ago the same images on their site were either free or in the $60 - $80 region.

  3. #578
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    firstly it said the images were royalty free which to me implies it was in the public domain
    Royalty free means that you can buy a license for a one off fee and then use that item, within the terms of the license, without making further payments (ie. not having to pay monthly royalties for usage).

    Many people assume that Royalty Free means help yourself. It's the word Free that does it.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  4. #579
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know you are correct with the current defination of Royalty free which is indeed now stated on Gittys web-site however i'm convinced that about 4 or more years ago there was a completely different defination on Gittys site or before that Photodisc's site or tonystone.com which basically sadi they were free and public.
    Maybe i'm wrong but i just wondered if anyone remembered any details from the past.

    BTW this new law has already been broken by gitty
    http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/pro...ationery.shtml

  5. #580
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is from Getty's FAQ page dated Aug 1st 2003

    What does 'royalty-free' mean?
    Royalty-free pricing is based solely on the size of the product you need, not the specific use. You don't have to pay any additional fees on a use-by-use basis. Once you purchase a royalty-free product, you may use it multiple times for multiple projects without paying additional fees. Royalty-free images offer creative professionals an alternative to right-managed imagery -- without sacrificing quality or creativity. Royalty-free products provide a solution for every budget, with few usage restrictions. Once you pay the fee for a royalty-free product, you can use the images as frequently and creatively as you'd like. (Pornographic, defamatory, libelous or otherwise unlawful use of any image is, of course, prohibited.) Royalty-free products are identified by an (RF) notation next to the identification number.
    This is from 30th June 2002

    What does "royalty-free" mean?
    Royalty-free pricing is based solely on the size of the product you need, not the specific use. You don't have to pay any additional royalties on a use-by-use basis -- Getty Images has taken care of that for you. Once you purchase a royalty-free product, you may use it multiple times for multiple projects without paying additional fees. (Pornographic, defamatory, libelous or otherwise unlawful use of any image is, of course, prohibited.) Royalty-free products are designated by an (RF) next to the identification number.
    Here's the link to the archived pages for the FAQ page. After this it changed to the page they have currently
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  6. #581
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What intensely annoys me is that I am sure when I looked at Getty’s site 3-4 years ago, firstly it said the images were royalty free which to me implies it was in the public domain and secondly when it did refer to a license, the cost of that license was about £70 for the same image they now say is £700. It’s a scam as illustrated by my blog.
    I don't know where we are going here. Royalty free does not imply public domain. Royalty free means that you licence the image for your own use and you do not need to pay royalties on it when you use it. This is quite clear and the fact that you did not understand this is no defence. Tread carefully with this one.

  7. #582
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    UPDATE.

    Got a "Final Demand" letter today. It was dated the 27th of December, which is a day BEFORE they called me and offered me a further "5%" reduction to 25%. It says it is the last time before they start legal proceedings.

    So as well as shitting my pants, its also 3 days before Trading Standards even get back to work and have a look at my case.

    Has anyone else had this "Final Demand"? It is the second letter they have sent me.

  8. #583
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks guys for the help with 'royalty free'.

    paulie_A is the final demand from getty images or from getty images UK ltd. (The distinction is quite important particularly in light of new company legisilation.)

  9. #584
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Danny20...could you please expand on what you are referring to as "new company legislation" in the previous post. thank you.

  10. #585
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well the address on the bottom of the page entitled "Final Demand" is from the License Compliance Team, Getty Images, 116 Bayham Street, London.

    It says "Getty Images is willing to offer you one last chance to resolve this claim through payment of the attached settlement demand.

    Your failure to make payment immediately will result in escalation to our legal department and the possibility of lega action being commenced for damages exceeding the amount presently being offered by way of settled."

    Pants, shitting? Trading Standards are getting back to me next week, then we will see where i stand...

  11. #586
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hi Dragster. Take a look at http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/pro...ationery.shtml

    It extends the legal requirement of s.4 Business Names Act 1985 for companies to display their corporate name on invoices, to the web-site. It also requires the company registered number to be displayed.

  12. #587
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Paulie:- 'Getty Images, 116 Bayham Street, London' is NOT an individual, partnership or company with legal status.
    'Gettyimages(uk)ltd' is.
    'Gettyimages.inc' is
    'gettyimages' is not.

    It was a point raised a while ago and I don't know yet whether the poster has received a response to a formal notice he/she served on gettyimages.

    In the worse case scenario of Gitty actually winning what would the damages be?
    Basically for copyright infringement a successful plaintiff is entitled to;-

    1. Damages
    2. Statutory additional damages
    3. Account of profits
    4. Costs

    They can have 1 or 3 but not both - they must elect which to choose. Account of profits is basically the profit your web-site gained from the infringement. In most cases here I doubt gitty would elect for that as most people here have little profits otherwise they would not be here and instead employing expensive copyright lawyers.

    2. Statutory additional damages are for flagrant abuse type cases and only usually awarded if you have been caught selling on those images. Once again not many people here have done that.

    1. Damages are generally the royalty fixed under the license fee that would be payable for that image. So (if Getty succeeds in getting round the Competition Laws as regards the extreme and extortionate terrority differences) they may get what their current price for the image is. However they will not get damages if you can show under s.97 that you reasonably believed there was no copyright in the images e.g. you have some evidence which indicates those images belonged to the public domain.

    4. Costs. They will be entitled to their costs but only if the damages firstly exceed the county court limits of £5,000 (assuming the county court is where they will bring their case) and secondly only if the damages are more than any sums you have paid into court. A general solicitor/legal practitioner can give you some quick advice on how and when to make payments into court. basically if you paid into court the sum of the license fee plus say 22% to cover their Vat (which is highly dubious that they will get away with) that ought to be enough.

    Finally this all assumes they can prove their case in the first place. They must be able to show those images were accessible to the public. As some have said before a screenshot can be easily photoshopped so it will be interesting to see how they overcome this hurdle.

    Since they have already suckered money out of me I can say with 100% certainty that it will feel much better to have fought and lost than never to have fought at all.

  13. #588
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've deleted this comment, as advised by my solicitors.
    Last edited by Tristana; Jan 9, 2007 at 09:16.

  14. #589
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You need to find a firm of solicitors that aren't bobbing up and down on gitty...

  15. #590
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why does it seem that Getty are taking this further with me than anyone else...? Has anyone actually settled with them, or negotiated any deal?

    I simply cant pay what they are demanding and its a constant worry, i think im going out of my mind here.

  16. #591
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    corporation...

    wouldn't this be a great reason to incorporate yourself? That way they can try an get money out of the corporation and not the individual.

  17. #592
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi, I discovered this thread through google, and I must admit, I am completely confused.

    I have received no letter from Getty, I just want to cover my butt. Here is my question:

    I have a sports based website.

    Quite often I need to post pictures of players, etc. Usually I google search, and just pick out a nice photo, then boom, I post it. No big deal I figured. Then I read all this copyright stuff.

    So: If I go to say...ESPN.com, and post a picture of say Michael Jordan to my site. If you check properties on the photo, it links back to espn, where I got the photo...is this illegal? Can I get in trouble for this? If so, I've got tons of photos on my site that I need to remove.

    Sorry, I know I am not involved in the whole getty thing.....I just see a LOT of getty sports images, and was wondering how this works. If my photo links back to the original site, am I still in the wrong?

  18. #593
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulie_A View Post
    Has anyone else had this "Final Demand"? It is the second letter they have sent me.
    Yes, I received a final demand months ago and have not heard anything since, but I have ignored all of Getty's correspondence all along. Given that you have responded to Getty, they may think they have a chance of getting some money out of you, so in your case they may take it to another stage after the final demand, which could just be another "final" demand or two.

  19. #594
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Catch, and welcome to SitePoint. You're going to want to remove those images RIGHT AWAY since you are using copyrighted material without the express written consent of the lawful copyright owner.

    If you need to use the images, just go to the source and pay for them.

  20. #595
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulie_A View Post
    UPDATE.

    Got a "Final Demand" letter today. It was dated the 27th of December, which is a day BEFORE they called me and offered me a further "5%" reduction to 25%. It says it is the last time before they start legal proceedings.

    So as well as shitting my pants, its also 3 days before Trading Standards even get back to work and have a look at my case.

    Has anyone else had this "Final Demand"? It is the second letter they have sent me.
    There's nothing unique is this Final Demand - normal procedure.

    The sequence from Getty is as follows;

    Day 1 - Original invoice, less 15% discount

    6 weeks later - reminder invoice, no discount

    4 weeks later - "final demand"

    The sometimes Getty drops it or 4-6 weeks later (perhaps depending on whether you have contacted them and they feel you are worried) you get a follow up letter/phone/fax from Moreton Smith - debt collectors (for UK cases)

    Then ... tell Moreton Smith to back off, disputed invoice, they are breaking the law by hassling you (Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988) and then silence.

    Sal.

  21. #596
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If my photo links back to the original site, am I still in the wrong?
    Not only are you using their photo without their permission, if you are hotlinking to it, which it sounds like you are, you are using their bandwidth without their permission as well.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  22. #597
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have got My second letter. But I'm not sweating it. I have talk to my lawyer and the letters we are getting are not official letters they are just threats. I'm just glad I can third party this mess if it comes to that.

  23. #598
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So, if you link back to a story you are using a sites bandwidth without their permission?

    Why would any site not want to be linked to? Isn't that the point?

  24. #599
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    'copyright infringment is both a civil and a criminal offence. The plaintiff gets to choose which route to follow, the County Court or the High Court'

    Criminal sanctions with regards to Getty's images really only apply were there is a flagrant infringement i.e you are reselling them.
    If getty try to go down the criminal route the case has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in the civil system it only has to be proved on a balance of probablities.
    With most people on this forum having some evidence of innocence that raises the doubt to quash any criminal trail (which would first be heard by the magistrates and then the Crown Court - Not the High Court which is civil only). Moreover, unlike the civil breach, the prosecution has to prove that you knew it was a infringing copy, which to me is a seemingly impossible task - i.e. where is there evidence that you knew? for criminal cases mere possession is simply not enough.

  25. #600
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by catch2248 View Post
    So, if you link back to a story you are using a sites bandwidth without their permission?

    Why would any site not want to be linked to? Isn't that the point?
    A normal text link that takes your visitor to that site is usually OK. Using an image to do it usually requires permission for use of the image and you should ask.

    If however you are displaying an image by itself that isn't acting as a link back to the original site, you're displaying the image as if it was your own and using the owner's bandwidth to serve it up. MySpace users are some of the worst ones for doing that. They find an image they like, copy the full url of it and stick it in their signature. Every time someone loads the page it goes to the host site for that image and serves it up to myspace.

    One of my sites got hit by that with an photo of a band and it was leeching over a Gigabyte of bandwidth each month. Not any more though

    If you want to be on the safe side though, it's usually an idea to contact the site owner and ask if it's OK for you to link to them. You never know, they might even give you a reciprocal.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •