The information below relates to the UK only are both my views and facts that you can find out for free over the Net. I am not a solicitor and I don’t offer it as legal advice.
It is now over 30 days since I received my Getty demand letter and sent them back a simple reply stating I got the image over 3 years ago (I still have it with the meta date stamp encoded in it) from a free template from a PC Magazine, I had removed the image with out prejudice and I also quoted them “Section 97: Of The Copyright, Design and Patents Act of 1988” and told them the matter was closed.
I have now received a follow up letter from them stating that I haven’t paid or responded etc. This is not correct as I have proof of delivery from the Post Office that my letter, as above, was signed for by “Roger” at their office at 116 Bayham Street on 30/9/06
Having spoken again to my FSB legal advice line, the advice is either write again stating the facts again that I did not take the image from them, I did not know they owned the image rights, quote Section 97 again and state that I had replied and I had proof it was signed for at their office. Or ignore the demand as it is clear now that even if one does reply back, Getty don’t take any notice.
So I will continue to ignore the letters and keep a watch on this and other forums.
It is interesting to me that none of their letters are signed with a name, just bog standard computer generated letters. No one person will put their name to the letter, I wonder why… could it be fear of being sued back ?
IF I do get a debt collection letter from Morton Smith, then I attack back. As I previously posted I will again:-
• Report Getty to the Irish C&E Large Trader unit on 00353 1-6470710, email:- largecasesdiv@revenue.ie
• The UK C&E tip off line on 0800 595 000
E-mail: Customs.Confidential@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk
Because Getty are issuing non vat invoices headed with a UK address, posted in London, with an Irish VAT number and charging IRISH UK VAT. Both the C&E’s take a very dim view of this kind of malpractice
• Companies House have registered (among other Getty Co’s) :-
GETTY IMAGES LIMITED
101 BAYHAM STREET
CAMDEN TOWN
LONDON
NW1 0AG
Company No. 00948785
GETTY IMAGES (UK) LIMITED
101 BAYHAM STREET
LONDON
NW1 0AG
Company No. 03728660
So the UK Companies Investigation Branch, part of the UK DTI who I spoke to, at http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/cib/ would be very interested in hearing about a UK Registered Ltd Co trying to charge Irish VAT in UK Pounds and not UK VAT.
Then I will be reporting their tactics to:-
Office of Fair trading tactics can also be logged at:-
http://www.oft.gov.uk/default.htm
Cross Border complaints to governments can be made at:-
http://www.econsumer.gov/
Then of course inform BBC Watchdog, .Net magazine, and all the other Computer and Internet magazine I can think of, PC Pro, Computer World etc etc.
As we know under section 97 of the act they say we have broken http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_7.htm#mdiv97
Most of us can show that we were unaware and “did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates”. Therefore Getty are only entitled to the cost of the image, not damages. i.e. what they are currently selling the image for.
If they send the debt to Morton Smith debt collection agency, I will write to the agency with a recorded delivery letter, inform them that the demand is disputed and
“It is an offence under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to harass of debtors with a view to obtaining payment including the issue of letters which convey a threat or false information with intent to cause distress or anxiety.”
The debt collection agency mentioned above, Morton Smith are members of http://www.csa-uk.com/index.htm and therefore must follow their code of practice http://www.csa-uk.com/COP%20-%20CSA.htm#
which includes the Administration of Justice Act 1970 Section 40. If they don’t, complain to CSA at the website above.
This shows the debt collecting agency you are disputing the debt and know your rights which should make them think twice before harassing you again or going to court.
No letter or bill can be enforced unless it has been issued by a legal court. Unless it is a court stamped document or Government/Police issued warrant, it is just some fancy words on a bit of paper from a person.
Why not also send Morton Smith details to both Irish & UK C&E’s DTI, Insolvency branch and everybody else I mentioned above as they will be adding and abetting in the Getty try on. That will please them when you inform them of that…….
IF Getty want to take it all the way to court, and I really doubt that, already because of Section 97, they are down to only being able to collect the current cost of the image as per their website.
They would have to prove that when you got the image (in my case 2003) that they owned the image AND owned the copyright. Not just X months ago when they added it to their image bank. They would have to show that when you stated to use the photograph back in x years ago it was logged with the US Copyright office. Plus if the date it was lodged was after 1988 then show in writing that the photographer had requested Getty to represent the copyright interests.
The image I have has a huge chunk of picture (almost 50% more) then is on the image on Gettys image bank. This makes me think that they have gone around buying up free images/image sites, adding them to their image bank then using Picscout find people like us that have as far as we were aware at the time used a royalty free image and try to get money out of us with scare tactics.
If they do prove that they had the image registered etc, I can show, as per Section 97 etc that I was unaware of this as I got the image from another source (as I have more picture content) and so they would only be able to sue for the current cost of the image, no damages etc as I am within Section 97 etc. I am guess the same applies to most of us here.
As SortedGeezer previously posted:-
Getty’s invoices state that you have used the image over a specific period (e.g. 6 months). If Getty objected to your unlicensed use of their image, then they should have sent you a “cease and desist” notice when they (or Picscout) first discovered your use of the image at the beginning of that period, rather than intentionally letting you continue to use the image for months in an attempt to make you accrue a large (disputed) invoice in their favour. This point alone demonstrates that Getty’s objective is revenue generation rather than copyright protection. Furthermore, deliberately letting you continue to use the image for many months could be construed as consent, albeit consent for the sole purpose of pecuniary advantage.
My civil court judge (i.e. UK Magistrate) friend has advised me that IF they took it to court (it can only be a civil court, not a criminal court) a judge will look at the facts, most of us here have got the images from free sites or templates years ago, not stolen them from Getty. That will be looked at by a judge and the Getty case could be thrown out of court if you can show that you did not take the image from them. You don’t even need to attend, go to a local solicitor and swear a “statuary declaration” stating/showing your case/the details etc. This cuts down your costs.
Don’t forget “You are innocent till proven guilty” Getty have got to 100% prove we are guilty and that is going to be hard and cost them money to in the end only be able to recover a few hundred quid for the current cost/value of the image (as per section 97 of the act etc they claim we have broken)
Now if you did take the image from Getty site, then your could be stuffed as you have stolen something.
I belive this is a BIG try on by Getty, every bit of advice I get from solicitor friends, FSB legal advice line, my UK Magistrate friend I have and other friends who have had similar letters sent to them say to ignore Getty.
So now I continue to wait and see what happens and more importantly get on with my business and life.[list]
[/list]
