Don’t forget that royalty free is not the same as FREE. You still have to pay for a royalty free license, but you don’t have to pay the creator of the work a “royalty” each time you use it. Think of it as “buy once, use for free later” instead of “buy once, then pay to use later”.
You may find this artical useful.
From the linked article:
A start-up on-line antiques business, Antiquesportfolio.com, has won a case in the UK High Court against its own web site designer which had taken photographs from an antiques encyclopaedia and used them on the web site without permission, in breach of copyright.
Antiquesportfolio.com argued that due to the infringement it was entitled to refuse to pay for work carried out by Rodney Fitch & Company, and that it was entitled to a refund of sums already paid to the designers. Antiquesportfolio.com also sought damages which included a payment to new designers to cover the cost of them altering the web site.
You should always have your client sign a standard contract/master services agreement specifically indemnifying the designer/developer (you or your company) - just as software companies have EULA’s that allow them to be free of responsibility for damage.
Be smart - use contracts to protect yourself (and your client) and only use images for which you truly have the rights to use. A very good camera and a little Photoshop wizardry can solve a lot of problems.
I have a fansite for a band that has a photo gallery and in that photo gallery there are quite a few images from Getty. My site is located on a Russian server, how protected are we?
Where are you at? Your Web host would be bound by Russian law, which wouldn’t mean squat if you’re in Georgia, the Ukraine or here in the USA. Getty would have to comply with Russian law when contacting your hosting provider about any possible infringement, and would also have to comply with the laws of your country when corresponding with you.
I am located in the UK, I guess that means I could be totally screwed?
Are you using the images legally? If so you are protected.
Ice Cream, since you are in the UK, then British law would apply. If you aquired the images legally (or even were under the legitimate assumption that you were) and Getty tries to go after you, they’re going to be up the creek without a paddle, not you :).
Can anyone link me to any articles regarding UK law? I would really appreciate it.
Everything I can see is American law. Does the UK have the same kinda 10 day time to take the images down?
There are several UK-centric links in this thread actually. :).
Guess what, I have now had an email today, 08/11/06 from Getty & Co with a scan of the letter I sent them last month, It says:-
To Whom It May Concern,
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We are in receipt of your correspondence dated September 27, 2006. Getty Images apologizes for the delay of our response. We are in the process of reviewing open and unresolved unauthorized image use cases.
As the end user of Getty Images’ imagery, you are ultimately responsible for insuring that you have obtained the appropriate rights to use the imagery. That means that if you acquire imagery from a web template provider or other such company, you are still liable for copyright infringement if that provider or other such company did not properly license the imagery for you use. Copyright law covers both willful and accidental infringement and it is the responsibility of the end user to ensure that any content that is copied, publicly displayed or publicly distributed does not infringe any copyrights. Regardless of the infringer’s intent, the copyright holder is entitled to damages. It is also not necessarily the case that a copyrighted image would have a watermark or a notice of copyright since copyright exists the moment a work, such as a photograph, is created. Any unauthorized use constitutes copyright infringement, for which Getty Images is entitled to recover a retroactive fee. Again, anyone who copies, publicly displays or publicly distributes a photograph, infringes the copyright whether it was aware that the use was infringing or not.
With respect to the 1988 Act, while efforts to identify the copyright owner may, if proven, be taken into account by the Court when calculating the level of damages, it would not negate liability on the question of infringement which is strict liability. Infringement includes “reproducing work in any material form” and is universally recognized to include electronically in an intangible form. The innocent infringer may have less monetary liability than a willful infringer, but as previously mentioned, the innocent infringer is still be liable for damages for copyright infringement and be subject to other judicial remedies. Further, the Act applies to service providers, not to individual’s or business’ websites.
Getty Images appreciates the removal of its represented images from your company’s website. However, removal of the images in question solves only part the issue, as Getty Images will continue to require full payment of the settlement demand to settle the matter and avoid further escalation.
At this time Getty Images can offer conditional discount on the demand by 20% - totaling the settlement demand at £1080.00. Payment must be received by November 15, 2006. Please be in touch with our department so we may resolve this as quickly and as amicably as possible.
So to those in the UK, what do you all think about the above ?
Especially the 3rd paragraph and statement about the 1998 UK Copy Right Act etc and what they have written "the innocent infringer is still be liable for damages for copyright infringement and be subject to other judicial remedies. Further, the Act applies to service providers, not to individual’s or business’ websites.”
I’m no expert on British law (being an American), but my gut feeling tells me that this isn’t a legal document.
Well boys and girls, someone asked me to look into this problem last week and I think I found information about PicScout
Check your log files, see if you find something similar, especially if you’ve been served.
Please let me know if you can confirm my findings.
Very interesting.
Any advice for a web designer who wants to take the heat for his client?
I’d prefer to have whatever happens happen to me and not a business who didn’t have anything to do with my mistake when I first started almost 6 years ago.
Getty has reduced the fine from $3600 to $2500 for three photos (Who reduces a fine? What is this a liquidation sale? If you’re gonna stand by your fine, simply fine me. I don’t haggle down a speeding ticket with a cop while he stands there on the highway… My point is this practice of reducing the fine just doesn’t sit right with me… Makes the whole thing appear unprofessional.)
Someone posted here about the concept of entrapment. Interested by that thought. Additionally, someone also posted about how YouTube gets cease and desists that first ask for content to be removed. The photos have been removed from the client site – so now I wonder how I can bear the responsibility… I don’t have $2500 to pay Getty – I offered $1500 and they said “no.” Again, I’d rather them come after me than the client that I helped years back. They have assets.
Any advice? I’d just like to know what my rights are.
Thanks in advance.
Hello - has anybody progressed through the collections stage or a legal suit yet? I’ve been ignoring Getty for the past month plus and am waiting for their next notification. Thanks.
They have sent my corporation to collection for their invoice amount. in the early stages right now, first 30 days, my corp has sent the agency 1 letter, awaiting their responce. My first notice from Getty was in July.
isn’t the answer right here:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=4906
Even though Getty owns the copyright, there is no way they file for a copyright on every image and therefore:
“A copyright owner can only sue for infringement on a work whose copyright was registered with the Copyright Office, and can get statutory damages and attorney’s fees only if the copyright registration was filed before infringement or within three months of first publication.”
I understand the value of image licensing. Our firm always purchased rights for images, many from Getty.
My problem lies within the way Getty Images representatives treated me on the phone. I said the image in question was a major part of the design, and that’s why we carved out a considerable budget for licensing the image. Their reply? “Sounds like we need to investigate that your usage is even greater. This is big. If you want to save face…”
Save face? Is this professional?
They continued berating, saying they could guarantee the image was not licensed properly, or long enough.
According to their records, we’d only licensed 2 images. Logging in to our account, I had listed over 20. Sadly, the one in question was not listed. However, this makes me think their records are incomplete.
Sadly, I could not log in to our Tony Stone account, where we purchased the image in 2002. Getty folded that site into their umbrella site later.
So we’re resolving the issue, but I was not, and am still not satisfied that they treated me as a customer. In over 10 years in this industry, I’ve never felt this dissatisfied with my experience.
Trying to contact customer service to voice my concern put me back in the licensing loop on the phone.
I encourage everyone to stop using Getty for any purposes.
Perhaps a separate thread of Getty alternatives is in order.
Post note: Here is a thread for alternatives:
Alternatives to Getty Images
According to Picscout’s terms, they get 50% of whatever the copyright holder collects. That is why the amount is so high.
Picscout charges a subscription fee plus 50% of whatever is collected. But is Picscout paying for the bandwidth they are using? I’d have to imagine that if someone has a large site with lots of images, Picscout could suck down gigs of bandwidth all with no benefit to the webmaster.