The methods that Getty uses to distribute their images are wrong. They rely on threat and intimidation to collect on debts that the consumer does not even acknowledge. It is blatant harassment, wherein Getty’s agents do not even respond to correspondence from the consumer.
Did you agree to use the images from Getty? Rather than make an effort to protect their images and keep them from being copied illegally, they are attempting to collect on them with methods that everyone agrees is HIGHWAY ROBBERY. We need to band together and get them to change the way they do business.
This has the stuff for a class action like Blockbuster’s business tactics. I am really curious as to how many unsuspecting people are falling victim to Getty’s marketing tactics and business practices. As a photographer, author, and software publisher, I agree that pirates disserve to be punished; but, I do not agree that the people that Getty picked out are real pirates. Furthermore, I doubt Getty can prove that they have the exclusive rights to all their images. They are not making an example of the pirates to deter piracy. They are encouraging piracy, so they can go after the easy pickings.
Around the world, community laws exist that require everyone to fence your pool, because it is an enticing and hazardous object with potentially life threatening consequences. I do not see how the situation with Getty is any different. The amounts that Getty is charging for use of unlicensed material would kill many a small business, the life blood of the USA. From what I gathered, Getty is betting that they can pick the honest consumers off one-by-one. In fact they designed their site to work this way. They are using predatory methods just like a lion on the savannah to prey on the herd’s juveniles. In this case, it is the stuff created by juvenile webmasters.
Furthermore, if you entice someone to commit a crime, it is not a crime. It is called entrapment. From what I have observed by studying Getty’s site and their agreements, Getty’s methods are designed to entrap and entice the unsuspecting with pictures that contain their logo and terms like Royalty Free; and, account activation procedures that do not properly verify the consumer and the site owner.
Our site was underdevelopment on a separate URL and the contractor turned out to be an idiot. He was telling us that the Royalty Free images were free. I was investigating, trying to determine what the deal was, struggling to identify the images, when Getty found our construction site and sent us this threatening letter, wherein we immediately removed their images. When questioned later, the contractor tells us that he was using the pictures as place holders. As it turn out, anyone with a URL and an email address can get an account at Getty Images. Once in, the user has free access to all the full size images, which may not contain watermarks; and, they can take them anywhere. It is a virtual hackers paradise.
Let us not forget that this is Getty’s problem. It is not your problem or mine. Getty simply makes no attempt to protect their stuff in any other way then by trying to collect on it. I doubt that they make a very good effort to scan the net for their stuff. Considering the volume and other technical impediments, it is not entirely practical. However, if Getty made an effort to limit access and track the downloading of images, they may have the problem licked; but, then again they would also miss this opportunity to overcharge us. Essentially, it appears that they are depending upon the good natured adults of this predominantly Christian nation to comply with their demands, knowing good and well that unaltered images are finding their way into our market without approval through the undercurrents, and into other markets freely like China where copyright infringement is rampant.
This is not the case with other services like IStockPhoto, where they track the usage. At IStockPhoto they want a credit card for verification purposes to setup an account. At IStockPhoto, whom Getty purchased right after we replied to Getty’s collection letter, they require a deposit before you get access to usable images. At IStockPhoto they then charge you for every image you download; and, IStockPhoto and others are far less expensive than Getty for images for your web site.
Face it Images. The Internet tends to lend itself to piracy, and some acts of piracy on this superhighway are overlooked purposefully. In Getty’s case, they temporarily overlook it so they can mark up their overpriced items 10 fold. Why don’t you go after Myspace and YouTube? There are plenty of your images on these sites. Many of these images are reprints of photos taken from news clippings and the video clips you will find are from network broadcasts. Virtually all of this goes unnoticed to the benefit of the host’s advertisers.
Use of copyright material is permissible under “Fair Use” in an education setting; and, it appears that educators may be purposefully directing aspiring webmaster’s to Getty’s site without making them aware of the consequences. In this setting where authors typically give material away freely when credit is given back to the author, the act does more to promote the originator.
Sure the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, referenced in the Wikepideia article provided by Kosh does provide protection, if you “did not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity.” Note the emphasis on the words direct and control. In other words, if you were reselling these images online like in a template that contained these images you could be in big trouble. There are criminal fines and prison terms associated with copyright infringement, when it involves unauthorized redistribution; but, the authorities rarely pursue individual cases that involve less than $10K in losses.
Keep in mind that Getty is playing on your fear, and your ignorance of the law to blackmail you into paying quickly. They want everyone to think that you are the villian with the money, that the webmasters are fly-by-night operations, and they (Getty) are the poor little victim. When you feel weak, just remember that J. Paul Getty bought most of the newspapers 100 years ago to crush the stories they were printing about him, rather than deal with the problem. It was his brand of yellow journalism that brought us here. If it were not for the abuse of people like Getty and Rockfeller, we would not have child labor laws on the books today, and even more so why we have an Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.
Look into the heart of general Copyright Law and you will to will know without a doubt that Getty is barking up the wrong tree. They are creating a problem, where none should exist and attempting to profit from the confusion they are generating. With all their resources they could easily curb the problem with restricted access. Instead they act like PUSHERS who are using children to get unsuspecting people hooked on their drug. They then attempt to push the problem down the chain by making the site owner responsible, when it is the author, the webmaster, who has knowledge of the infringement and committed the act of plagiarism (piracy), and received the real financial benefit. Getty’s collection policy is a kin to making the owner or the inventor of the printing press responsible for infringement. Even though you derived some benefit, unless you (the site owner) had prior knowledge, you are not the person responsible for committing the act of infringement.
Blame the author, unless you have direct knowledge, and authorized its use. Above all be a credible witness. Unless the webmaster is your employee, they own the rights and/or the blame for the work. Typical web site design contracts contain clauses obligating the webmaster to provide all the material free of encumbrances, and deed it or license it to the customer. In turn webmasters are usually held harmless for material they inherit from the client, site owner.
Companies like IStock recognize this fact that the author is in control and should know better. The webmaster (author) is the one driving the bus. You are just a passenger. FYI, the license agreements for accounts at IStockPhoto allows the webmaster to put material on a customer’s web site with limitations. The image cannot look like a product endorsement; it cannot be used with a logo, or redistributed as part of another product (like a template). Maybe Getty can learn a thing or two from IStockPhoto.
Many services offer FREE images as an enticement to start using their service. In Georgia, our state, there are very specific limits to using the word FREE. Getty appears to be contributing to the confusion in the market place by freely distributing their images. This in order to sell goods that otherwise would not sell because they have priced themselves out of the small and midsized business market, which they have targeted. They should stick with the media giants and large advertisers, where it appears they get most of their business.
If you are doing business with Getty Images, STOP; and, think seriously about the relationship Getty has with IStockPhoto. Getty’s stuff is not that good. It is definitely not worth the price, the risk or the sacrifice. If you agree to Getty’s terms, the relationship becomes a dictatorship wherein they make the rules, choose the venue (the courts and laws that govern) and set the amount of restitution.