sorry to return to the Irish issue however in April 2006, Getty images acquired Ireland-based Pixel Images Holdings Limited, the parent company of Stockbyte and Stockdisc. Their Irish company ‘GettyImages international limited’ was set up to consolidate and administer this acquisation and had absolutely nothing to do with the supply of the images referred to in their invoices. In other words firstly they are falsely and illegally claiming Irish VAT and secondly they are hiving off infringement damages into accounts over which the photographers are denied access. (if you are a photographer reading this then check your paperwork and you will find you can only access the accounts of getty Images Inc not getty Images International which is an entirely seperate company. Moreover the chances of the copyright being assigned to the Irish company (at the time the infringement took place) are going to be nill because even now they are being sold by getty Images Inc. In other words they are not owners of the copyright - a fact which to date they have repeatedly refused to prove by failing to produce any copies of legal assignments or details of the image dates or details of where those images were shot. No wonder they are so quick to try and settle the issue with the manchester solicitors.
Out of curiosity, does the ‘20’ stand for your age, IQ, or both?
-
Many images are distributed through multiple channels and on a non-exclusive basis. The IP copyright laws protect them equally, wherever they came from.
-
Your last paragraph amounts to an unambiguous accusation of massive fraud. Were there any grownups moderating this list they wouldn’t be amused by being implicated in your potentially defamatory and libelous charges. In that 'ptogs also read the list, you’re disparaging Getty’s trade and good reputation!
Were I Getty, you might look forward to some letters which will make the ones you already have look like Valentines.
While you’re thinking ‘20’, you might set aside an extra $20k or two for legal bills. I’m sure Lime One would love to hear from you, probably send a car.
BTW, any judgements recorded against you can not only toast your credit rating, but haunt you in the form of Liens and/or Attachments against present or future assets. Don’t take my word for it in the UK, but true enough in the US.
For those wondering how my holidays went, very nice thank you. Still wearing my tan from Puerto Vallarta; paid for BTW, by 40% of an 5 figure infringement settlement (through Corbis).
I really hope you’ve lifted one or more of my images! I need one of those 16Mps Nikons.
In order for this discussion, to continue to exist and continue here, the conversation has to remain civil.
As a reminder - personal attacks, arguements between forum members, and other forum guideline violations will not be tolerated. Thank you.
Well said Matt!
The whole tone of the thread is affected by these unnecessary attacks. Let’s keep it on topic.
What’s the latest on this, we received a legal notice from Getty requesting £1600 … The image in question was purchased as part of a web template a few years ago … Is there an A B C guide to follow that’s been established when dealing with these demands from Getty ???
Thanks …
Energy level there is no ABC guide because no one knows for sure what to do about it. Several lawyers have been consulted and they have provided conflicting advice. As I see it the only way we will really know where we stand is if and when someone gets taken to court.
Quick update, it is now 3.5 months since last/2nd/final Getty demand letter and 3 months since last contact which was an email I got from Getty. If any dodgy debt collectors contact me I am primed and ready to dispute it on the grounds of the legality of the demand letters/VAT details/Copyright ownership, s97 etc etc. Obviously I have removed the image, set up IP blocking on the site, removed site from the Way Back machine etc etc.
energylevel, I suggest you read back over the whole thread and form your own view of what to do. My image was also from a website template years ago. All the information you need is contained in the thread. Contact or post if you need any help/advice.
After doing some homework, as far I understand it UK law says that they have to prove that I have knowingly stolen the image in question to claim damages, as I am unwittingly an innocent party in this, if they pursue it further after I notify them of the circumstances then that will give me grounds for a claim against then for defamation of character as they will A) be calling me a liar and B) saying I have deliberately and knowingly stolen the image (which I haven’t of course).
Are there any official websites that have been set up yet to get a community of disgruntled victims of these despicable letters from Getty together, I’d be glad to put some input into something like this, I think Getty need as much negative PR as possible and it would also be a good starting point to discuss possible counter claims against Getty for their actions.
I will be meeting with my lawyer next week who is a specialist in web law and I will post back here with his professional opinion, I intend to turn the table on Getty because I am disigusted with their approach, by all means ask me about the image politley and assume innocent before guilty, I would have galdly removed the image and apologised even though I i did NOT knowingly use an image without the applicable licensing.
Whay are Getty requesting compensation back-dated, I would have been more than to remove the image any time ??
Has anyone contacted PicScount and asked for an official response from them for information about:
a) Blocking their bots, a specific list of IPs, IP range and useragents
b) And specifically if they obey the Robots Exclusion Protocol
???
Why would they adhere to exclusion? The whole point of Picscout is that it’s searching the web for specific images. That’s what they do. There are similar search bots (Copyscape for example) for content checks. They’re going to look at your site whether you want them to or not.
It’s a bit like being in your car, driving at 90 mph in a 30 zone with a sign in your rear window saying “Police Ignore”. Not going to happen is it.
You can block Google and co because it’s no skin off their nose if you don’t get into their search results. Entirely your choice.
Even if Picscout did adhere to robots there’s nothing to stop them listing out sites blocking them and having a human visit your site to check for the images.
Think of a website as private property. The owner gives the public conditional access based on compliance with accepted principles (such as robot exclusion) and T&Cs. Those T&C often exclude commercial usage or have limited commercial usage terms with exclusions such as financial exploitation of the service. By not respecting the robot exclusion and/or T&C you are effectively a hacker (ie trespassing on private property) and therefore susceptible to criminal law. At least, that’s my non-informed understanding. 
I haven’t seen this in any pages of this thread, so i’ll ask it anyway.
Does the bot look for image sources then read the image file, then match it up with ones in there DB? If so, then why not add a small mark on the image, or change contrast etc so the file is different?
Even if Picscout did adhere to robots there’s nothing to stop them listing out sites blocking them and having a human visit your site to check for the images.
You could display a cover-up page to the bot, so they don’t know if it’s not the one displayed normally.
Think of a website as private property
Completely agree with you there, however be careful how you word that, as images are also private property
also not sure if anyone else has written this, but i’ll ask it anyway. What if you were to display a notice at the bottom of the page mentioning copyrights to images from getty?
Arkinstall, if you know your image is infringing, you should remove it not try and hide it. What you are suggesting would put you into the guilty without a doubt side of this argument. Once informed, you should remove the images, not try and play games.
What he probably meant to say was “what if you acquired an image legitimately, but do not want PicScout to suck down more bandwidth than a freeloader who eats everything in the fridge yet doesn’t pay any rent? Would this be a viable (and ethical) thing to do?”
I’ve come across this…
“Now Corbis is taking a web site to court for using one of its photos without paying, having detected its watermark. There’s nothing wrong with the picture technically, but it’s hard to imagine anybody actually using it if they knew they’d have to pay for the privilege. Corbis says the picture is worth over £1,000 and is now suing the site.”
The full article is in this link - http://www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/comment/2174223/pic-agencies-portray-copyright
Tristana this should probably have been in the Corbis thread? I would post it there but it’s your baby
I don’t believe a legal class action is something that actually exists in the UK. Does anyone know if there is anything similiar in legal terms so a group of individuals can collectively take action against a company ??
I understand that a joint action can be taken by a group of common defendants against a common claimant but don’t take my word for it. All I know is that the company representing me have clients who are being claimed for much larger amounts and several of them are part of a joint action in defence.
I quote from Images post above:
“We will find and we will take individuals to count over images used without licenses. When was the last time your took some food and ate it without paying or ate at a restaurant and walked off?”
Actually - the law in the UK with regard to food in a restaurant is as follows…
All you legally have to pay for any food you are served in a Restaurant is an estimation as to the raw materials cost of such food. If you are not satisfied with any aspect of your meal, that is a course of action you may take.
Taking this into the context of this thread - If your employer had merely billed us for the usage of the artworks in question - more of us probably would have paid up and said no more about it. It is the fact that extortion is taking place that people are not paying - and remember - all it takes is one of us to win a court case - and your employer will lose all of them.
I’ll bet you any money that this is a journalist ‘flowering’ a story on the basis of a Corbis letter or a web site owner being a bit alarmist. This article does not support the claim that Corbis is taking anyone to court nor does it provide any evidence of such.
Sal