Everlast, 100% agree with your post No 756. Booler, 100 agree with your post No 760.
I have been following this since Sept 06 when I had the first Getty demand letter and was worried till I found this tread and looked further in to the legitimate aspects of their letters and claims.
I infirmed Getty that I had proof of obtaining the image from another source, they ignored my letter and still sent more letters and an email. It is now 4.5 months since last contact from them. (cos I have not wasted any further time replying to their scam)
Having already lodge complaints/information with the following, PLEASE anyone who get these letters in the UK contact:-
Trading Standards, the DTI, HM Revenue & Customs both in the UK (there is a live case open on this issue) and Eire and even the Police if Getty and Co keep harassing you.
The demand letters and NOT legitimate/legal. Information on this is clearly listed in this thread.
There are have been articles in The Guardian and a podcast from .Net magazine http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/podcast that is worth listening too and then PLEASE email .Net with your story/comments.
Lime One also look like they are doing a good job.
To any new people that get these letters, DON’T PAY, DON’T PANIC, read this thread and follow/act on the information in it. (of course if you did steal the image from Getty, then tough, but it seems to me that 95% of the people here did not)
Warning to everyone - this thread is starting to get out of control. Please keep the discussion civil. If that cannot occur, this thread WILL be closed immediately.
Just an update - My UK client has not heard anything further from Getty after they sent them a recorded letter stating:
Dear Sirs
Ref: Case No. XXXXXXX - Date
We have received an invoice for £XXXXXX for image
reproduction - after taking professional advice we strongly dispute
this invoice for the following reasons:
The images mentioned are not being displayed on our current website
We have not received any communication from you regarding this
matter other than your invoice, which is against the DMCA (DMCA 1998
Section 512).
We have no idea where they came from (a website designer many
years ago) and were unaware they were not free to use
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) states:
“97.—(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown
that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and
had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to
which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages
against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy.”
Finally:
“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.”
We therefore fail to acknowledge your letter or the invoice as legal
or lawful.
If necessary we will contact the Dept of Trade and Industry, Office
of Fair Trading, Camden Trading Standards, Watchdog and anyone else
who will listen if we hear from you again.
Yours faithfully
etc
strangely a month after they got their letter I also got one - I had used an image (and purchased license) for a clients website - once launched I featured a screenshot of the homepage which had the image (fairly large) within it plus a detail of the screenshot with the image in it on my portfolio page.
I pointed out same points above as my client and I have had an email stating my reason has been accepted and no further action will be taken.
Also guys - when posting to this thread copy the below at the end of your post and remove the asterisks - this will help others searching for this info.
As I suggested, Corbis aren’t taking anyone the court. The journailist has now changed his story to read "Now Corbis is threatening a web site for using one of its photos without paying … "
Now Corbis is threatening a web site 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 has sent lawyers’ letters to that effect.
Legally, Corbis is in the right. In reality, it is painting itself into a corner, because no web designer will ever pay that sort of money for a stock shot. But once they realise how Corbis polices the internet, they will start making darned sure they use free clipart.
And in the public mind, I suspect, Corbis will start to be seen as a rapacious parasite, giving nothing to the creative artist, and ambushing unsuspecting home page designers. We’ve seen what that sort of tactic does for the RIAA, which has been suing teenagers for thousands of “lost” dollars on CD downloads; a PR disaster.
I’ve read a lot, but not all of this thread, and i have many questions (maybe just comments) regarding this whole fiasco.
First, and foremost, as permission must be explicitly obtained from the owner of the photo or copywritten material, i find Getty’s use of the waybackmachine or archive.org incredibly ironic. Simply by mirroring a site that contains a copywritted photo, a website would be liable (under getty’s view of law). This in fact, is no different than the client assuming the webdev took care of all the Copywritten stuff when he designed the site. Could the waybackmachine be sued because it mirrored my site, which had a getty photo on it? They essentially downloaded it off my site and put it on their site, just as I downloaded off Gettys site and put it on mine. (hypothetical question - i didn’t steal an image)
Furthermore, is a non-local link illegal? I realize that this is a hot topic currently, but is a web company that writes a story and then instead of downloading the getty image to their server simply links to getty itself or someone else’s server, violating the law?
Either way, Google images could be in for a massive class action suit by every person with a camera and a brain. One of getty’s licenses states that you cannot alter the photo in any way: simply cropping, or even rotating! is illegal under the license. Google images almost certainly profits more than any e-commerce site that any webdev here runs simply by resizing/scaling (altering) and providing them for anyone.
Basically, this boils down to Google Cache, The way back machine, and any ad based organization using, although not explicitly stated, copywritten images to make money. I’ve never had a problem with a 16 year old having a picture of coldplay on her myspace page. No problem with a blogger, who is paying for his own hosting and not making a dime, throwing up a picture of Kobe Bryant. I do have a problem with someone taking an imagine, and making money but this is ridiculous.
I have received a message on my answerphone form Moreton Smith International yeaterday, and also a letter today saying that I owe them £13.000 which includes a £1000 interest. I have never received a letter form Getty images, which they claim they sent to me in June 2006. I only use images on my site I have taken myself. When I did my web design course 5 years ago, I may have used images form Getty, as we had to create a website as a part of our course. I have used this website as my portfolio of work, but have taken it down last year. I have never made any money from it. Basically at the course we were told we can use any image as it has an educational purpose. In any case I do not know which images Getty is talking about, as I have never received any letters or screenshots from them. I am really distressed right now, I simply do not have the amount of money they are asking for. Not sure what shall I do next?
I know this will be a bit daunting but the first thing you should do is to go through this whole thread. There is enough informaiton here to allow you to make a decision about what to do.
I am actually involved in the Corbis thread but from memory I understand that if you tell Moreton Smith that you are contesting the invoice then they can do no more about it. Having said that you better confirm this first.
Basically at the course we were told we can use any image as it has an educational purpose.
Yes you can but only if the place you learned was signed up to a copyright agreement and even then it depends on what is in the agreement. It also usually means that the particular item in question should be trashed when your course is complete.
Is your copying legal?
Colleges are very much in the business of copying for the
purposes of preparing and producing teaching and learning
materials for learners. Is this copying legal?
Yes -
If written permission has been obtained from the owner of the right to copy the materials.
If copying falls within the regulations of a licensing agency to which the College subscribes.
If you have a legal defence, for example “fair dealing”.
No -
If you don’t have permission, don’t have a licence from an agency or don’t have a legal defence.
The problem is few College staff have any idea that this is the case unless one of the Faculty heads pushes this info out to them. When I did it at the College I used to work for I had a queue at the door for a week as staff came in to register and clear stuff.
I think that if it’s used for educational (therefore not advertisement or business) purposes, then it should be stripped from copyright, as long as it’s only on printed/slideshow media, not online.
Well, the problem is my portfolio was online, as it was a website, and the school was encouraging us to keep it online, they even had it on their website for a while.
The other problem is I don’t even know which images caused this problem, as I haven’t received any communication from Getty. It was all passed on to Moreton Smith, without me realising this was all going on.
I have emailed www.limeone.com yesterday, and will call Moreton Smith tomorrow to tell them I haven’t received anything from Getty so far. Will also call the Trading Standards to report the situation. I hope this is the right thing to do. I simply don’t have the almost £14.000 they are asking me to pay in full. It is all very worrying, and I feel I will lose out, as my portfoli was online.
Just ignore Moreton Smith. As they are not bailiffs (and in any case they do not have a court order), Moreton Smith have no powers at all. Their only tactic is to make empty threats just to scare you. If you contact them, they will think you are scared and will try more scare tactics.
Can anyone confirm whether Moreton Smith make visits in person to recipients of Getty’s letters? Moreton Smith appear to send out letters roughly 6 months after Getty’s letters, but I’m interested to know whether their tactics are confined to letters alone.
In your case I would call the school, if possible speak to the prinicpal or deputy, explain this to them and see what they say. It may be that their copyright license, if they have one, covers you. If it doesn’t then they need to be aware of the ramifications of what they’re saying.
Thank you all for your support. To make my case even more complicated, the school has actually went bust a couple of years ago. I also really doubt they had any agreements with either Getty or Corbis, as I remember us going on both those sites.
I really feel a bit naive and stupid that all this happened to me. I just hope it can be resolved. It is causing me sleepless nights.
I will have to call Moreton Smith tomorrow, as I have to obtain the invoices from Getty I have never seen. Just worried they will put even more fear into me.
If you have to call them I would just tell them that …
You know nothing about this
You never bought anything from Getty
You have never received any invoice
If you do receive an invoice you will be disputing it.
From what I have read about this situation Moreton Smith have no real powers and if you tell them you are disputing an invoice then they must step back.