My wife just got a threatening letter from G e t t y images demanding $800. She had reposted a tiny image of the moon over water on her website. The legalese goes on for a dozen pages and says she is trapped and in danger and owes big time.

She took the little image off her site instantly, but what to do about their whole threat?

If it were me....

I'd find someone to write a legalese letter and offer them $100 to consider the matter closed. If they want to go to court for $800 - let them try.

If it were me...

Offer not to countersue them if they quit harassing you.

this remins me of this

my area (central NJ) is flooded with signs from Solar Power Start

Their web-site [www.solarpowerstar.com] features an iStockPhoto on the main page. I wonder if the use of this image is legal or not. I am not in the market for solar panels, but if I were, I don't think I would be thrilled to deal with a company that may have used images without copyright.

She took it down . . . don't respond and see if that's the end of it.

---

New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]

thanks everyone!

Quote
roshi
My wife just got a threatening letter from G e t t y images demanding $800. She had reposted a tiny image of the moon over water on her website. The legalese goes on for a dozen pages and says she is trapped and in danger and owes big time.

She took the little image off her site instantly, but what to do about their whole threat?

This is not a legal opinion, but they probably have already accomplished what they set out to do.

---

Where is there dignity unless there is also honesty? - Cicero

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. —Wendy Mass

This is reminiscent of a letter that was sent to a friend of mine.

Said friend had a portfolio site up (designer) and one of the pieces featured was a brochure or flyer, can't remember; and the cover of this brochure/flyer was a gettyimages image.

Friend had designed the piece for his client. Licensed the photo from Getty for brochure usage. Paid getty. Then, used the piece on his website to promote his design skills.

Well Getty's image crawler, or whatever they have, flagged the image and he got a similar letter. In the legalese was the reason - was not licensed for web usage. I think they were requesting something like $3000 for licensing and damages.

I think he ultimately took it down, settled with them for a few hundred bucks, and then redid his portfolio site with password protection.

So be warned - this actually happens.

Roshi, where did she get the image? That it's tiny won't make any difference.

Here's a discussion of these Getty letters: [www.avvo.com]

Google "getty letter for image infringement" and you'll find LOTS of discussion, mostly from the perspective of people who've gotten such letters and find Getty unreasonable. I'm not offering an opinion on that, or if Getty has a legitimate case, but I do believe that most people do not understand that photos are copyrighted and you can't just grab one from wherever and use it on your website. Even if you've hired a web designer, and THEY grab an image and incorporate it on your site, you are still responsible (it's up to you to verify where the designer got the image). Any good designer should provide documentation that the image was procured legally.

Space-time, that is some seriously inept photo theft right there!

---

[company.gettyimages.com]

And they make it so easy to pay:

[licensecompliance.gettyimages.com]

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2012 05:31PM by Speedy.

What does her website do? If it's a personal website she could likely send something back saying it constitutes fair use. If it's commercial, she owes them. If they choose to keep pushing for money, that may be the case.

The example above of an image being used for print and being on the designer's website for portfolio usage, is okay even if the license wasn't for web usage. There's a fairly famous photographer that a client of mine hires. I've created a ton of artwork with his photos, and not all of it gets used. I can use whatever of it I want in my portfolio, as long as it was created for the client.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
M A V I C
What does her website do? If it's a personal website she could likely send something back saying it constitutes fair use. If it's commercial, she owes them. If they choose to keep pushing for money, that may be the case.

The example above of an image being used for print and being on the designer's website for portfolio usage, is okay even if the license wasn't for web usage. There's a fairly famous photographer that a client of mine hires. I've created a ton of artwork with his photos, and not all of it gets used. I can use whatever of it I want in my portfolio, as long as it was created for the client.

That's a direct agreement with the photographer. When you go through getty you have no such agreement and are basically at their mercy.

Yet another reason stock sucks.

Quote
Uncle Wig


Space-time, that is some seriously inept photo theft right there!

Although "inept" may be too generous a description.

---

And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Western Massachusetts

The website is for her school, a nonprofit organization that offers classes on meditation.

Quote
DRR

Quote
M A V I C
What does her website do? If it's a personal website she could likely send something back saying it constitutes fair use. If it's commercial, she owes them. If they choose to keep pushing for money, that may be the case.

The example above of an image being used for print and being on the designer's website for portfolio usage, is okay even if the license wasn't for web usage. There's a fairly famous photographer that a client of mine hires. I've created a ton of artwork with his photos, and not all of it gets used. I can use whatever of it I want in my portfolio, as long as it was created for the client.

That's a direct agreement with the photographer. When you go through getty you have no such agreement and are basically at their mercy.

Yet another reason stock sucks.

Not at all. I don't have an agreement at all with the photographer. Portfolio rights are protected under fair use. Unless you signed an agreement with Getty saying you wouldn't use the work in your portfolio, they can't force you to otherwise. I asked an IP attorney about this very issue.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
roshi
My wife just got a threatening letter from G e t t y images demanding $800. She had reposted a tiny image of the moon over water on her website. The legalese goes on for a dozen pages and says she is trapped and in danger and owes big time.

She took the little image off her site instantly, but what to do about their whole threat?

They don't have a claim if the demand didn't offer and either or solution ie: either pay us a royalty or cease and desist from further usage.

She took it down, they have no no enforceable claim.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2012 11:21PM by RgrF.

Quote
DRR
Yet another reason stock sucks.

Really? Why else does stock suck?

For many years stock photography has been the way to get high-quality imagery for a reasonable price while providing professional photographers a good return on their investment of time, equipment, effort, and talent. This balance was upset when publishers and other photo users quit wanting to pay for that value, and when everyone and their cousin started carrying around a DSLR. The value of much photography has plummeted as a result, and this is NOT a good thing. The idea that photography should be available essentially for free is a true perversion.

---

Shame on your wife.

I HATE, HATE when people rip off my stock images.

You used the image, pay for it.

Non-profit is not charity.

I HATE when people hide behind non-profit thinking that it's fine to pay themselves, but expect everything for free from all other suppliers.

If you don't realise how bad this is, I feel sorry for you, because you are morally corrupt.

You should pay the $800 instantly and offer an apology to Getty and the photographer.

---

People should not steal things. What would be the result if someone was caught stealing an $800 Macbook from a store? But so many think it's ok to steal software, music, photographs

This seems like something Apple should get involved with to get people to pay for stock photos rather than steal them.

Create the iPhoto Image Store where you can buy stock image for $0.99 each.

Worked with music.

Quote
GGD
This seems like something Apple should get involved with to get people to pay for stock photos rather than steal them.

Create the iPhoto Image Store where you can buy stock image for $0.99 each.

Worked with music.

the analogy is not perfect, if you buy a song from iTunes I don't think you have the rights to use it in movies, websites, advertisements, etc. I think iTunes is just for private use.

Quote
GGD
This seems like something Apple should get involved with to get people to pay for stock photos rather than steal them.

Create the iPhoto Image Store where you can buy stock image for $0.99 each.

Worked with music.

There is already a model for that: it's called microstock. iStockphoto, Shutterstock, etc. It is where you can buy mostly low-grade, but still useful, photography for credits, or on a subscription. It's good for folks who need something for their website or flyer or brochure, but it's driven down the value of photography in general which is bad. And worse, it's driven down how people perceive the value of photography.

Getty works with two different models: rights-managed and royalty-free. I'm curious where the OP's wife got that photo and if it's RF or RM.

---

Also: if you think the cost of rights-managed stock photography has gone up, it hasn't. Textbook publishers, for example, are paying about the same to use a photo as they did 10 or 15 years ago, except now for this fee they get print runs of up to a million (vs. 40k), web, e-books, reprints, ancillaries, and so on.

---

It might be helpful to start a threat reminding people how to find royalty-free or inexpensive photos.

Here's some good info on copyright regarding educational use: [fairuse.stanford.edu]

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]