As reported here and elsewhere, a UK removal company was recently sued by Getty Images for unauthorised use of a single image on its website. The company settled out of court, agreeing to pay Getty £1,951. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. The actual costs of this dispute are shockingly higher.
Punishment by Google
A substantial hidden cost turns out to be the potential for damage to the reputation of the company, a small family-based firm for whom integrity is an irreplaceable asset in a competitive market. Their representative would only speak about the subject on condition that neither he nor the company were explicitly named here. Google is the reason. If any customer or potential client were to Google the company name, reports of a court case might raise eyebrows : could this company really be trusted? That alone might sway them toward a competitor.
Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag. Reports of the case have proliferated wildly around the web, not least because so many other individuals and companies face Getty's allegations of infringement and threats of legal action. Still, not wishing to add further punishment by creating more Google fallout we will not mention the company by name, although it is who you think it is. We will call the spokesman Mr X. It's worth it, to hear what he has to say as a paid-up "victim" of Getty's infringement pursuit.
Legal costs
Mr X has no wish to stifle discussion and no argument with reporting of the case, quite the opposite. He thinks people need to understand exactly how much trouble infringement of copyright can land them in. He says that the legal costs of achieving the settlement amounted to around £24,000, a debilitating amount for a small company that now "has us all working twice as hard just to make up the loss". Had they not had access to a friend who was a barrister, had their legal team not fought so hard to challenge Getty's escalating claim, or had the case actually gone to trial "it could easily have been twice as much, or more".
Mr X doesn't know why his company was singled out for legal proceedings, "we just drew the lucky ticket". So far they are the only known instance of Getty following through on threats of legal action. The ingredients of his case are typical, involving a freelance web designer commissioned to produce a new company site. Among the company's own photos there was a gap for an image to convey to customers the security of adequate insurance. The designer found a smiley image of a mother and daughter somewhere on the web that he believed it was OK to use. Barely larger than a postage stamp on screen, this stayed in the published version when it went live as "everybody just forgot about it".
A few months later Picscout found it and a letter from Getty's lawyers arrived requiring payment of some £1,700.
Wisdom of the web
The company says it removed the image immediately and turned to their web designer for help. He looked around the forums and found many others in a similar dilemma. He also found vast amounts of conflicting opinion and advice, anger at what many described as extortion, and acrimony directed at Getty's "scam". It seemed to many that having taken down the offending image, Getty were on thin ice with their threats, that their claims were inflated beyond all reason, that no court could possibly impose such damages for what many asserted were minor, accidental infringements, or images supplied by others and used in good faith.
Mr X ploughed through all the debate in the Federation of Small Business (FSB) forum among other places. He found recommendations for a company called Limeone, who some users had paid to write to Getty's lawyers and no more had been heard. Many believed Limeone to be offering a sound legal strategy that was defeating Getty's claims, an impression that Limeone allegedly encouraged. Mr X paid up £165, Limeone sent a letter, and he believed that was an end to the matter, until the summons arrived.
At that point Mr X finally sought the opinion of specialist copyright lawyer Micheners, who were blunt : it was an infringement, Getty had a cast-iron case in law, and the best and only sensible course was to pay up. Since the case was now headed for the High Court, that meant reaching a settlement with Getty's lawyers to deflect the costs and risks of losing the case.
Which is what happened. Because by then Getty had hired barristers and prepared the case, the original £1,700 claim had become 5 figures. How much exactly? Mr X is hazy, pleading post traumatic stress. He says the entire management of the company can hardly bear to talk about the subject, and his boss flatly refuses to discuss the episode. But at that point their costs began to spiral. They too had to hire a barrister in case negotiation failed and the case went to trial. And that is where £24,000 went, on the legal fees of both sides.
The bill
So this single photo cost the company around £26,000 in total, for a photo that Mr X thinks Getty would have licensed for about £160. Like most people he knew little about copyright beforehand. He says the main reason things worked out so disastrously was reliance on "bad advice" so copiously available wherever the legalities of the Getty demands were being discussed.
Mr X now has some hard-won wisdom to offer others who find themselves on the receiving end of a Getty demand : "pay it now, or urgently get specialist legal advice". Once Getty get to Court "there is no limit to what Getty want to do to you". As a global business with vast resources and huge losses due to infringement, Getty are out to make a point, and you will likely end up footing the bill.
Mr X also advises against any course of action that might risk infringement. "Do not put anything on your site but your own images. Do not use anything found on the internet unless you have cast-iron permission. You would be better off paying a professional photographer to take images for you, just so you know whose material it is".
What of Limeone? Mr X was advised a case could be mounted against them for their part in the saga, but it turns out that the assurances allegedly given were purely verbal, over the phone. There is nothing on paper at all, save the letter that was sent to Getty and proved as useful as a chocolate teapot.
There is also the possibility of suing the web designer, whose inclusion of the photo sparked the trouble. "That's a 'would you sue your grandma?' question" says Mr X loyally. "He's not a big company, he can't afford it, he's one of us, we like him and we like his work, he just made a mistake. So no, we just want to put this down to experience and move on."
The 150-page FSB forum "Getty Corbis" topic wherein these matters have been discussed at such erroneous length, is now restricted to FSB members only. Wisely, the moderator has finally curtailed the mass public improvisation of copyright law, and now states in large bold type : "You are strongly advised to seek your own qualified legal advice on this matter." Better late than never, then, except for Mr X.
NB: Comments that mention the company by name will be deleted.
You confuse the gamekeeper with the poacher. Google is extremely useful but many regard it as the world's largest infringer. Its use of images and manufacture of thumbnail derivative is controversial, balanced on the edge of fair use. There have been court cases in various jurisdictions which have gone either way. Same with Google Books.
Many libraries and photographers do watermark. It doesn't stop images being stolen, and there are even software products whose whole purpose is to remove them.
You can be sure Getty loses vastly more money to infringement than it ever recovers through the claims. Most photographers are reeling under the weight of bad behaviour. I have shut my public site after I audited what was happening with a random selection of my photos. I found that infringing use outnumbered permissioned use 14:1. Which would extrapolate to around 7,000 infringements happening. Even if I do no more than a take-down notice that is many months of unproductive, unpaid work. I have spent 40hrs tackling just one particularly flagrant infringement.
It's now like running a shop in a neighbourhood where 90% of customers are shoplifters. Small shops, the owner exhausts himself chasing people down the street, or goes under. Big ones like Getty expensively employ teams of security goons and costly technology like Picscout to chase and make an example. It's simply farcical and ignorant to think that catching and fining miscreants is their business model. They are the biggest image licensing company in the world.
It's ludcrous that infringers always think it's photographers' responsibility to stop them stealing, and inability to stop them indicates entrapment. It's like blaming shops for having stock on the shelves.
--
admin
Since a majority of these copyrighted images come from a Google image search, in 2013 it is a relative no-brainer for Google to get on board and code an 'on the fly, pageload' watermarking solution to tell people definitively yes or no as to whether the image is copyrighted or not. This would use the same information that is embedded in the Getty images themselves that they use to find their images. Obviously this would involve some cooperation between Getty & Google. Not impossible to do but I would suppose Getty makes more money this way, trying to extort people with overinflated damage claims.
If you jumped in a car and managed to drive it away, with no knowledge nor experience, then smacked into a brick wall, would you blame the owner for leaving the car at the roadside?
Getty DO NOT "spread these pictures onto developers sites", It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop anyone copying any image, since copying to your computer is necessary for you to be able to see it.
And somehow this is all Getty's fault, that neither you, your designer nor the halfwit who originally nicked the photo, have any clue what you are doing.
If you are going to publish anything, in print or on the web, it's as well to know what the law is, just as it is with shopping, driving a car, or crossing the road. Copyright law is very clear: it is up to the publisher to obtain permission before using someone else's intellectual property. That obliges you to locate and negotiate with whoever owns the copyright, or their appointed agent.
Getty have a claim against you, because you didn't bother. You in turn have a claim against your designer, because he didn't bother. Your designer in turn has a claim against the unknown idiot who lifted the image from Getty in the first place.
There are lots of reasons to not like Getty, who are the largest photolibrary on the planet, but here they are trying to stem a veritable epidemic of image theft perpetuated by people who make wrong assumptions, such as "I won't get caught" or "everything on the internet is free to do with what I like". Or, apparently in your case, that some random stranger on the internet told your designer that it was OK. As outlined in the previous par, I suggest you pay Getty and demand the cost from your designer, who can then demand the money back from his supplier. Unless of course it turns out that the same picture is legitimately available free, in which case you'll be able to point to that and tell Getty to go and boil their corporate heads.
©A admin
Given the number of complaints, it appears that Getty is making more money with this letter scam than anyone could ever make selling photographs on the internet. Simply spread these pictures onto developers sites and then send out your letters to anyone that uses them. Getty is not taking any action to prevetn these images from being used, only to collect rediculous amounts when they are. The image they wrote us about is listed on the internet as "available for public use" with two links to download it in different sizes. Our website developer used this and now they want us to pay? I do not know copyright law, but I do know right and wrong and Getty is a sleezy company operating a scam operation.
"In alleging infringement of copyright and demanding large 'settlements', Getty does not provide any proof that it has any rights whatsoever in the work, and refuses to do so on request."
Many of the forums on the web which purport to help image thieves peddle an argument that they can get out of paying for the stolen picture by questioning whether the photographer, or their agent, has the rights to the image. This is a red herring peddled by the ignorant. What they should be asking is whether they have a licence or not. It costs a lot of money to show 100% that a photographer has the rights to sue for copyright infringement. If an infringer of mine ever asks I will ask him to put up the money first. It will cost him £150 per hour for his expert to explain the proof so that he understands proof of ownership and the contract allowing the agent to chase image theft. It will also cost £150 per hour for my expert witness to explain how an image belongs to me. Lets say two hours in front of an arbitrator at £800 and we are talking about £1,400 before I charge him my time and my solicitors time.
That is why Getty prefer to do this in court. Its so they can get the thief to pay for the question.
Your argument is like the man who gets caught in possession of someone else's watch, then demands proof of ownership.
It's either
Getty are under no obligation to prove their position until it gets to court. If it does and they've got it wrong, it will cost them a great deal of money, probably including the alleged infringer's costs and a counterclaim for damages for time wasted, stress and suffering. If they systematically and knowingly make false accusations, then that would be extortion. You are at liberty to take legal action against them, if you believe this is the case. And of course you won't actualy have to prove it is extortion until it gets to court.
Yes, this is tough on the person who previously obtained a legitimate license, either from Getty, from the photographer, or another agent of the photographer. But in those instances Getty have no case, and simply explaining the facts in response to their letter will torpedo any further action, should they be silly enough to continue.
But I am sure you know as well as I do that most of these claims are bogus. The alleged infringer simply hasn't done any due diligence, they've just lifted a pic off the web and not bothered to check that where they've found it has any rights to grant or sell, or simply thought nobody would find out. I'm afraid that is just laymen not knowing what they are doing, or thinking it doesn't matter. Just as driving a car without knowing what is illegal would be reckless, so is publishing. The fact it's the web, where anonymity can be exploited to evade consequences doesn't mean there aren't any.
©A admin
In alleging infringement of copyright and demanding large 'settlements', Getty does not provide any proof that it has any rights whatsoever in the work, and refuses to do so on request. It's a safe bet that many people have handed money to Getty for images that Getty had no rights in, simply through fear of the threatened court action.
Court is *not* the place to argue this, other than as a last resort. Make a reasonable offer of settlement, but subject to Getty first providing proof that it owns copyright in the work or is the exclusive licensee. That's an entirely fair approach, and it's not easy to take someone to court after they've made a fair offer of settlement on reasonable grounds.
Getty are, like most huge corporations, evil for many reasons, but it is hard to see how else they can deal with the epidemic of infringement against photographs. I am afraid what the infringer does with the images, whether it makes them any money, has very little relevance here. It is like saying shoplifters should be let off if they don't manage to sell what they stole. Or should be given the opportunity to pay the ticket price for what they have been caught taking. Either would incentivise theft.
Getty is attempting to discourage theft by demanding penalties that are eyewatering. Nobody is obliged to commit copyright theft, any more than they are obliged to burgle a neighbour because a door is open, or take a care with the keys in the ignition. Regrettably, photos are terribly easy to steal online and there is no means of preventing it.
People who use photos without asking or paying seem to think that they are not stealing because the photo remains in the custody of its owner. This is simply wrong. Online photos themselves have no intrinsic value, they're just an arrangement of lit pixels, free to view. ALL their value resides in reproduction rights and what is being stolen is the value that the owner should have had for the copying and use. This can only be determined by asking and negotiating. If you can't be bothered to do that, you lose all rights to negotiate when you get caught, and the only arbitration that applies is what a court will accept as reasonable. Getty pitches high, most photographers do, because we are sick of being casually robbed. If you disagree the settlement value, court is the place to argue. But all this is easily avoided by not pilfering in the first place. Just please have a bit of respect for the creator and ask.
©A admin
insert getty image here
here's my adsense ad!!
Getty is a bit evil, imo. Several thousands of dollars for single images? with no data to quantify that said images had any part in earning revenue or profit, just several thousands of dollars using language that is threatening to every instance of a use of their image without a license that they can find, regardless of circumstance.
that is evil.
the getty of tomorrow: pay per see. you looked at our image, now pay!
It is not hard but technically impossible to incorporate any sort of DRM into common image formats. Visible watermarks are easily removed by infringers unless they obscure most of the image. And scripted methods of preventing "save as" etc are trivially simple to get around (and also very annoying to legitimate users).
Instead of blaming the victim
Copyright and other laws that apply to print publishing apply equally on the web. Any business owner who charges off into this new activity really ought to inform themselves. You wouldn't buy a car and start driving it without educating yourself about the applicable laws, yet here we have a whole generation that has hurtled onto the web without a clue what they're doing. That includes people who are in the publishing business for the first time ever, and people who are creating and placing copyright material online with no idea of the rights of others or their legal position. And when it all goes pear-shaped, they blame others and claim the law is wrong and unfair. What you call "entrapment" is entirely avoidable simply by not making wrong assumptions.
©A admin
Post new comment