Getty Images has created an entire business around sending letters to suspected copyright infringers and demanding exorbitant payments in return for not being dues. Getty’s heavy-handed approach has been the topic of angry conversations throughout the blogosphere, claiming they are nothing more than extortion. By praying upon those without legal knowledge, the company scares people into paying exorbitant fees far beyond what is required. Unfortunately, the majority of people don’t know how to respond, so they comply with the demand.
Several weeks ago, I wrote an article suggesting tips for responding to Getty Images should anyone find themselves a recipient of a Getty demand letter. Given some of the questions readers have been asking me about this issue, I thought that a sample response letter would be helpful.
Background for Responding to a Getty Extortion Letter
This response letter is not designed to alleviate anyone’s responsibility if they are infringing on Getty Images copyrights. However, while infringers may be liable for damages, they are not necessarily as high as what Getty is requesting. A copyright holder has several options for receiving damages from an infringer. First, an infringer cannot make money from someone else’s copyrighted material unless they are authorized. So, any profits derived from the infringement must be paid back to the copyright holder. If you are infringing and that infringement has generated income for you, then consult an attorney before proceeding. This letter may not be enough.
Infringers are also responsible to pay the copyright holder’s for lost profits due to the infringement, which in this case, could be the licensing fee that the infringer failed to pay. However, the licensing fee amount is not based on what Getty charges for an image, but rather it is based upon the fair market value for that image in the marketplace. If similar images cost $10, then the damages are $10, even if Getty Images charges $800 for that image. Of course, you have to prove that the image is only worth $10. That may be harder to do in court, but our goal in writing a response is to make the Getty Images attorneys work for the money. Every hour is expensive so if there isn’t enough reward, then the case will be dropped. Attorneys general get about $300 per hour, and filing a case could cost $400 or more. So if the attorney has to work for several hours to receive $300 or $400 dollars, then it just won’t be worth it to them.
You will need to calculate the fair market value, which is a simple process in so far as this letter goes. To calculate the fair market value, just use the average price of comparable images found on stock photos sites. If the image in question is a dog taking a bath, then find 8 or so images of a dog taking a bath; use the average price as the fair market value. You should be able to find comparable images for under $10 at the size used on websites. The response letter offers $20 as a settlement. That number is derived from the minimum number of credits that can be bought on Getty Images iStock Photo and so is the minimum that must be paid to receive an image.
Unless you are completely sure that there is no copyright infringement, you should remove the image from your website, as well as any versions in your server’s media folders.
Also, if after this letter goes out and Getty actually responds with proof that the image has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to your infringement, then consider paying their demand because registration would entitle Getty to at least $750 and you would have to pay their legal fees. The demand payment is probably less.
Finally, while the letter below should work for most Getty extortion letters, each case often has unique issues, so if possible, have an attorney look over your letter before sending it.
Getty Images Response Letter
[DATE]
Copyright Compliance Team
Getty Images Inc.
605 5th Ave. Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Getty Case Number: [CASE NUMBER]
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for your letter dated [DATE] notifying [COMPANY NAME] (“SHORT COMPANY NAME”) that the website [WEBSITE NAME] (“Website”) may have used an image represented by Getty Images (“Getty”), without authorization.
If the alleged copyright infringement did take place, be assured that it was entirely innocent and unwilling. However, until this matter is resolved, and as a good-faith gesture, the potentially infringing image has been removed from the Website, and any other location on our server, including any server backups.
As a proposed licensing fee does not determine copyright infringement damage awards while admitting no guilt or wrongdoing, we are willing to offer a reasonable settlement based upon the fair market value. As noted in Davis v. Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2001);
“[C]ourts have construed “actual damages” by examining the fair market value of a license fee that the copyright owner would have obtained for the infringer’s use of the copyrighted material” . . . . “The question is not what the owner would have charged, but rather what is the fair market value.”
We have found dozens of nearly identical or similar images that could easily replace the image at issue here. In some cases, the photos are available for a fee while others require credits. Below find some of the many functionally identical images from comparable stock photo sites. All prices listed are for sizes equivalent to the image in question, approximately [SIZE IN PIXELS].
- “[IMAGE NAME]” (available on [STOCK PHOTO SITE] for [Price or Credits]: http://[LINK TO IMAGE]
- “[IMAGE NAME]” (available on [STOCK PHOTO SITE] for [Price or Credits]: http://[LINK TO IMAGE]
- List at least 8 images
Based upon our analysis of easy-to-find comparable images to the one at issue here, we calculate that a small sized, unremarkable image of a [IMAGE DESCRIPTION], has a fair market value of [FAIR MARKET VALUE]. As such, we are willing to offer Getty Images $20.00, which is equivalent to the minimum 10-credit purchase on Getty’s iStockphoto.com site. We hope our offer will amicably and expeditiously close this matter.
If you choose to reject the above offer, we ask that you provide the following information to establish your rights to the Image and to further support your settlement demand amount.
- Please provide proof of Getty Images right to manage the Image.
- Please provide proof of proper copyright registration and the chain of title for the Image.
- Please provide a clear explanation as to how Getty Images has determined the valuation of this image as being so far above comparable images.
- Please provide sales data for the Image for each size and use.
- Please detail your costs incurred related to the pursuit of this case.
We will expect and require the above information before proceeding further. Thank you again for notifying us of this alleged infringement. We respect and appreciate the fair and reasonable application of copyright law. I hope you find this settlement offer adequate to close this matter prior to both parties investing more time and resources.
Sincerely,
[NAME]
[COMPANY NAME]
[TITLE]
I remember Getty Images in its heyday, when it was the most respected stock image agency. It’s sad to see the company become the next patent troll.
I’m glad you posted this and the prior piece about the matter. Hopefully it will reach Getty’s would-be victims. I’ll certainly be sharing it through my social media and newsletters.
Thanks so much for posting this. I’m a veterinarian and got one of these letters over an image I inadvertently used in our clinic blog. Your information is hugely helpful.
Might anyone have resources for the next step in responding to their response to a letter like this? Their first paragraph:
“In response, while there are many different product offerings at many different licensing rates within the stock photography industry, the cost of other unrelated Royalty-free content is not relevant to our claim with this Rights-managed image. The demand is based on damages for the unauthorized display of the exact image that have been identified in this case.”
Dylana:
I don’t know the specifics of your letter or image but I would reiterate from the letter above, if you have not already done so, that a proposed licensing fee does not determine copyright infringement damage awards as noted in Davis v. Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2001). Offer a reasonable settlement for the infringement and see if they contact you again.
I would also ask Getty for the copyright registration number for the image. If the image is registered with the U.S. Copyright office prior to your infringement, then statutory damages apply, which is an entirely different matter. If that is the case, please let me know.
Hey Steve,
Thank you for this information it will hopefully be very useful as I fight Getty. I have one question if possible, I am based in the UK, will mentioning “As noted in Davis v. Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2001);” still be valid over here and would they need to be registered with the UK Copyright office rather than the US one?
Many thanks for your time
Ben
I’ve received the following. Would you have any recommendations on how to respond?
1. Your offer of $20.00 is denied.
2. Attached is the rights holder form for the image in question and our power of attorney.
3. Settlement amounts are based on the fair market value of a license, taking into consideration usage, placement, and additional information. The settlement is calculated by taking the average cost of licensing, plus a portion of costs incurred in the pursuit of the unlicensed use. Using the image without a license ultimately costs more than properly licensing the image before use.
4. All other information you requested is confidential and will only be made available in court by our lawyers, but not during an out-of-court settlement.
It is hard to say without seeing all the specifics. I have not heard of Getty responding with a rejection that included your specific settlement offer, nor a power of attorney. They are usually more of a form letter on the second response. So this may be a new tactic or possible they believe they have a better case here. It possible that they believe that your use allows them to receive a higher payout. But remember that it will cost them $500 or so just to file the lawsuit and they will not be reimbursed for legal fees unless they have a valid copyright prior to your use. Assuming the use is not one that generated any income, like on a blog or something. You can reiterate your position about the fair market value (as per the article) and ask them to make a legitimate settlement offer. If they respond a third time, then you should see an attorney. Or, if your use is one that generated significant income or the image is one that is so unique that it isn’t easily replaced with other photos, then they may have a better case. I wish I could give you a more concrete strategy but without specifics, and being engaged as you attorney, it is a bit hard to give you definitive advice.
I just beat them. Listen, check the metadata attached to the photo. If it is blank, they can’t prove it’s copyrighted. Therefore you’ve caught them with their pants down. Also note that their corporation is going broke with no cash flow. This is some idiot’s solution to solving their cash flow problem. Is this what America has become?
Glad to see you beat them. Congrats! But just so you know, metadata is not required to prove a photo is infringing. There are many other ways, but in particular, Getty uses PicScout which uses digital fingerprinting to verify an image is theirs. It’s very effective, not 100% but very close.
1) Copyright doesn’t require registration. It may not be registered, but the fact that it exists means there is most likely a Copyright attached to it, regardless of what metadata exists or doesn’t exist.
2) One doesn’t need metadata when they can simply compare the two photos with their eyes. If they look identical, it falls to the defendant to prove that they aren’t. Given that metadata can be edited, I highly doubt “but the metadata is different” will be a viable defense.
Good day,
Your blog is a true hope for people like me, who received an “extortion”letter from Getty Compliance Department for the image that was found through google free images search. Image had no watermarks or any other identifying information related to the copyrights compliance.
To make story short we are a military family, and my wife is unemployed, who dreams to open her own business one day. We have been moving three times in the past year due to my schools and career. Finally, getting settled in Texas. Wife started to build her future business web site. She did an enormous work to research, and collect information and related images. After creating few pages on weebly.com and registering an URL, she turned it on to find errors and make improvements. Her contract with weebly does not include any advertising and search capabilities. Even though her site advertises the future desireable business name, email, fake physical location, and a google free phone – it looked great (especially knowing the fact she did it all alone!) Few weeks later she received first letter from Getty License Compliance Department demanding a payment of nearly $600. The image was some what modified from the original, she made it square and added a frame.
She wrote a response letter with an apology, explanation regarding a nonexistent business, immediately removed the image, explained how she obtained it, and offered $12 – as a Fare Market Value as a compensation which was rejected by Getty.
Getty has lowered their demand to near $400, which is still outrageously expansive for a test page and a dream work.
I personally think someone in Getty Corporation uploads few Right Managed images for some period, tracks quantity of downloads, and waits to “catch” the violators…
Now, she is overstressed, stopped all the work, deleted whole web-site. I do not recognize her, like some one is sucking life out of her, I am trying to help, but there should be some justice. Getty INC. is destroying entrepreneurship with such practices.
Sir, would you have an advice for us in this situation?
Thank you in advance.
You should tell your wife not to stress. Just use the form letter from the article, and follow the instructions; that should be sufficient. There is another article on the site as well, that may give you additional tips. https://artrepreneur.com/journal/tips-responding-getty-images-demand-letter/ They will likely contact you one more time but then go away. Of course, I do not know the specifics of your situation but this process works the vast majority of the time. As mentioned, you should make a reasonable offer as you did use the image and there is an infringement. However, you are not required to take Getty’s offer and are certainly allowed to counter-offer.
Just remember that suing you will cost the company $500 to file and then all the hourly rates for the attorneys. So spending thousands to get $400 is not a good plan for Getty.
Hi there,
Thank you for all the information you have posted. How do we know, even after we pay Getty. that someone else is not going to come forward for more money?
Best
Audrey
Thank you so much for this information. My aunt had a website built offshore and didn’t realise two of the images were not purchased images. We had purchased 10 other images.
We just received a response to our letter (we are in Australia) and through the legal jargon, they are refusing to provide:
Please provide proof of Getty Images right to manage the Image.
Please provide proof of proper copyright registration and the chain of title for the Image.
Please provide a clear explanation as to how Getty Images has determined the valuation of this image as being so far above comparable images.
Please provide sales data for the Image for each size and use.
Please detail your costs incurred related to the pursuit of this case.
They have dropped the amount owed to $1,200 from $2k.
These images had no watermarks, she made no profit from it and they have been removed.
Any further tips before we pen our second letter?
Thanks!
Hi Rebecca, did you have any resolve on this? I am also in Australia and would love to know what worked for you.
Would you recommend that the letter is using the company letterhead, or just a plain letter?
Thanks
If possible, company letterhead. Companies generally have more funds than individuals so it sends a better message.
Hi,
I also got a letter in the mail. I left someone manage my website and they used a Getty photo, claiming they did not know photos online were copyright.
I never received money from the website and the photo was only up for a short time. After getting the notice from Getty, I shut down the website with no intentions of continuing to use the site. I would not mind paying a reasonable fee for the image but I can not afford $800+ for one image after receiving no income.
They know my address since it was on the site and my phone number, but as far as I can tell, not my name. I assume they can determine who I am for a court case based on this information, but not sure how serious they would be to do this. The name of other people, including friends, were mentioned on the site but they have not been contacted.
I do not have a plan of action yet but thought about one possible scenario and wanted feedback. I already sent them an email telling them the website was shut down and apologized for the use. They have not responded to that email and later demanded more money. I plan to shut down the email client so emails come back to them as undelivered.
I am not sure if I should send them the letter above or just flat out ignore them. I could easily have the postoffice mark mail under the website name as undeliverable to the address (since I did shut down and do not operate under that name), but I am not sure if that would upset them or cause them to give up. I could change locations (physically move, yes, I really have no money at all and this would be a better option for me instead of paying $800, which now is $975) but they may still chase me down if they rack up a bill and want to sue me.
I have no idea what to do, am already in considerable debt from student loans, shut down the site, deleted the files, attempted to explain to them my situation, ect. Any advice? Just sent the letter above? maybe mail the letter i previously emailed saying I shut the site down and it will not operate? it was not registered as a company, so I am liable.
Any input would be awesome. I need some advice
Copyright infringement is a no-fault law so it doesn’t matter whether you took it down or closed the site. It is still an infringement. The issue is what is that worth? So I recommend using the letter. Make them an offer as I have laid out. unfortunately, ignoring them won’t work. They’ll find you and send letters fed ex. They will continue to bug you until you take an affirmative action. I have not heard of the email letter not working so that is good. You may get one more response after this, but just reiterate what is in the letter. After that it will be too costly for them to continue. Hope that helps.
I have had Getty images contact me via phone asking me to contact them urgently.
I called them up and they sent me an email with the image and fine amount.
The fine was over $700 for a crap image i never really wanted anyway, but thats not the point. Its and infingement so you have to take responsability, even if its by mistake….which in my case it was.
All i will say here is you can go 1 of 2 ways. Write the legal letter as stated above which i think is good but may prompt them to fight a bit harder, or negotiate hard and get the fine reduced heavily.
Want the problem to go away and dont want the hasstle of a long drawn out process and letters to and from.
I did not give in to their demands and requested they reduce the amount as i could not afford to pay what they were asking. (At all times being polite and to the point)
It was reduced to $500.
I did not accept this and repeated what i had already said.
It was reduced to $350
I did not accept this and again repeated what i had already said. Also adding that i do want this matter settled.
It was reduced to $250.
I said i could not afford it and will have to get back to them.
They asked me to email them and agree to this settlement amount.
I them emailed them and agreed to settele at $125 and close the matter.
They have emailed back accepting a $150 fee.
$150 is still alot for a shiite image, but hey, its better than over $700 and a string of legal letters taking up time and adding stress.
Just make sure you clean up your site and learn from your mistake!
My view for what its worth – sorry…dont want to leave my email or website
I am dealing with the Agence French-Presse and was able to negotiate from around $700 to around $500. but they will not budge. I even mentioned that I would lose my job if we couldn’t get the price reduced and they essentially said that it was not their problem.
Do you have any suggestions?
I have gotten a similar extortion letter recently, only it was from LCS on behalf of a g e Fotostock. I inadvertently used an extremely small image (15 KB) in a newsletter (distribution approx. 300) which was then posted to my website (I am a locally performing musician and not a company, in my opinion). I have sent them a letter, as suggested, but I didn’t offer any settlement, because I wasn’t sure if it was a scam or not. I asked them for the documentation suggested, before I made any further decisions. They did write back, and in answer to my request for copyright documentation, stated that copyrights are automatic with photos; they do not need to be registered. One other twist to my situation is that, when they sent me the screen shot of my website page, proving use, I happened to notice a watermark on the photo (more noticeable when zoomed in on) that I did not notice when I used it. I wouldn’t have used it had I noticed it in the first place! This watermark is from a DIFFERENT stock photo company than a g e Fotostock. I called LCS and told them this, but they insist they don’t see it! I would be happy to settle for a fair amount (not $660 as they are demanding) but I want to settle with the proper company! What’s to keep this other company from demanding money from me, even after I have settled with a g e Fotostock? Thanks in advance for any suggestions!
p.s. The image is unfortunately a “rights managed” one, which seems to demand higher fees and penalties….
My wife got a call regarding the same B.S. here in Australia – Her company doesn’t use Getty at all – everything on her site is free use from google and what do you know; checking metadata of the image shows NO copywrite at all. Additionally, after extensive search of Getty, the image in question is non existant 🙂 As one of the worlds formost guru’s in theoristics, I can safely assert the following scenario. Please keep in mind that google is not stupid enough to post copywrite stock [ they check meta data ]. Since Getty are going down the tubes, it is an each way bet that some smarty pants has decided to give google a bunch of stock photo’s with no copywrite in the meta data – wait till they are downloaded, pull out the same photo from their stock WITH the copywrite embedded in THEIR photo and – proceed to extort money from company’s that use the same image. So checking the meta data in the image is a MUST before you do anything else
John,
Your post is full of inaccuracies I will address a few below,
Be very careful, since you state that your wife got the image from Google,”everything on her site is free use from google”, Google plainly marks all images with a disclaimer, “Images may be subject to copyright”, that is a notice to anyone that the image may be copyrighted and since some search engines strip meta data as well as many other places that Google gets the images from your assertion may be inaccurate.
As to your statement, “keep in mind that google is not stupid enough to post copywrite stock [ they check meta data ]”, I can assure that is not correct I have images that have been posted on Google by Google that have had my meta data removed. This is a very sore point with many of us professional photographers, Google picks up images from many sources and posts them with or without meta data.
You have also stated that your wife is using the image in her business, “Her company doesn’t use Getty at all”, use in a commercial manner will make her/you a very large target by any copyright owner.
Whether the meta data has been filed in or not does not mean that it is safe to take an image from Google without the copyright owners permission or that the image is “free use” or not copyrighted. Many of my copyrighted images with all meta data filled in have been taken from their sources put into Pinterest and Facebook both of which strip meta data and then picked up by Google who then posts the images without the meta data, that does not mean that my images are not copyrighted they are and I will be less accommodating than Getty. I have had infringers take my images strip the data and place them on Wiki Commons to attempt to hide their actions so be very careful if you are not 100% certain that you have the permission of the photographer to use an image.
You state, “Since Getty are going down the tubes, it is an each way bet that some smarty pants has decided to give google a bunch of stock photo’s with no copywrite in the meta data”, I assume since we are talking about Getty that “smarty pants” is Getty correct me if I am wrong. Before making such a statement you ought to look into how Getty accepts photographic submissions, it might surprise you. “If you receive an invitation to join Getty Images, you’ll be asked to create an account with us, so you become a Getty Contributor. The signup process takes a little while, because it involves setting yourself up to receive payments if/when licenses are purchased for your work. Getty Images handles the taxation side of things too, so your Contributor account will need to include details about all that.” You cannot just send Getty images and they post them, Getty reviews samples of your work before inviting you to set up an account to submit, good try mate.
I have no love for Getty they are a competitor and have done major damage to an industry I love, but false and misleading information is just as bad.
Hi
I received the Getty letter and they asked for $655. I used the image unknowingly for a for-profit retail catalog. I used your letter, and they reduced it to $440. But they said that the 440 could not be negotiated further. How do you recommend I proceed?
Dear Steve
Thanks for your great advice, i got the same letter from them,
here is the e-mail, i recently got from stockFood (actually, License Compliance Services, Inc. on behalf of StockFood America, Inc.)
they requested the money ($680) for 1 photo ,but what is Legal Fee??
SubTotal of $680.00 (USD)
Legal Fee $1,700.00 (USD)
Total of $2,380.00 (USD)
they are not my lawyer, but why they ask a Legal fee???
Previously, i never get any contact from stockFood directly but i got this letter from Law firm (LCS) for the first time.
any advice?,,, do i send the letter that you recommend??
could you please help
thanks
—————Letter contents——————–
License Compliance Services, Inc. on behalf of StockFood America, Inc.
605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104, United States
Email: [email protected], Telephone: +1 855 387 8725, http://www.LCS.global
September 1, 2015
This letter is a follow up to the letters that were previously mailed to your company.
Unauthorized use of our imagery without a valid license constitutes copyright infringement.
According to our records, this matter has not been resolved to date, and we have decided to escalate this matter to our legal representatives for further pursuit. Please expect their letter in the coming weeks.
Please note that as a consequence of this escalation, the settlement amount has now been increased to reflect the addition of legal fees to the initial amount requested.
The complete information regarding our claim is available at the following link:
For any question, please contact Steven Stern of Stern & Schurin LLP at [email protected] or
(212) 338-0300.
Sincerely,
License Compliance Services, StockFood America, Inc.
Note: Please also be advised that you will receive a copy of this note in the mail.
We received a demand payment letter as well. It appears that the image we used was not copyrighted when we used it on our blog (or not available for sale), but now the author has signed up with 500px and so it’s copyrighted now. How would we know when it became an image we had to purchase? This is part of the response we received after sending your letter (thanks btw!). What do you think?
—
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. A copyright exists automatically from the moment that an image is created and the artist has owned the copyright since its moment of existence. Copyright registration is not a requirement of copyright ownership. We have contracts with contributing imaging companies and their artists who own the copyrights in their images, and who represent and warrant that they are the sole copyright owner. Consequently, we do not require contributors to provide us with certificates of registration and leave the option of copyright registration to the individual artist.
Restricted Rights content is priced and licensed based on usage, including how the image will be used, in what format, in what size, and for how long. Restricted Rights content is also available for licensing with exclusive rights either by usage type, industry, territory, or combinations of all three (e.g., to prevent competitors from using the same image in a similar advertising campaign). This is high-end creative content that often has high-production costs, and is suitable for license by large corporations for major advertising campaigns as an alternative to custom shoots. The settlement demand is a flat rate for the infringement itself and the cost incurred for the pursuit of the infringement.
While we leave the option of registration to each contributor, the calculation of actual damages does not change if an image is not registered with the US copyright office prior to the infringing use. It is up to the owner of the copyright to determine whether and how they want to publish their works. The act of taking away the choice of the copyright owner means that the owner has suffered harm and should be entitled to recover damages.
Chuck,
Lets address your statement, “It appears that the image we used was not copyrighted when we used it on our blog (or not available for sale), but now the author has signed up with 500px and so it’s copyrighted now.” Whether the author was signed with 500px when you used the image or not makes no difference, the image was copyrighted the minute the author snapped the picture. Sorry to say but the letter you received was absolutely correct in that matter.
Your question, “How would we know when it became an image we had to purchase?”, you should treat every image on the internet as one you have to purchase. If you do not have the permission of the copyright holder, or his/her designee you cannot use the image period. Even images posted on Wikicommons require some form of attribution or permission, they have the requirements a restrictions posted with the image.
As to the letter that you received, what you posted it is very accurate, and all of the same or similar information can be found on the copyright offices website. This statement, “Consequently, we do not require contributors to provide us with certificates of registration and leave the option of copyright registration to the individual artist.”, will make it difficult for 500px to file a court case against you but not impossible and the photographer will always be able to file a case. If you have removed any credit to the photographer and placed it on your site that contains a copyright notice that adds a possible DMCA claim against you as well as copyright violation.
This statement contained in the letter is also very accurate, “While we leave the option of registration to each contributor, the calculation of actual damages does not change if an image is not registered with the US copyright office prior to the infringing use.”, the key words contained in that sentence is “actual damages”, that means that the rights holder may only collect the actual value of a license on the image, not the higher numbers that an image that has had its copyright filed timely.
It is what they are not saying that should be of your greatest concern, they are not saying that the image was not registered timely and they do not have to disclose that until they file a court case, they are not saying whether or not they are the photographers designee and again they do not have to disclose that until they file a case or you hire an attorney who will push for that information in a legal way.
I agree with everything Kevin said. One caveat though, the company is claiming a price based on their selling price, so it does help to know if the infringement occurred before it was posted because that could affect the price demanded. If that were allowable, then anyone could find and infringement, set up a deal with Getty or whoever, after the fact for a high price, and then claim that price.
I’m hoping this discussion isn’t shut down because it’s so helpful. I posted a question a while back and it didn’t show up. I got lucky and may have answered my own question. I was wondering if and how a lawyer could help since we have free access to some legal help. The company harassing us sent me a legal document in an effort to intimidate. I asked them for all relevant legal documents pointing out that while we don’t have money to pay, we do have access to free legal help. I haven’t heard anything from them in over a month. We do have that access and I think it’s important to be able to back up what you say to them. If this does indeed work, it might be worth a try for others. My plan was to use the template letter and then involve an attorney in that process. As it turns out, I may have found a faster way to bring things to an end without having to pay.
I was unemployed for a period over the summer last year and started taking to writing blog posts for a variety of clients to help make ends meet. I did my best to source images from Wikimedia commons and etc., but it looks like I got lazy at some point. I haven’t been working in this business for a while, but had a former client of mine contact me this morning telling me she was being fined for the use of an image on her site. She forwarded me the email, and it’s pretty well the same as the ones that have been listed here (SuperStock Images, fining $740.)
I don’t want to leave my former client on the lam, and will take full responsibility for this, but don’t know what the best way to follow this up is. Should I proceed as you have recommended? Will it make a difference if I’m replying from my personal email on behalf of my client?
You can respond for your client. Just use the letter here. Make sure you indicate that a correspondence should come to you. Of course, every case is different but if it is like most others, you’ll probably get another letter, but just reiterate the points from the first letter and they should stop.
Hello Steve,
Thank you very much for this information. If the company was dissolved, and they sent the letter 3 months after the fact, would the former owner of the dissolved company still be responsible?
It’s hard to say without seeing your company operating agreement and how the image was used and som other things. In general, the company is on the hook and if it is closed, then there is nobody to go after. Management is protected by the corporate veil but there are ways to break through the veil if certain business practices are sloppy, such as mixing personal and business funds. Of course, breaking the veil costs money, which I am sure Getty won’t spend in pursuit of a small claim, so if you let them know the company is closed, the case will probably also be closed.
I agree. The automated system doesn’t have enough info and likely has a lot of false positives. And while Getty, or anyone else who finds their copyrighted work being used without permission, are certainly entitled to compensation, but it shouldn’t be a blanket automated scar letter. They don’t seem to care whether the item was used for a month or a year. If the fees were prorated, and even with a legal fee on top for their trouble, I think most people would pay without complaint, as it would seem fair.
I designed a simple landscaping service website for my brother-in-law in 2013. I used a snow plow image from google. The truck was the same Ford truck as his landscaping company so I doctored it up. Two weeks ago, my brother in law received an official notice from LCS on behalf of Aurora Photos. I contacted my legal shield lawyer, but did my research. The Domain is owned by Getty who is owned by Amazon. Aurora Photos is a fairly new 2015 entity. My lawyer said to pay the fine, but did not offer to send a letter on my behalf. All the correspondence is being sent to my brother-in-law but I designed the site. I am so exasperated!
Hi! thank you so much for this information. I received an email today, and almost fell for sending in the full payment before coming across this site. Would you mind if I used the above letter? Thanks!!
Of course. Let me know what happens.
I have been going back and forth with a company called License Compliance Services, Inc. over an alleged copyright infringement. After several emails back and forth using the suggestions listed in the Getty Response letter, I took the image off of my sight, noted to them that I was not able to find the image on the sight of the company that they are representing (after an exhaustive search of their sight for the image) and offered them $20.00 as a settlement for an innocent infringement, based on fair market value. Their first asking price was $500 which was discounted in the first email to $400, then $375.00 in the second ask.
I just received a third email stating that as we could not come to an amicable agreement, they are turning my case over to their legal department. My question is, as a very small business owner with no budget for a lawyer, should I be worried at this point? I have been pondering a free consultation, but would like to know what others have experienced at this stage of negotiations.
Kerrie, what happened?
Hi Steve, thanks for your advice, I had sent the letter, and how now had several correspondences with them. The last reply from them was simply “This will be the last time that we reply to your demand. We have provided you everything required. We recommend consulting with a copyright attorney that is well versed in the law.” They refuse to give me any of the documentation that your letter requests.
These are the replies to the requests.
Q:Please provide proof of your right to manage the Image.
A:The Statement of Authorization that was attached.
Q:Please provide proof of proper copyright registration and the chain of title for the Image.
A:Copyright exists the moment an imagery is created. Registration is not a requirement of copyright law and only an issue at the time a lawsuit is filed or if statutory damages are being sought. Currently, Science Photo Library is working to settle the matter constructively, without litigation, and without the pursuit of statutory damages. As such, registration information is irrelevant at this time.
Q:Please provide a clear explanation as to how you have determined the valuation of this image as being so far above comparable images.
A:Restricted Rights content is priced and licensed based on usage, including how the image will be used, in what format, in what size, and for how long. Restricted Rights content is also available for licensing with exclusive rights either by usage type, industry, territory, or combinations of all three (e.g., to prevent competitors from using the same image in a similar advertising campaign). This is high-end creative content that often has high-production costs, and is suitable for license by large corporations for major advertising campaigns as an alternative to custom shoots. The settlement demand is not only the average cost of licensing the image, but is also the cost incurred for the pursuit of the infringement.
Q:Please provide sales data for the Image for each size and use.
A:Science Photo Library will under no circumstances provide its confidential sales data or costs incurred to an infringing party or indeed any legal representative thereof. This information is irrelevant to these settlement discussions.
Q:Please detail your costs incurred related to the pursuit of this case.
A:Science Photo Library will under no circumstances provide its confidential sales data or costs incurred to an infringing party or indeed any legal representative thereof.
The image in question is http://www.sciencephoto.com/search?subtype=keywords&searchstring=c0041783
The one on our site, I am not sure where it came from, is actually only the upper part of that image without any houses. It is close to this image http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Jet-Flight-Composite-Image-Posters_i9996655_.htm
They do acknowedge that the photographer is “Victor De Schwanberg” and looking at his stuff I see that both the above images as well as the links below are all composite images, using the same background.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/5-food-miles-conceptual-artwork-victor-de-schwanberg.html
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Seedling-Composite-Image-Posters_i9996775_.htm
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Food-Miles-Conceptual-Artwork-Posters_i9996889_.htm
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Alternate-Dimensions-Conceptual-Artwork-Posters_i9995812_.htm
And also Victor is offeringt the exact image they have on these sites.
http://www.allposters.com.au/-sp/Low-Flying-Plane-posters_i9996903_.htm
So since they say they will not talk to me waht do I do?
In my opinion, they are just playing hardball. Of course, every case is different and I don’t know the company in your case, but suing you is going to cost them money, in both time and courts fees. Writing a complaint, even if it is a form, will still take an hour and submitting it to the court will cost them $500. If you respond, then they have to respond and on it goes. They are only entitled to the license fee, not court costs or fees so even if they believe that they are entitled to let’s say $750 or even $1500, the company has to spend $500 to file and then another $200 for legal time, since the lawyers are probably charging by the hour. it just doesn’t pay to sue. They scare people, get what they can and if it doesn’t work, they walk away. Unless of course, the work is registered, in which case they would have mentioned it. There was a case here in Florida where a company had used 11 images, many times for their clients. two of them were registered so the company sued but only on those 2 images. You can read about it here https://artrepreneur.com/journal/getty-images-wins-300000/ so even though they were all infringing, they didn’t even bother to sue on the other 9. That case is crazy though because the infringers just kept infringing and so the court threw the book at them. Anyway, I can’t definitively say you won’t get sued, there are too many variable that might make it possible but the odds are against it.
Thanks, so the main thing is if it is or is not registered. And they will now show me one way or another if it is or not, strange to me they would do that, and apparently they feel it is “irrelevant at this time”. Is there a way for the avg Joe to see if it is registered?
Q:Please provide proof of proper copyright registration and the chain of title for the Image.
A:Copyright exists the moment an imagery is created. Registration is not a requirement of copyright law and only an issue at the time a lawsuit is filed or if statutory damages are being sought. Currently, Science Photo Library is working to settle the matter constructively, without litigation, and without the pursuit of statutory damages. As such, registration information is irrelevant at this time.
Thanks
You can go to the Copyright Office database, but unfortunately, it is horrible. The main problem is that there are no images, just descriptions and the creator’s info. On the other hand, the company may not even know since the author would need to provide the information. They probably don’t. Even then, the business model, in general, seems to be scaring and quick money, not protracted lawsuits on behalf of their clients. In most cases, even if their legal fees are paid for, that doesn’t get Getty anything. That goes to the firm and Getty only gets the licensing fee anyway. The Florida case was a special one because the company wouldn’t stop. so they had to take them to court. I don’t know for sure, but it’s possible Getty didn’t even find out about the registrations until they decided to do something about the continuous infringements.
Hi sorry should have found this sooner. I did a search on “United States Copyright Office website” (just like I found described on LegalZoom) for “Visual Materials” and searched multiple things
The image in question is http://www.sciencephoto.com/search?subtype=keywords&searchstring=c0041783
for “science photo library”.. only 3 results not the image
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Science+Photo+Library&Search_Code=NALL&PID=5Z2dATXdrUS4aLJiaj-ifmcSvxr7&SEQ=20160122134111&CNT=25&HIST=1
for “Schwanberg” no results
for the title on their site no results
for their catalog number c0041783 no results
for the collectors name “License Compliance Services” no results
I got 2 of the same LCS letters for 2 different images. I received the first complaint on Dec 17, 2015. At that point I went through my entire website and cleaned out any further possible issues. However, today I got another letter for a new alleged infringement. They showed the screen shot dating Dec 4. 2015 but mind you, on Dec 17 ot 18th, I cleaned all that out so they seem to be goinig after stuff I did in the past, even though I removed the images prior to receiving the letter. This is scary. I am a one person small business and barely break even at the end of the year. The pics I used were from one of the so-called free photo sites and the pics were in a pdf on my site. I thought I was so careful in not using photos that weren’t mine. Not sure where to go from here.
The thing about copyright is it doesn’t matter that you took it down. They had probably been scraping your site and had the infringement in their files, but hadn’t gotten around to sending it yet. But don’t worry, if you snd the letter, it should work. Just treat each of their infringement letters as a new case. They probably don’t even realize that you hav two cases, since much of the systems are automated.
Hi Ann,
Did anything come of your case?
Karen- I am also in Canada and rec’d a letter from LCS…I haven’t been able to determine their ‘reach’ or what the best course is. I wondered where your situation was with this?
I’m curious, has anyone actually been sued ? Have they followed through with anyone that didn’t settle?
All I can say is that nobody has ever contacted me to say that Getty or any other company using this model had gotten sued, except for one case in Florida, which was particularly egregious and the images were Registered with the Copyright Office. I am also not sure if that situation started with these letters or whether the suit came through traditional legal channels.
If anyone else has heard of anyone being sued through this Getty model, please let us know.
Seems like their model is just a sales pitch, scare tactic. Not worth suing small mom and pop shops for 2 images. Even their emails bounce to insure they talk to you, or bargain with you.
I just wanted to share how LCS responded to the response letter I sent (like the one above). I am a one person tiny company that makes very little each year and only put up an image to test what a website would look like since I have never made a website. No body but me and my best friend saw this site. I would be lying if I said that I wasn’t freaking out a bit about all this. $750 is a ton of money for my little business. I am not sure what to do and it makes it worse when they put timelines on me. I don’t even remember where I got the image and feel like I can’t possible collect all the information I need to know if they have the right. Anyway, as time is ticking for me any thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Please find the attached a Statement of Authorization, authorizing LCS to act on our customers behalf in cases of copyright infringement. Also attached is the rights holder form demonstrating that our customer holds the necessary rights in order to license and distribute the imagery, as well as the rights to pursue available legal remedies with respect to unauthorized use of the imagery. When copyright infringement occurs, the copyright holder is entitled to compensation.
Registration is not a requirement of copyright law and only an issue at the time a lawsuit is filed or if statutory damages are being sought. Currently, The Licensing Project is working to settle the matter constructively, without litigation, and without the pursuit of statutory damages. As such, registration information is irrelevant at this time.
While we leave the option of registration to each contributor, the calculation of actual damages does not change if an image is not registered with the US copyright office prior to the infringing use. It is up to the owner of the copyright to determine whether and how they want to publish their works.
Settlement of this matter is two-fold: (1) removal of the imagery from the website; and (2) payment of the settlement demand. We acknowledge removal of the imagery; however, absent the appropriate licenses surrounding the specific use of the imagery in question, the settlement amount presented represents what The Licensing Project would expect to receive in a matter such as this for this unauthorized use. Settlement amounts are based on the average cost of licensing, quantity of uses, plus a portion of costs incurred in the pursuit of the unlicensed use. Using the image without a license ultimately costs more than properly licensing the image before use. Had the infringement not occurred, The Licensing Project would not have had to deploy the additional resources needed to pursue this matter with respect to the website.
This is an out of court settlement and since it has not gone to litigation, we are not required to provide contractual information regarding the photographer’s contract with the imaging company, the sales data for the image, the fair market value of the image, or the proof of registration of the image. Any information other than the Rights Holders Form and the Statement of Authorization cannot be provided outside of litigation.
This message contains all the documentation we will provide in an out-of-court settlement.
Being that this is an out of court settlement, there are restrictions in how much the settlement fee can be reduced. In an attempt to settle this matter amicably, we are reducing the settlement fee to $750, which will be in effect until 02/29/2016.
This offer is without prejudice and reserves all rights and remedies available under copyright law.
If this settlement demand remains unpaid, further legal proceedings may result and all previous offers of reduction will be revoked and attorney’s fees will be added to the settlement amount.
I can’t even find the image anywhere when I put in the info they gave me… TLP-ANDQ-0057
I was just looking back at all the conversations I have had with LCS and the amounts of money that they say I need to pay are all over the place. The original letter said $830. I got online to look at the link they asked me to go to and they messaged me immediately asking how they can help resolve this. They said they would take it down to $725 and when I didn’t respond right away they said they received approval to reduce it to $700 if paid that day. Then I get their response letter (I posted earlier) to my response letter and they say there is limitations on how much they can settle for, offering me $750. Then they attach a settle and release agreement for me to sign with the wrong amount of $745 on it. Seems like they copy and paste all these letters and they forgot to change the amount? I am so mad and scared at the same time.
Thanks for posting this useful information, Steve. Maybe my experience will help Sara. I also got a letter from LCS. They demanded a settlement of $510 in the letter or $408 online. SuperStock priced the image at $290. After reading the following in your article “If similar images cost $10, then the damages are $10, even if Getty Images charges $800 for that image. Of course, you have to prove that the image is only worth $10“, I searched other sites for the image and found it on Alamy for $45. I purchased the image and replaced it with the original on my site. I then sent LCS the following “I have attached my valid license”. 22 hours later, I received the following from LCS “After further review, we would like to notify you that we have closed case ref: XXXX-XXXX-XXXX. No further action is required on your part”. You saved me 90% and I’m glad to give the money to the photographer, not LCS.
That’s great. Glad it worked out!
C: they didn’t argue that the license was dated after they found a copyright infringement? This is very interesting. I hope you can share more.
I recently received an LCS threat for an image on my business website blog which is informational. Not everything on the blog is related to a service I provide, particularly the page with the image in question. I thought the blog was fair use because I’m not promoting my services. This company and their threats are really a pain in the a$$. I don’t understand why they don’t say buy the image license or we will proceed with legal action. I’d be alright with that.
Nicole, they did not argue that the license was dated after they found a copyright infringement!
hi guys, i recently received a letter from Getty images for $550. my website was outsourced and nowhere to be found to ask him about the photos. how would i find the image to see what the actually cost to purchase would be… any advice would really help…
thanks
Mr. Schlackman,
I have recieved a letter from (below) on January 30tb
this is the 2nd one
************************************************************
License Compliance Services, Inc. on behalf of StockFood America, Inc.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98104, United States
Email: [email protected], Telephone: +1 855 387 8725, http://www.LCS.global
Further to our prior correspondence to you, we hereby reiterate that unauthorized use of StockFood America, Inc.’s represented imagery is considered copyright infringement and entitles StockFood America, Inc. to seek compensation for infringing uses (Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code).
Please note that removal of the imagery alone does not resolve this matter.
You have previously been notified of this matter and to date, we have not received payment or any proof of a valid license.
StockFood America, Inc. is willing to offer you one more opportunity to resolve this matter.
Your failure to make payment immediately will result in escalation to our legal representatives and the possibility of legal action being commenced for damages exceeding the amount presently being offered by way of settlement.
To avoid the possibility of legal action, you are required to immediately remit the $578.00 settlement payment by one of the following options:
***********************************************************************************
and gives the choices of online or check.
I removed the image, I got some of my images from searching google images either Labeled for Reuse or Labeled for Reuse with modification. I can’t find this image there now. But I can find several of the same type.
I am sick, I try to use my own images for this reason, but have a very small local business and wear every hat. So up to this point had made use of google images as above labeled.
I am on the verge of closing my doors as it is, I can barely pay rent and am not really ‘earning’ money just covering rent and expenses the past 5 months.
Do you have a lawyer you can recommend look at the letter I create to respond?
I don’t know what to do,
1- of course I will pay fair market value even if it was labeled incorrectly, but I can’t imagine that the price they ask is fair.
2- I am afraid to even purchase images when I can afford to because how do I make sure the license doesn’t change?
I understand photographers, artists, etc need to protect their works, I worry about my images being stolen.
I am sick and worried, I need to take care of this, without making myself a bigger target.
thanks
Cas
I received a letter from LCS stating that they are representing on behalf of Alamy and that I used one of their images on my website blog. They are asking for a settlement fee of $98.70. I looked on Alamy website and found that they charge $50 for the image (for websites and blogs). So should I just purchase the image on Alamy and provide LCS with proof of purchase? Is this a scam or is it real?
Dear Steve. Thank you for this post. It was very helpful in responding to a recent letter from LCS for nearly $1100 for use of an image. Their response was to lower the ask to $800, but the wording in their response (excerpt below) suggests they have a registration for the image and are asking this amount for damages. Curious if you’ve seen this language before as I understand from your blog a registered image is treated differently. Thank you.
“Images do not need or require copyright registration or notice of copyright in order to be protected. A copyright exists automatically from the moment that a photograph is taken. Federal copyright law does not require us to provide anyone with certificates of registration during an out-of-court settlement. We are attempting to settle for actual damages. Registration are not required with regards to settlement. However, should this case be escalated to litigation registration will be provided during Discovery.”
“Resolution for this federal violation includes the removal of the imagery and the payment of the settlement fee for the unauthorized use.”
Great information. An agent at my brokerage received a letter recently from LCS, claiming copyright infringement based on a photo that was randomly syndicated by a multiple listing service to the agent’s Web site. My agent has no control over the site which initially published the offending photo (it belongs to an agent who is not at our brokerage), nor has she any control over which listings are randomly shared across her site through MLS IDX. In fact, that same image was probably shared on multiple associate’s sites without their knowledge or consent, other than an agreement allowing the syndication. Seems like LCS might have recourse against the initial agent who posted the original photo, or against the syndicator — but going after perhaps thousands agents whose sites carried that photo randomly and momentarily seems excessive. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Hi, Steve. I responded to Getty with your letter and 9 examples of similar images. Their image was removed from the site. I sent the response via USPS a week ago and received the following response by email yesterday. Any suggestions for a follow-up mail to Getty would be appreciated, in particular v.v. the cited case. Thanks, in advance, for your assistance; it is much appreciated.
“Thank you for your email. The image at issue in this settlement is a Getty Rights Managed (RM) image, exclusively available for license through Getty Images and would have required the appropriate licensing prior to its use on your website. Getty Images has been unable to find the necessary licenses for this use. As you may know, Getty Images is one of the leading providers of Royalty Free (RF) imagery and Rights Managed (RM) imagery.
• RF imagery can be licensed with a one-time fee and can be used in a flexible manner for an unlimited duration of time.
• RM imagery has a very restrictive licensing model that limits use of an image to the specified size, type of use, placement, and duration of use set forth in the license. RM licenses are not transferrable. That is to say, a specific license is required for the use of the image on any given website.
The “Fair Market Value” comparison (Getty Images Response Letter) refers to Royalty Free images, as stated previously the image in question is Rights Managed.
Your letter quotes On Davis v. The Gap Inc. as support for your offer of the cost of a royalty-free image license. As you correctly point out, the question is not what the owner would have charged but what the fair market value is. What you failed to identify, however, is that the Court goes on in On Davis to acknowledge that, “many copyright owners are represented by agents who have established rates that are regularly paid by licensees. In such cases, establishing the fair market value of the license fee of which the owner was deprived is no more speculative than determining the damages in the case of a stolen cargo of lumber or potatoes”.
The current situation is exactly what the court described. We license millions of images each year at fair market prices. There is no need to speculate as to what the cost of a license for a rights managed image would be. We offer an online price calculator that provides transparent pricing. The offer of settlement in this case is based on established rates for like license terms of images of like quality. In fact, it goes further and it is based on the exact license terms you would have required for the exact image. Your reference to the pricing of royalty-free imagery is not valid in this case.
Please visit our website at http://www.gettyimages.com and enter the image number [ba00521] into the search field. When you have found the image, please click on the thumbnail. This will open the image in a new window, at which point you will be able to read the details on the image. If you click on “Rights-managed” (next to “License type), the Getty Images Editorial, Rights-Managed and Rights-Ready Image and Video License Agreement will open up. We direct your attention to Sections 5 and 6. Section 5(ii) is Getty Images’ warranty that it represents the image. In section 6, Getty Images indemnifies the licensee for any claims of copyright infringement. These two sections confirm that Getty Images is legally entitled to manage the image.
Getty Images is currently only requesting actual damages in settlement of this matter. Therefore, copyright registrations are irrelevant at this stage. Images are protected by copyright the moment they are created. Copyright registration is not required to protect one’s copyrights, nor did the settlement offer by Getty Images contemplate the statutory damages that you would be responsible for if there was a copyright registration. Any copyright registration for this image will be produced in accordance with a court process that may be initiated if we are unable to come to an agreement on settlement.
The settlement amount offered was based on the actual cost of the license that you should have purchased in order to display the images on your website. The use identified on your website, would have required a digital media-email marketing license. At the very least 1 months use would have cost $440.00.
Your request for license data is not relevant, as our settlement offer addresses the cost of a license for your specific use.
Getty Images respectfully declines your $24.00 settlement offer. We are, however, willing to accept $843.98. as full and final settlement. This offer is made conditionally and it will automatically be withdrawn if full payment is not postmarked by February 29, 2016. The terms of this settlement offer shall be kept confidential, except as may be required by law. Getty Images expressly reserves all rights and remedies available under copyright law.
I got almost the exact same reply (different amounts). Seems like we both used the template in the post above and they have learned to recognize it as the lengthy response came back in minutes to my email.
What did you end up doing??
It occurred to me, Steve, to offer a word of background. The image in question was never on the website per se, it was one of 11 images embedded in a by-request-only pdf information piece behind the site that described different assessment tools; there was no solicitation, only description of the assessment’s use. I don’t know that this is germane but I thought I’d pass it along just in case. Thanks for insight and direction; both are appreciated
Well… I received this SCAM email. I ripped their A%& open. One you have my personal email. How is that? They also sent it to my business email. So two letters. They tried to extort payment via email. The idiot gal on the phone was rude, unprofessional and had not a clue what she was talking about.
They sent me a copy of the photo in question. I asked the the gal to open the image, she refused. It’s because their is NO such image on my site. She then proceeded to tell me it was from March 2015.
Is the photo watermarked? Should it be watermarked if no one should be using this? If you don’t want people using this, photographers have the ability to make this so you cant copy, such as keeping as a web page format or other saving format eluding people from saving. Is Google liable for uploading and posting freely for the world to use? What accountability to they hold? What accountability does the originator hold when placing on the open internet without considering their rights to usage? Where in the open images on Google does it say you can purchase these photos? Does it say click here to purchase and then you may walk off with the image? Or …. does it say check this box as you understand the copyright infringement? Why didn’t the image warrant its given rights to protection?
SCAM!
I filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/
FBI (Internet Crime Complaints)
https://www.ic3.gov/faq/default.aspx
Your State Attorney General
License Compliance Servies.
Send everyone a copy of the communications and billing and photo in question to the govering and federal agencies
So what happened did you have to pay or did they back down.
I posted a comment. where did it go?
It’s fraud. file a compliant with the Federal Trade Commission.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/
FBI
https://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/e-scams
Your State Attorney General
I have been reading all the comments and it appears that your sample reply to their extortion letter does not work in all cases. You were lucky enough to not hear back from Getty images.
It seems that Fair Market value is not the point of the matter as licencing of an image is a different kettle of fish. In most cases they are willing to negotiate to a lower amount but still insisting on a ridiculously high amount for a small time struggling business.
Seeing there is not much history of them actually going ahead and suing any company/taking legal action would it be best for me to simply ignore their emails and letters in the hope they will go away?
The fair market value is important because it shows the company that you have a leg to stand on in your refusal. Copyright, in the US, is a no-fault law. if it is up on your site, or in a pdf somewhere, then you are guilty unless you can claim fair use. So the issue then isn’t about guilt, it is about the amount of damage. Damages are traditionally calculated as lost revenue and lost profit. Without the claim of fair market value, then you are merely hoping they won’t sue you.
What the letter attempts to do is let them know that their tactics won’t work, and that there is strong legal argument to back up your assertions. It is not a perfect argument, but one that lets them know that if they sue, it will cost them. And, that their potential revenue from the suit will be low.
Now it’s true that the price they are requesting in many cases is probably too low anyway, so they probably won’t sue, but you never know who they might make an example of. But the real value is that they go away, since there is a good argument. Many other people who have tried to ignore these companies have been harrassed, with emails and phone calls, mailed letters etc. then they go away and come back again and again over years, as your name cycles back into the database.
Also, almost always, the infringements are valid. The issue isn’t the infringement, it’s the price and the tactics. If you have infringed, you have done something wrong and should pay something. The letter tries to establish an acceptable value based on the real world, not what Getty or other people think or want their images to be worth. And at the end, you are making them an offer, which is the right thing to do. And that offer is backed up.
However, the thing I don’t understand is why they never take the offers. It’s easy money. They don’t and just walk away as if all these $20 or $50 offers aren’t enough to bother. Anyway, I hope that helps.
First of all, Steve, Thanks for posting this. I have been engaged with LCS after a client of mine got an “extortion” letter back in Jan. I used your template – thank you so much for that…and more importantly, thanks for making this information public and explaining the argument in detail so that people like us can avoid undue expense when dealing with this. I followed your template pretty much exactly and then got a response with a lowered settlement fee of $525 for my alleged single image offense. I won’t repost those as they are virtually identical to the ones others on here have posted. I will post my response for anyone to read and consider….i’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice lol and i really have no idea what i’m doing…but i do have a sense for what is reasonable and what is right…so here it goes:
Thank you for sending over the document informing me of your right to represent your client and the signed claim that your client is the copyright holder. These documents alone do not indicate 2 important factors that are needed to determine the legitimacy of the complaint. I agree that it is ideal to settle this matter amicably and without litigation.
1. It is reasonable to assume that LCS, Inc would not take on a client without doing diligence to confirm copyright ownership beyond a signed statement. Therefore, it would be extremely beneficial if you could share proof of copyright and chain of title for the image in question. I’m sure you can understand that as a small business owner, I must be prudent in all financial matters related to the business. While damages are not necessarily determined by presence of registration, evidence of copyright ownership by your client would show that this is indeed a legitimate claim and not one of the many internet scams that so many small business owners fall victim to. While I understand that these documents would naturally be presented should we have to move to litigation, I am asking that you please provide them in good faith so that we can avoid costly litigation.
2. In order to come to agreement on a settlement fee, it is imperative to support your claim of $525. You stated that: Settlement amounts are based on the average cost of licensing, quantity of uses, plus a portion of costs incurred in the pursuit of the unlicensed use. In my research (as provided in the previous letter) I have found many examples that would indicate for the cost of licensing and quantity of use for an image of comparable size and quality to the one asserted in this matter is around $14. In the absence of documentation to indicate a clear explanation as to how your client has determined the valuation of this image as being so far above comparable images, sales data for the image in question for its size and use and costs incurred related to the pursuit of this case, I cannot reasonably justify the fee of $525 to settle this matter.
It is clear that LCS, Inc has represented hundreds if not thousands of copyright holders in their claims to collect compensation for infringement. It seems reasonable that as a normal course of doing business, LCS would have access to the information being requested so as to avoid many costly court cases. I am concerned that your lack of cooperation with regard to furnishing these reasonable requests for supplemental documentation is an indication that you are not willing to settle this matter out of court or that LCS does not have access to these documents. You must understand that any prudent business owner owes a fiduciary responsibility to his partners and employees to be diligent in all financial matters. Therefore, I am proposing again that you please accept my settlement offer of $14 to close this matter or provide evidence of copyright ownership and supplemental documentation supporting your claim of $525.
Tom, would you comment on what resulted in your case?
HI Tom, How did your situation end?
Hi, Steve. Below are excerpts from the Getty response to the first mail. Below each are my questions or thoughts; your comments would be appreciated.. Like many others, Steve, who are commenting we are small company with few resources and certainly not enough to “pay off” the Getty demand. Once this process is concluded I’ll be happy to share both outcomes and steps taken with you readers. Again, thanks for your consideration and any comments. I need to respond tomorrow, Monday.
Larry
“Your letter quotes On Davis v. The Gap Inc. as support for your offer of the cost of a royalty-free image license. As you correctly point out, the question is not what the owner would have charged but what the fair market value is. What you failed to identify, however, is that the Court goes on in On Davis to acknowledge that, “many copyright owners are represented by agents who have established rates that are regularly paid by licensees. In such cases, establishing the fair market value of the license fee of which the owner was deprived is no more speculative than determining the damages in the case of a stolen cargo of lumber or potatoes”.
This is about two-thirds of the way down paragraph 59 of the cited case. If this is not refutable then their chain of evidence supporting their agent management must be provided? Verbiage?
“The current situation is exactly what the court described [referring to the above paragraph]. We license millions of images each year at fair market prices. There is no need to speculate as to what the cost of a license for a rights managed image would be. We offer an online price calculator that provides transparent pricing. The offer of settlement in this case is based on established rates for like license terms of images of like quality. In fact, it goes further and it is based on the exact license terms you would have required for the exact image. Your reference to the pricing of royalty-free imagery is not valid in this case.”
“The settlement amount offered was based on the actual cost of the license that you should have purchased in order to display the images on your website. The use identified on your website, would have required a digital media-email marketing license. “
Is a document that is behind the website and not visible on the website, considered to be “on the website” as suggested above?
“The terms of this settlement offer shall be kept confidential, except as may be required by law.”
This does not sound appropriate. Are they may be using it to cover themselves?
“Your request for license data is not relevant, as our settlement offer addresses the cost of a license for your specific use. “
I know that it is germane but help with verbiage to respond would be appreciated.
Too, I have found this image in use on no less than 7 websites. Is it appropriate to also demand rates paid or evidence of licensed usage without, in the first instance, naming the sites?
The reason we have you find similar images from other sites is to show the fair market value. It is true that agents may have established rates, but in most cases we run into, the images have no sales or not enough to show that the value that they ask is a market value. If nobody is buying a photo at that price and similar images are being sold for less, than it is hard to claim that the agent’s price is valid. It is then up to the agent, (Getty, LCS or whoever) to prove that the price they are asking is the market value. They also usually add in money for legal fees which they cannot do. Legal fees are available only for registered works that are registered prior to the infringement. If they can show sales figures, then one might consider paying. However, these seem to be money grabs wherein the legal team has decided that they do not want to do that kind of work. They want to take the easy money and if there is pushback, then they tend to walk away. There is clearly infringements here, but the question is the value. The letter is designed to start the dialogue but very rarely do these companies wish to engage defendants. If they answer the questions and take the case seriously, providing the information necessary to prove the validity of the price, then the defendants may have to pay. t just doesn’t happen. As for whether the image is visible or hidden, doesn’t matter as far as an infringement. The copyright holder has the exclusive right over copies aso any image on a server is a copy. However, as far as damages go, that would change the outcome because they are basing the image use on a license which is probably based on visibility. How miuch us a license for an image that isn’t visible is probably minimal. That of course depends on the licensing language.
We found the image in question on at least seven other sites. Is it advisable to ask for proof of license on these usages?
Also, why would they make this statement: “The terms of this settlement offer shall be kept confidential, except as may be required by law.” Is it boilerplate or is there more to consider?
Thanks for your thoughts, they are appreciated.
Settlement offers are always confidential because the one making the settlement doesn’t want anyone to know the price they are willing to settle at. It would hurt future negotiations with other defendants. In fact, if you break that confidentiality, there are usually additional penalties.
Just got the Super Stock / LCS Copyright infringement letter for a photo on a website I built from Godaddy.com. Probably looks the same as most, …photo with website screenshoot with photo used. They wanted $740 for one image and I have 7 days to respond, etc. I contacted Godaddy.com and they said the images were licensed stock images and everything was fine. I sent an email to Godaddy.com legal counsel and they responded to LCS/Super Stock for me and copied me on the email with all the licenses and receipts. In the email, the attorney stated that LCS/Super Stock keeps contacting Godaddy customers with this infringement letter and Godaddy has an unlimited license. Beware if you get a letter from LCS as this is just a money grab. Call Godaddy and they will help you with this BS.
I responded to my Getty letter with the format you laid out and received an email back from NCS IP Solutions saying that my support is invalid because they are RF and the image in question is rights managed. Is this another tactic? I am receiving emails from this company weekly now and feel like they are harassing me at this point. I appreciate any advice you have! Thank you.
My client received the extortion letter via email with a phone number to contact someone, so I called. After we got off the phone, the guy sent a letter to me via email. I am wondering, should I EMAIL him this response letter or should I snail mail it to Getty? Also he told me the longer we have had the image up on the website the more the copyright infringement fee will cost. Is this true?
1) Whichever. Email is free.
2) It’s not untrue.
If you keep it up despite now explicitly knowing that you have no right to freely use it, it won’t bode well for you. If you keep it up for a period longer than the one defined by their standard license (should one exist), you could be liable to pay them once for every license period that you had the image for, which could exponentially increase the amount you owe them.
But, more importantly, at the end of the day, the amount they’re demanding is wholly arbitrary, and, if they want to charge you extra because you kept the image up longer, that’s within their rights. They can legally say “You owe us $1,000,000,000,000 for every second that image is up on your site”. It falls to you/your client (and possibly the court, should it go that far) to determine if the amount is fair. A settlement negotiation is just that–a negotiation.
No they can’t “legally say you owe us $1,000,000,000,000 for every second the image is used.”
For such a thing to be “legal” there would ever need to be a court order to that effect or a legal precedent in a similar case.
If you don’t pay they may take you to court and the court would decide the following-
1. If you infringed copyright
2. (Assuming you did infringe copyright) what is a fair price for you to pay for your use of the image.
No court on this planet would find $1,000,000,000,000 per second a reasonable price to pay for the use of an image.
If you don’t know what you are talking about refrain from commenting.
Is it best to ignore, respond with an apology and a straight negotiation or respond with this letter?
I have been in contact with Getty, refuting the $1085 charge for a copy write infringement on a photo used 8 years ago, without knowledge of it’s copy write protection. They emailed back with a copy of a check written as settlement by a company in another state, along with the settlement agreement signed by the party. #7 of the settlement agreement states both parties agree to keep the details of the settlement confidential. Yet, they sent it to me, apparently reinforcing the fact, companies do pay!
Steve, thank you for this information on the Getty extortion. They’ve started with me on a small image I found on Bing (no watermark) and they have followed the pattern here almost to the letter. Fortunately I googled, “what to do when threatened on copyright” and found your postings!
I am in agreement that this is a huge help.
So I too sent this off and received their stock counter letter stating the difference between RF and RM. Is there a sample letter that we should then send in response to this?
And again thanks for all the help that this provides for us small businesses.
Hi Steve, Thank you and everyone for sharing their experiences. My situation is textbook to what’s been shared, however, I am in Canada. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m guessing that LCS would have very little success pursuing legal action against my company. Secondly, the image in question was shared to my blog via a photo-sharing site (Houzz.com), which encourages/provides members code to embed slideshows of photo galleries on outside websites. Would these circumstances change your approach?
Same situation here, i’m in Canada. How did it end up with your story?
Steve, can you comment on the relevance of this “rights managed” issue in dealing with Getty?
If I infringed, and the image in question happens to be a “rights managed” image in their library, is that legally important when negotiating for a more realistic fee to pay them as compensation?
The image I used happens to be one of these RM images, and on most sites, images with this type of licensing seem to be priced MUCH higher than the traditional “royalty free” stock images.
So when negotiating a fair price, do I have to be referencing 8 to 10 other images that are also “rights managed”, or can I use any type of stock image? The quality difference between the two is purely subjective in my eyes: I do not see a difference between the two.
I guess I’m asking this: if this goes to court, will the fair market value depend in part on the licensing model that is being used for the image in question, or is it simply dependent on what other images of similar content and quality–regardless of the licensing model–cost?
I would really appreciate your thoughts on this, and thank you for sharing your insight on this issue with everyone thus far!
There rights managed works are those that are exclusively licensed to them. However, the idea of the fair market value is that just because they worked out a deal with the artist and want to charge higher prices doesn’t necessarily mean that the work is worth the money they are asking. So you can use any similar images.
Hi Steve – Thanks for the letter! I used it to reply, attaching 8 related images with a fair value price of around $10.29; I offered them $11.11 because that’s what iStock charged. Now, I’m getting the Rights Managed bs argument. What would you advise I do? Shall I get an attorney? Thanks.
You can continue to push back on your own, but you may want to consult with an attorney experienced in copyright issues, and who is properly licensed in your jurisdiction, who can more effectively advise you based on your own circumstances.
This is excellent advice. Has anyone had experiences with Masterfile? They seem to be fare more agressive than Getty but follow basically the same scummy scam.
If I am correct, Masterfile is out of Canada and they use in house counsel. They tend to be more aggressive. If I am thinking of the wrong company, forgive me, but in general, watch out for companies that are not using outside counsel. The economics are different and so they can be more aggressive. Also, in those cases, the works are sometimes registered with the Copyright Office prior to the infringement, so statutory damages may be available. In that case, you should consult an attorney because you may also be responsible for their legal fees.
We got hit by a troll over a “rights managed” image as well. Same experience – the image was virtually indistinguishable from dozens of others in the same theme, yet it was the only one that was “RM”. A tineye search showed pretty quickly that many, many people were accidentally using this image which makes me suspect these guys changed it to RM so they could cash in on as many infringers as possible. It’s just another bs way they can inflate their extortion amount and I would imagine it wouldn’t stand up in court.
I just didn’t have the time to deal with these scumbags so I paid the ransom, and I’m not happy about it.
HI Steve – I am based in the UK and it seems that Getty are using the same system here. One of my team used an image that they took from Pinterest – which had no water mark and no reference to be it being a copyright photograph and/or owned by Getty. I have received a letter from Getty (Ireland) asking for £750 for using this image. I have checked the image on their website and the photographer and and the asking price for this image and all other similar images is £195.
Whilst, I accept that we may have indeed infringed copyright, albeit an innocent mistake and misunderstanding of Pinterest images, what is concerning is that the letter and email received from Getty is unprofessional and the letter appears to be simply a copy/print out of what they emailed – not on any headed paper etc. The email went into my junk file and the letter was posted from the Channel Islands using a mailing service.
I have checking into their company details and this was registered in Ireland in November 2015 with final details filed in February 16 – although they also state at the bottom of their letter that the company is registered in The Caymen Islands, the letter does carry an Irish registration number. The image in question was posted on our blog in 2014. Furthermore, the details of their company number are incorrect and their VAT (tax) number is an invalid number – on the European VAT registration system.
The details of their bank account is very tenuous, with no details given as to the name of the bank account.
How can I be sure that this is just not a scam? I am preparing your recommended letter, but firstly asking for clarification of their company registration details and VAT registration – which are clearly not correct.
Have you heard of any issues relating to Getty Ireland or would you suggest that take the matter with Getty in London
Hi. I have not heard of these letters heading overseas much but ice the process is automated, it doesn’t surprise me that the information is incorrect. Generally, though, pushback is all it takes to get them to go away. Lawsuits are expensive so $750 probably isn’t enough for Getty to actually sue you. Send the letter and see what happens. You may receive 1 or 2 follow ups but just keep asking for the information you request. Add in the mistakes and see what they say. One thing to note though, the case I use in the letter is US law. I don’t know if there is comparable law in Ireland. You can leave it in and see if they even take the time to read it and respond to that point. My guess is you’ll just get another form letter but in any case, it would be interesting to see if they notice. Let us know how it goes.
Hi Tina,
I was just wondering how you got on with this. I have received some heavy letters and emails starting in December 2016 for an image I used from Pinterest with a price tag of £1130. I thought initially it was a scam as I had noticed the inaccuracies in their information, registration, mailing etc.
Have yo
This is extremely useful, thank you! I feel very empowered and informed.
Hi Steve. I would like your advice. I recently got an e-mail from shutterstock. I am a graphic designer and web developer. I have purchased and purchased a lot of photos with standard licence and used them to make electronic representations of printed frames on walls etc. for a company that prints and sells artworks. Then they print the artwork downloaded from my account and sell it. Shutterstock sent me an e-mail and say that i am responsible and will take legal actions against me because the images were downloaded form my account with standard licence that does not allow merchandising and artwork printing. What are the steps i have to follow? I had no idea that using photos in that way was prohibited. That was the reason i actually purchased them. What can i do from now on? I really would like to see a reply from you.
Agency France-Presse is trying to extort money from me for using a picture of Maco Rubio for a blog post of mine about his presidential campaign. I did not make a dime off of the image or the story. My Blog does not generate revenue so I was under the impression that this was fair use? Do I need to pay the fee?
Hi Dave, just wondering how this went, as I am in a similar situation. I just got a letter from Agence France-Presse for using the picture of someone holding the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Did you pay them in the end or just ignored it – curious what happens if one ignores…Thank you!
How did this get resolved? I am in a similar situation
I have received a second letter from Getty Images after writing the first letter based on the template.
Quick backstory, I settled with Getty Images in 2013 for one image on the web site for a reduced fee.
I removed all photos that were not the clients. By accident there was one 1inch thumbnail of a cropped Getty image on the web site.
This is the response from Getty images second letter.
The Fair Market Value of the RM imagery at issue cannot be determined by the pricing of similar-looking RF imagery. While we understand that similar images available elsewhere might cost less, our claim doesn’t involve those images. Our claim is with respect to the specific imagery identified in this case.
Nevertheless, it seems your argument related to the fair market value is ultimately irrelevant in this particular matter. Since speaking with you last week it was brought to my attention that the call you made to our department was not your first. You were apparently asked to resolve the unlicensed use of this image back in 2013. Per an e-mail you sent back then, your client had asked you to remove the image immediately…and the case was eventually resolved through settlement. However, despite the terms of that settlement the image at issue was found again on your client’s website. Despite your client having been through this before, they continued to use this image without license. This, as you may know, may constitute a willful infringement of our represented intellectual property. Had I been aware of the prior infringement involved I would have not offered presented a reduced offer of settlement. However, as you may recall from our conversation, there was a November 4th deadline on that offer…and that deadline has now passed. Rather than accepting what was a generous offer is seems you have opted to provide us with a template response you found on the internet—and an offer of $25 that has no relevance to the lost licensing Getty Images and our photographer has incurred here.
As noted, our $600 offer has been withdrawn. This file—together with details related to the past settlement—is scheduled to be progressed to our attorney later this week.
Has anybody had a second letter follow up and what were the results.
Thanks Gary
NYC
Hi Steve,
Thank you for this advice and sample response letter. I am following your advice and sending out a response letter. Question, number one. Should I send this letter certified? Secondly, Getty has also emailed me twice. Should I also send response letter via email?
It’s generally a good idea to send official correspondence via some sort of traceable delivery service such as USPS certified mail (with a return receipt), FedEx, UPS, etc. Sending a copy via e-mail is a good idea if you have an address to send it to, but I would still send a hardcopy.
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your answer. I received my second letter asking for $1140. I am a manager for client business’s website, and am taking responsibility and paying for the negotiated settlement for infringement on said image; it is my fault, not the owner’s fault. $1140 is approx two week’s pay for me. I am wondering if I should call them first to try and negotiate via phone call before I send response letter, or would this make no difference in your experience? Evidently I used a (RM) image, but all the images I could find that came anywhere close (but not much close), to the image I infringed upon are all (RF). Believe me when I tell you I spent hours on other stock image websites to find similar images.
Any advice would be wonderful.
My sincere Thank you.
Hello Chris, I must have not submitted my comment that I sent this morning.
Thank you for your response.
I received my second Getty letter today with a requested settlement of $1140. I am a manager not the owner of the website and am taking responsibility for my ignorance in copyright law and am paying the settlement out of my own pocket. This is almost two weeks’ worth of pay for me.
Evidently the infringed image I used on business website is an (RM) image. I’ve spent hours looking for similar images on other stock websites and could only come up with similar (RF) images. These images were not even very similar, but I did the best I could.
I am wondering if I should call them as requested and try and negotiate with them first before sending the Getty response letter with these similar (RF) images? Or, with your knowledge, do you think it will make no difference, and just send the response letter and not call them?
Great article, read through all the comments.
Got the same article everyone else did, using your template (a thousand thanks, though perhaps they have caught on at this point..?) waiting to see what comes next from them.
Several people have asked, and I will too – for the folks that did not pay to have this resolved, what happened? Anyone out there willing to comment?
I am hoping that the lack of comments means folks problems were solved, and so they stopped caring and went on with their business and never came back to this site…
HI Steve, the image on my site has been picked up as the thumbnail of a page on my media evidence. The media article is my question and answer section in a national magazine. The top of the magazine article has the evidence of the publishing company who definitely has an account with Getty. I have advised them of this and they say the burden of proof is on me to provide the licence details from the publishing company.
Is it a breach of copyright to show an image of a magazine article? What about the thumbnail that my media pages have picked up?
Thanks, Min
Are you aware of any case law that expressly states that a licensing fee is not fair market value if the fee is unreasonable?
Getty recently sent us the same letter, however the image in question came pre-packaged with a WordPress theme that was purchased. We have relayed that to them yet they are still sending us the copyright infringement notice. The image in question has not been on our website for a long time and was only on the site during the development stages as it was default content. Do they have a case here or are they really just trying to scare us into paying?
Sounds like the typical unfair Getty practice. Contact us if its still an issue!
Hola Nicole, mi caso es exactamente igual al de Steve con el agravante de que yo como desarrollador, no he recibido ninguna notificación de Getty, pero quien sí las ha recibido es el cliente al que le desarrollé el sitio web. He respondido con una carta muy similar a la que muestran en este post pero nunca recibí respuesta. Mi cliente ha seguido recibiendo mas cartas y la última fue hace 25 días y viene directamente de una agencia de colección, algo que tiene muy preocupado a mi cliente porque las consecuencias con su crédito.
Podría ayudarme de alguna forma ó asesorarnos cómo debemos proceder? .. Por favor escríbame urgente puesto que la carta de colección dice que si no se cancela el valor de la imagen antes del 18 de Agosto ellos van a proceder a mandar el caso a la corte además de aumentar la multa por la imagen.
Sugiero que te pongas en contacto con un abogado, me parece que en este caso no estamos equipados a ayudarte. Saludos.
Hi there,
I have received an email from pixsy claiming copyright infringement on am image that came bundled with the wordpress theme used in developing our site. These image was deleted during the development process and thus not used in any of the content on the site.
I explained that this was the case and so no copyrights were violated. They then send a screen shot showing the image with the dummy content, proving my point that it came bundled with the theme but argue that it is not their concern.
bear in mind that the site in question was for an academic project as i am a student.
I am curious how your situation went and any advice would be appreciated.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter whether it came bundled. Copyright is a no-fault law so you having it is an infringement. This sounds horrible but it is really a way for the public to police copyright since there is no authority that looks for infringements. However, you then have an action against the theme authors who sold you a copyrighted image.
Hi there,I check your blog named “How to Respond to a Getty Images Extortion Letter – Art Law Journal” regularly.Your story-telling style is witty, keep doing what you’re doing! And you can look our website about powerful love spells.
We sent the form letter via email and received a response within an hour…they didn’t budge
:
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Thank you for your email. The image at issue in this settlement is a Getty Rights Managed (RM) image, exclusively available for license through Getty Images and would have required the appropriate licensing prior to its use on your website. Getty Images has been unable to find the necessary licenses for this use.
As you may know, Getty Images is one of the leading providers of Royalty Free (RF) imagery and Rights Managed (RM) imagery.
• RF imagery can be licensed with a one-time fee and can be used in a flexible manner for an unlimited duration of time.
• RM imagery has a very restrictive licensing model that limits use of an image to the specified size, type of use, placement, and duration of use set forth in the license. RM licenses are not transferrable. That is to say, a specific license is required for the use of the image on any given website.
The “Fair Market Value” comparison refers to Royalty Free images, as stated previously the image in question is Rights Managed.
Your letter quotes On Davis v. The Gap Inc. as support for your offer of the cost of a royalty-free image license. As you correctly point out, the question is not what the owner would have charged but what the fair market value is. What you failed to identify, however, is that the Court goes on in On Davis to acknowledge that, “many copyright owners are represented by agents who have established rates that are regularly paid by licensees. In such cases, establishing the fair market value of the license fee of which the owner was deprived is no more speculative than determining the damages in the case of a stolen cargo of lumber or potatoes”.
The current situation is exactly what the court described. We license millions of images each year at fair market prices. There is no need to speculate as to what the cost of a license for a rights managed image would be. We offer an online price calculator that provides transparent pricing. The offer of settlement in this case is based on established rates for like license terms of images of like quality. In fact, it goes further and it is based on the exact license terms you would have required for the exact image. Your reference to the pricing of royalty-free imagery is not valid in this case.
Please visit our website at http://www.gettyimages.com and enter the image number [97533448] into the search field. Click on the thumbnail image, this will open the image in a new window, where you can view the Image details. If you click on “Rights-managed” (under License Info), the Getty Images Editorial, Rights-Managed and Rights-Ready Image and Video License Agreement will open up. We direct your attention to Sections 5 and 6. Section 5(ii) is Getty Images’ warranty that it represents the image. In section 6, Getty Images indemnifies the licensee for any claims of copyright infringement. These two sections confirm that Getty Images is legally entitled to manage the image.
Getty Images is currently only requesting actual damages in settlement of this matter. Therefore, copyright registrations are irrelevant at this stage. Images are protected by copyright the moment they are created. Copyright registration is not required to protect one’s copyrights, nor did the settlement offer by Getty Images contemplate the statutory damages that you would be responsible for if there was a copyright registration. Any copyright registration for this image will be produced in accordance with a court process that may be initiated if we are unable to come to an agreement on settlement.
The settlement amount offered was based on the actual cost of the license that you should have purchased in order to display the images on your website. The use identified on your website, would have required a digital media-commercial blog license. At the very least 1 months use would have cost $262.00.
Torrie, I’m the same predicament as you… I had two RM (unbeknownst to me) images on my blog and they are requiring $262 for each image… did you respond to them? How did things go? Thanks!!!
The trick is to do NOTHING.
No responses. No return calls. No replies.
Give them silence and let them punch themselves out.
They sent me “infringement” extortionist letters for almost 2 years… none of which I responded to. They eventually just went away.
It’s very difficult to extort from silence.
Best advice based on my own Getty experience — do absolutely nothing — and they will disappear.
I too am in this boat. I sent the letter here back to them, and they came back with everything requested almost immediately. They also want $980 for the alleged use of the image. I have no idea what to do here, but certainly cannot afford to pay a grand for some dumb image. There has to be some kind of legit and fair solution to this. Does anyone have any ideas?
In 2013 I received a Getty Image. I did some research and wrote a letter (not as detailed as Steve’s) A few weeks later they sent an identical letter with no comments on my letter. So I sent another letter. Then sometime later I got another letter from them. I sent a letter saying I had no intention of paying that amount ($480) for an image worth about $10. I have not heard from them since.
Look it is easy for Getty to send out letters. But to actually take you to court would be much more expensive and time-consuming than suing you. I also learned that there were zero cases of Getty suing for the unauthorized use of one image.
So, of course, they may sue people in the future, I don’t know. But I felt this was extortion and simply decided not to buckle to their demands and they ultimately gave up.
Nevertheless, I now only use images from Fotolia.com (owned by Adobe). I post one blog article a week and can usually find a good picture through their service which costs me a grand total of $1.35.
Good luck and I recommend you don’t let yourself be extorted.
Cheers, Robert
The trick is to do NOTHING.
No responses. No return calls. No replies.
Give them silence and let them punch themselves out.
They sent me “infringement” extortionist letters for almost 2 years… none of which I responded to. They eventually just went away.
It’s very difficult to extort from silence.
Best advice based on my own Getty experience — do absolutely nothing — and they will disappear.
I ran into the same issue just now. I really did not know about the image issue because some outsourced firm created the site for me until Getty Image emailed me. I have removed the image and I have shut down the site completely. So my question is do I still need to pay when my site is not active anymore??? they are asking for $855. Please advice
Using Image since maybe •1992•
Getty Image sent me a letter for an Image that we can date as far back at 1992 (15 years ago). It was being used in editorial. I wrote stating that way back then you did not have digital and we would of received a hard copy photo or slide of it from a Napa CA winery or visitors bureau to use in editorial. I asked them to look at their records as to when they got hold of this image or any details as I was betting the photographer sold them the rights long after that photographer allowed it years earlier to be used by others…
Anyway they keep harassing me and I keep asking for any info on this image and they send nothing! Never any proof even that they have any exclusive rights and when did this all transpire! I guess the photographer is double dipping 🙂
Drew
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your work on this topic. We are a small education non-profit (BeatCancer (dot) Org). We are getting these letters (not from Getty but from other companies) all of a sudden. I sent them the letter you posted above but I also added that we are an education website and were are protected by the fair use clause. They are persisting with their threats. What are your thoughts on the Fair Use Clause?
Hello, I am going trough this issue with a picture I shared on my website. they’re asking for $1563. The weird thing is that the picture in question is a picture of myself performing on a concert. My question is if the fact that it is my person on the picture makes any difference. The company that claim ownership of the picture is AFP (Agency France Presse) I don’t recall giving them any rights to use my image. Thanks for the advice.
The copyright holder is the photographer and if this was a public concert, the photographer may have had the right to take the photo. That depends on the terms of service of the venue. Bu8t assuming he had the right to take the photo, he then gave the right to Agency Presse to market and sell it. You may have the right to stop him or her from selling it because you are in it and he or she violated the rules at the concert. Also, you have rights of publicity but those rights are different in every state. So the short answer is that you might be able to stop the sale of the work and if so you can stop them from asking you for money for the infringement.
After receiving a letter from Getty Images, I immediately took down the offending image, but otherwise did not respond to them. They sent multiple followup letters threatening litigation, but offering lower sums than before to settle. I ignored all of those notices. They finally stopped sending anything and I haven’t heard from them since. That was over 2 years ago. So at least in cases where they’re not seeking large sums of money from large companies, it appears to be a bluff that they don’t intend to follow up on.
Has anyone ever discussed class action lawsuit?
Looks like a lot of people being unfairly targeted with extravagant extortion letters. We just got hit with letter from Stockfood America, apparently Getty subsidiary, about a photo that was submitted to our blog over 4 years ago by a PR firm for free.
We do our due diligence when content is submitted and have strict terms and conditions on our site that users have to agree to.
The photo in questions showed absolutely no sign of watermark or copyright in the details of photo.
When attempting to search for the photo, Google populates results in multiple sizes and on hundreds other publications all over the internet, none of which look to be copy written either.
At first we assumed the letter was a scam, and an attorney friend suggested to ignore them.
Yesterday we got an attorney settlement letter that states (in layman’s terms) even if we pay, they can continue to come back for more fees and penalties.
They are even attempting to say we altered the photo and its content? Over the years this photo has been on our site, it generated absolutely no money for us or used in an advertisement in any way.
It would seem that the “trolling” would involve flooding the market with photos that do not seem to be copy written, wait a few years, find who took the bait, and then sue for much more than they would ever get from selling the photo in a legitimate way.
How is this legal?
It would be very hard to do a class action against Getty, although not impossible. They do have the right to make these claims and the defendant has to the right to ignore them. As stated in the article, a little pushback usually makes them go away. However, there is a buyer beware type issue here where what they do is possibly immoral but not necessarily illegal.
Just wanted to report that we went through this last year. We are a business who answers their phones and emails, so ignoring it was not an option. We used this letter and found that the image in question was worth about $8 (and they wanted hundreds).
We thought it was a corporate stock image (which is may have been), but it had been on our website for years, the corporate contact was no longer available, and we couldn’t find how we originally found it (note to self — keep better records on website images!). We immediately took it down and was able replace it with our own version (with a cell phone camera in outdoor light which looked as good, if not better).
We had been in contact with the staff at the small attorney’s office in CA and, after convincing them that we weren’t the (deep pockets) corporate office and only a small business franchise, letting them know that we will only continue communications with them in writing and only with the authorized individual in our office, and using this letter, we have not heard back in nearly a year. Thank you so much for posting this letter!!!