Is that an English law? That's interesting. In the USA, there's no law (that I am aware of) saying a company must give you the opportunity to get away with copyright infringement.
Well thats what happened to me when i was younger , with infringement and it was from ebay the guy ws from USA that sent me the warning that i forgot about then got a fine.
There are huge differences between the US and most if not all European countries in cases like these. One such difference is that it can actually be a defence to beThere are huge differences between the US and most if not all European countries in cases like these. One such difference is that it can actually be a defence to be ignorant in many European countries as long as your not ignorant to the law but to other surrounding facts such as to the status of the picture. I.e. If you didn't know about copyright laws = No excuse. If you where ignorant about the true copyright status of a picture and there was a reason for your ignorance (like for example if you got a copyrighted image from a source that claimed it to be public domain) = Valid Excuse until you learn about the truth. I.e. you have to take the picture down within reasonable time after being informed about the status of the image.
Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs would be delighted to receive copies of Getty Images' illegal invoices, which are headed with a US address, posted in London, with no VAT number but charging UK VAT. It is illegal to charge UK VAT without a UK VAT number on the invoice. The department of HM Revenue & Customs that is investigating this can be contacted as follows: Phone: 0800 595 000 E-mail: Fax: 0800 528 0506 (e.g. to fax a copy of the invoice) Postal address: Customs Confidential Freepost SEA 939 PO Box 100 Gravesend DA12 2BR The lack of a UK VAT number suggests that Getty Images in the United States (in whose name the invoices are issued) could keep the VAT and not pass it on to HM Revenue & Customs. The invoices appear to be posted from Getty Images' London office, the address of which is: 101 Bayham Street LONDON NW1 0AG
If it makes you feel any better, J. Paul Getty once was the richest man in the world, but he's been dead a very long time. He, at least, won't be getting your money.
I am with Skull on this one, they should at least inform you that you are infringing copyright and then ask for money. P.S.: Paul Getty isn't the richest man of the world. IT
Why? Should the police inform you that you are driving past the speed limit first and then ticket you if you do it again---at the same exact spot? I'm curious as to the logic behind this thought. BTW, The NY Times had an article today about Getty's trust account.
It depends whether the driver had good reason to believe that a reduced speed limit was in force on the road. If the speed limit signs were missing or obscured, then the driver would be excused and would not be prosecuted. We're talking about something very similar here with copyright. If the defendant had no reason to believe that the image was copyright, then Getty have no case. That's why Section 97 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 exists - to protect the defendant in exactly this scenario.
This was also talked about over on SP... Here's the thread.. Maybe something they bring up can help... http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902
In the U.S. (and I believe the EU) all creative works, including images, are copyrighted unless there is an explicit notice that they are in the public domain or licensed for copying. If someone lies to you, and says images can be distributed, you probably have a case to recover any fines or other expenses from the person who mislead you.
Section 97 states "Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy." The defendant does not have to recover any fines or other expenses from the party that misled the defendant. The law is very clear - the plaintiff (e.g. Getty Images) is not entitled to damages against the defendant.
I belive this summarize the problem. Getty images when free are for personal, no-commerical purposes only. Having AdSense is making money, hence a TOS break.
This is interesting. Getty used to be one of the more "friendly" sources in terms of dealing with these issues. They used to send letters requesting items be removed, and that was the end of it, from what I gathered in the past. This seems like a new era for Getty.
For every innocent person who unknowingly makes a web site with copyrighted images, it seems like there are 10 people who know and simply don't care. They may have become tired of playing nice.
Getty seems to have adopted a policy of being extremely aggressive in going after copyright infringement. While many companies will not bother to go after someone whom they cannot collect from, Getty seems prepared to take a loss in legal fees to make a statement. They sued someone I know in the US even though this person had very little assets - and for an amount of $6,000. They won a default judgment and sent it to collection. I don't know if they will collect anything, but it will remain on this persons credit report for 7 years. Getty doesn't care if you didn't know. They don't care if you removed it as soon as you were notified. You are guilty as soon as the image is placed on your website. Getty did make an initial offer to settle for a smaller amount and if I was in this position, I would make an offer to settle for as little as possible - as trying to fight something like this in court will wind up costing more in legal fees even if you were to win - which is very unlikely.
Getty "has not filed a lawsuit against a photo thief in at least four years, according to John Lapham, the vice president responsible for legal affairs at Getty." Source: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112897424251164666-0mFu92_5xrCHDRrqLE9YeCOfOnI_20061015.htm Jonny
That's an old quote. It appears Getty is now more serious about dealing with infringement. They use a collection firm that is based in London.