Is "Getty" Getting You Down?

Could you please provide me with some references for these claims about the copyright water mark and EXIF data. I do not understand what the EXIF data or a watermark has to do with a copyright issue.

I've never seen the term entrapment used outside of a case involving law enforcement. Do you have any case law where "entrapment" has been applied to a case in tort law?

j

 

What happened with the Getty cases on here? My client has recently been sent one of these letters and as the designer of her site which I did in 2005 I have taken responsibility for this. I did not however get these images illegally I got them from istock- however istock compliance dept have said they never had these images on their site - I think they are just covering their backs. (they are part of Getty after all)

I found the photographer of the photos who knows nothing of this - so when Getty say they are protecting their photographers its a load of rubbish, I bet the photographers don't see a penny of the money Getty get out of us innocents.

I don't know whether to ignore it or write them a letter, but I certainly can't pay £1700 all at once.

Whats happened to everyone else? did you pay up? or cut a deal? or go to court, be really interested to find out?
we should all start some kind of online petition or get together to get this Getty extortion to stop.


Many thanks

 

Well, Designer77, you are in the U.K. It's a simple matter in the USA to make Getty go away...
(Hey! That rhymes!)

but I don't know the U.K. laws with regard to Getty.

It's important to understand that the collection agency Getty hired to collect money is paid on a commission. So, they have no interest in justice, they only want to see how much money they can (fairly or unfairly) squeeze out of you. Remember that. Don't expect sympathy or understanding. Getty debt collectors are like the Terminator: "It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead" THIS IS NOT A JOKE!

Here are some things to do to prepare yourself:
- Find the iStock receipt. Now.

- Learn everything you can about your local and nationwide laws related to debt collection. For example, in the USA, you absolutely do not have to volunteer any information whatsoever, whether asked or not.

- If you eventually decide to call the Getty representatives (which I DO NOT recommend), DO NOT USE YOUR OWN PHONE! If they get your phone number, they can and will harass you. Call from a payphone outside of your home area, or use a hotel phone.

Much of this will depend upon your understanding of laws regarding debt collection practices where you live.

 

Hi there thanks for your reply, my problems are;

1 - istock doesn't issue receipts when you buy a photo you just buy credits. So no paper trail you just have to take their word for it which doesnt account for much.

2 - the photos in questions has suspiciously dissapeared from my account - been in touch with istock compliance they say they never had those photos in the first place (Getty took over Istock so you cant beliebe anything istock say)

3 - the woman at istock compliance contacted getty (even thou istock are getty which is confusing) on my behalf - I never asked her too!



I think I am going to hire a lawyer...I can't afford to pay £1700 outright just like that...if they can't be bargained with not sure what to do, as I was hoping if I HAD to pay them they would take a monthly payment....anyone know if this is possible?

I have found this snippet of copyright law

Under section 97 of the Copyright, Designs and patents act 1988

“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.”

I would warn others even if you use istockphoto or sxc, make sure you keep backups of the files with original file numbers. You never know when they might take a photo off the site and then say it was never there in the first place, and then out of the blue Getty say it was theirs.


I can't believe there's no way to stop Getty treating people like this!!

 

That's because it has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the law. People can attack you and your reputation not based upon content, but based upon personal bias. These people are cowards. Personally, I have always enjoyed standing up to cowards - especially when they are too cowardly to sign their name. It just motivates me more (it's a Brooklyn thing...)!

I doubt you'd get anything from iStock - it's up to YOU to keep detailed records of your business. Very often, whenever I make a purchase online of a business-related asset, I will save a copy of the sale confirmation webpage, either as a PDF or as an HTML file. A PDF is better because it saves the creation date of the PDF inside the document.

You must have gotten SOMETHING from iStock? When you used the credits, you must have been emailed a receipt for the use of the credits? Hopefully, you didn't delete it - I urge you to search your past emails for that date for any evidence of your purchase.

Did you make a record of when you used the credits? Do you know the exact date? It's CRUCIAL that you do everything you can to find evidence of your legal purchase.

 

It has nothing to do with anything. Just someone showing how clueless they are again.

 

Not necessarily, this type of data has been used extensively in court cases to prove who originally created a document, when it was altered or if it was altered. Just search for "court cases and Meta Data" (which is a forum of digital data that most software programs leave when a document is created).

However, you are 100% correct the absense of watermarking images or EXIF data, does not change the legal basis for copyright infringement. It mearly can provide further evidence or proof that the data belongs an individual or corporation.

 

I caved in and paid Getty $500 in January of this year, a month passed and they never processed my check... I stopped the check and recently 7 months later, they started billing me again for a "replacement" check... if they are not going to process in a timely fashion, why pay them again? They recieved the check! I shouldn't have paid in the first place... now they are are harrassing me when payment was sent to them but never processed in a timely manner... Any Advice?

 

Send them a new check. Stopping payment on the check is against the law in many jurisdictions - you could be pursued civilly or even criminally. You had no right to stop payment on it because, in your opinion, you thought a month was "too long" for them to process it.