Read: http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902. (Note: Getty also owns www.istockphoto.com.)
Yawn. I wish people would put (as they are supposed to) a flavour of the story instead of just a link.
So people are getting fined for breaking licensing agreements, where is the news in that? If you are designing someones site you should be paying the photos not stealing them. You work it into the price of the design.
That's not really the whole story. True that you shouldn't be stealing images anyway, but the argument is that Getty is sending people invoiced for a couple thousand dollars for every instance, when from what I've read at Sitepoint on it according to law you are required to first send a cease and desist letter and the person breaking the law has 10 days to remove the picture. Getter is bypassing the cease and desist method and simply fining people and sending this to collection agencies. Another argument that I've seen from people who have received these letters is that they got their image from some place such as Stock Exchange that deals with free images, yet Getty also had the image and sent an invoice/fine to the individual and Getty wouldn't listen to reason when told that they didn't get the image from them. I guess it's probably likely that is someone submits the picture to Getty, they probably have submitted it to other photo sites as well. I don't know the law or anything like that, but it seems like a case of entrapment to me. Getty is not really protecting their images at all just asking people to steal them, then sending them this big fine when they do. Yes, it's not right to steal, but not right for Getty to do what they are doing either. I sat and read that whole thread at SP one day, some good points there.
And the fact that they don't even send out C&D letters bugs me too. Also, PicScout travels under the radar and disobeys robots.txt files.
There should always be charge on this issue as it's never allowed under and law or even principles to steal the things instead of providing the original design.....................
What Getty is doing is putting their images up with very little protection, under the name "royalty-free." Now, small Mom and Pop websites see this name and assume all images are free for the taking. These people often have little or no knowledge of copyright laws, on the internet or elsewhere. Getty waits for this, then sends them a bill for $1,000 USD per image, essentially killing their business, if not personal, finances.
There is absolutely no requirement to send out a C&D letter. If you steal something, you don't get a warning. It is the sites owner responsibility to know where every photo came from. If you hire a designer, you may be able to sue them to recover what you have to pay in damages - but you are ultimately responsible for all content on your site.