legal question re picture

C

cherokee1111

Suspended / Banned
Messages
822
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend has been contacted by Getty images as a single image on his website is apparently theirs and they want over £700 as he set up the site a year a go, the site was designed by a small company who said they got it from a non copyright website (but cant prove it now), my friend has immediately removed the image but does anyone know where he stands legally as it's a genuine error immediately ratified. First thought was the design company should be responsible but as he owns the website he is the main responsible person.
Anyone similar experiences?
 
getty are very active in this area.. have top people on the job and they dont often get it wrong.. sorry to say but my guess is he is screwed :(
 
My guess would be, and I don't propose being an expert in this field, that he is going to have to pay up as he can't prove the image is rights-free. If I was him I'd be straight onto the design company trying to recoup any costs from them though!
 
Yes. And he'll have to pursue his design company for recompense.
 
if the design company paid getty for the image then I suspect he should be fine if not then he needs to sue the design company.

I would say he is not directly responsable as the site was designed by a company.

cherokee1111 said:
A friend has been contacted by Getty images as a single image on his website is apparently theirs and they want over £700 as he set up the site a year a go, the site was designed by a small company who said they got it from a non copyright website (but cant prove it now), my friend has immediately removed the image but does anyone know where he stands legally as it's a genuine error immediately ratified. First thought was the design company should be responsible but as he owns the website he is the main responsible person.
Anyone similar experiences?
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
I would say he is not directly responsable as the site was designed by a company.
Click to expand...

It really doesnt matter who designed it.. its his website thus his problem. the fact that the designers have dropped him in it means little.. he is the one using and publishing it not the designers
 
KIPAX said:
It really doesnt matter who designed it.. its his website thus his problem. the fact that the designers have dropped him in it means little.. he is the one using and publishing it not the designers
Click to expand...

It may depend on the wording of the contract with the design company.

If it included, for example, a clause such as 'The design company will supply suitable royalty free images for the website' then that (to me) would sound like a fairly good defence.

It is interesting to see how people react to this thread compared to the other current copyright thread (link)
 
Faldrax said:
It may depend on the wording of the contract with the design company.

If it included, for example, a clause such as 'The design company will supply suitable royalty free images for the website' then that (to me) would sound like a fairly good defence.
Click to expand...

But he still cant get past the fact that its his website and he is showing/publishing it... that really is the bee all and end all of it.. even if he proves he was duped into thinking it was royalty free.. the fact remains it wasnt and he is publishing it so he has to foot the bill..
 
Faldrax said:
It may depend on the wording of the contract with the design company.

If it included, for example, a clause such as 'The design company will supply suitable royalty free images for the website' then that (to me) would sound like a fairly good defence.

It is interesting to see how people react to this thread compared to the other current copyright thread (link)
Click to expand...

The wording of the contract may show the way for the site owner to seek recompense from the design company but nothing, repeat, nothing in the contract can absolve the site owner from responsibility for content.
 
If you own the website then you are responsible for the content - and for obtaining copyright clearance where required. It is no defence to say that a web designer put the content on the site.
 
KIPAX said:
But he still cant get past the fact that its his website and he is showing/publishing it... that really is the bee all and end all of it.. even if he proves he was duped into thinking it was royalty free.. the fact remains it wasnt and he is publishing it so he has to foot the bill..
Click to expand...

yep spot on - I had a similar issue at work earlier this year where a designer had used a load of copyright photos on a set of info boards. Our legal advice was it was clear that it was our liability not the designer ( As a matter of interest I managed to negotiate a quid pro quo solution, but I suspect that getty will be less open to negotiation than my guy)

I'd suggest that the guy concerned takes legal advice as a priority - but it will almost certainly wind up cheaper to pay up than fight a court action.

He should also put things in train to recover the money from the designers asap - if hes lucky they might be amenable to a fast settlement rather than risk negative publicity so he wouldnt be out of pocket for long.
 
To me it's the design co fault,lazy of them not to check the copyright,of the photos,I think he going to have to pay up,or come to some sought of deal,but I would get onto the design Co,straight away :)
 
KIPAX said:
It really doesnt matter who designed it.. its his website thus his problem. the fact that the designers have dropped him in it means little.. he is the one using and publishing it not the designers
Click to expand...

I disagree, he's paid a website company (I assume) to create the site, they are responsibl for the original content, the op's friend didint put up the picture the design company did it. They should pay
 
I'm afraid that just isn't the position. The publisher of the website is the responsible person. A web design company are not responsible for content - by definition they are responsible for the design. If the client allows the designer to source pictures then it's the client who is being lazy - it's their site after all.
 
Last edited:
thanks for all the comments.

Common sense dictates that as the owner of the website you are responsible for any content and I think he has resolved himself to that fact, however, isn't it enough that he deleted it straight away and confirmed to Getty it was a mistake and can prove they didn't get it from the Getty website and will never use it again? seems harsh to charge a huge amount.

On another point, if Getty are legally secure in this and will secure payment, what's to stop them finding innocent cases like this and just letting them roll up for 5 years then sending out invoices for 5 times the amount secure in the knowledge they will get paid?
 
If the boot was on the other foot , look how regularly we have threads about people breaching togs copyright and whether we can charge them etc - If he can prove where he got it and that that site was copyright free he'd have a defence, but I thought you said that the agency couldnt prove it

on the second point practically nothing - except that if it was possible to prove they knew about it waiting 5 years might be considered de facto aceptance... but its not really a case of an "innocent case" - we are all responsible for the content of our websites and not checking where it came from is just plain careless - at the end of the day copyright breach is copyright breach and ignorance of the source of the images isnt a defence.
 
In answer to your first question - just taking the picture down is not enough - the offence has been committed - it would be a bit like letting a shoplifter off becuase they returned the goods. I'm sure getty and others pursue claims as soon as they know about them - I certainly do.
 
Don't be to hasty to pay the bill.
We have had a similar issue on one of our business forums this week and it would seem that Getty send you threatening emails making you out to be guilty and make you prove your innocence. The law says you are innocent until they can prove you to be guilty.

Apparently they don't have a leg to stand on and non of their cases have made it to court.

The thread is here and has a few interesting links.
http://www.ekmcommunity.com/showthr...-photos-from-Google-a-warning&highlight=Getty

Sorry just realised that the thread is locked unless you are a member, so here are some of the links
http://www.zyra.info/getstu.htm
http://extortionletterinfo.com/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091015051750AApWh7Y

Good luck
 
Last edited:
Guilty. And bang to rights. But I suspect there is some negotiation on £700 - a bird in the hand and all that, is better than one you've got to chase through the courts and who then defaults anyway.
 
As far as I'm aware, there is no 'Guilt' or 'Innocence' in civil actions, which is the only proccedings Getty would undertake.

There's a principle of reasonableness involved in all this, and it would be reasonable to suppose that someone you'd employed had done everything legally. Thats the question which your friend should leave to hang.

In theory, he could be summonsed for a criminal charge, but Getty aren't going to get any cash from that, which is why it wont happen.
 
its interesting to see the difference in attitudes about copyright depending on whos site and photos it is. Ignorance is no defence in the law, but if the OPs friend has to pay Getty then I assume he would have a good case for sueing the designers.
 
Bernie174 said:
As far as I'm aware, there is no 'Guilt' or 'Innocence' in civil actions, which is the only proccedings Getty would undertake.

There's a principle of reasonableness involved in all this, and it would be reasonable to suppose that someone you'd employed had done everything legally. Thats the question which your friend should leave to hang.

In theory, he could be summonsed for a criminal charge, but Getty aren't going to get any cash from that, which is why it wont happen.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point Bernie. There are pictures on the website that are there without permission. That is guilty, and the owner of the website is responsible, even if it's not, theoretically, their fault.

Getty have no interest in pursuing anyone but the owner and publisher of the website. The owner should certainly seek recompense from the site designers but that's not the issue here.
 
HoppyUK said:
Guilty. And bang to rights. But I suspect there is some negotiation on £700 - a bird in the hand and all that, is better than one you've got to chase through the courts and who then defaults anyway.
Click to expand...


Exactly what I was thinking. Getty usually charge by a factor of about 10 for unauthorised use from what I've seen, so there may well be some mileage for negotiation.

However the website owner is responsible and once the case is settled it will then be up to him to sue his designers in turn for full costs.
 
DemiLion said:
Exactly what I was thinking. Getty usually charge by a factor of about 10 for unauthorised use from what I've seen, so there may well be some mileage for negotiation.

However the website owner is responsible and once the case is settled it will then be up to him to sue his designers in turn for full costs.
Click to expand...

This is the answer.
 
HoppyUK said:
I don't understand your point Bernie. There are pictures on the website that are there without permission. That is guilty, and the owner of the website is responsible, even if it's not, theoretically, their fault.

Getty have no interest in pursuing anyone but the owner and publisher of the website. The owner should certainly seek recompense from the site designers but that's not the issue here.
Click to expand...

Bernie's point is that Getty would bring a civil action, for which technically there is no such thing as a 'Guilty' finding. The court either finds for the plaintiff or the defendant. It's a matter of language more than anything else.
 
KIPAX said:
getty are very active in this area.. have top people on the job and they dont often get it wrong.. sorry to say but my guess is he is screwed :(
Click to expand...

Getty use Picscout, which reading their terms get paid a percentage of the monies recovered.
Stop press - just read that Getty bought Picscout for $20m. I guess they are finding it profitable
 
Byker28i said:
Interesting because I only recently read this story of a small business being taken to court by Getty

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty
Click to expand...

Yeah quite , and as it says in that article if someone is using their pictures without permision getty have a cast iron case for infringement - so anyone advising that they "dont have a leg to stand on" is talking through their fundamental orifice

the other thing that article illustrates is the unwisdom of delaying tactics - the longer its dragged on for the higher gettys legal costs and so the higher the bill when it finally reaches court - compared to the £26k bill that guy wound up with just paying the 700 notes and learning from the experience makes a lot of sense.
 
I'd like to think the libraries that represent my work would pursue infringements as effectively as Getty. We have to stop this copyright theft.
 
awp said:
We have to stop this copyright theft.
Click to expand...

^^this^^
Subsitute the name Getty with any TP user and there would be very few dissenting voices on here about the rights and wrongs of this, seems that because its a large profitable company some would rather see them not get whats due, theft is theft wether from a large company or a small photographer.
 
Tioc said:
^^this^^
Subsitute the name Getty with any TP user and there would be very few dissenting voices on here about the rights and wrongs of this, seems that because its a large profitable company some would rather see them not get whats due, theft is theft wether from a large company or a small photographer.
Click to expand...

I think most people would have sympathy for the guy who owns the website.. yes he is in the wrong and yes it is him who will ahve to pay... his crime isnt stealing copyrighted pictures.. his crime is at best ignorance and trusting the design company who told him it was alright...
 
Tioc said:
^^this^^
Subsitute the name Getty with any TP user and there would be very few dissenting voices on here about the rights and wrongs of this, seems that because its a large profitable company some would rather see them not get whats due, theft is theft wether from a large company or a small photographer.
Click to expand...

I've got no problem with Getty getting paid for unauthorised usage, but equally I see little problem in trying to negotiate with them in respect of their penalty fees.

It's not theft by the way, it's breach of copyright.
 
My understanding is breech of copyright is theft of intellectual property , no ?
 
I think the technical definition of theft includes an element describing the original owner to have been deprived of use of their possession. Obviously reproducing somebody's copyrighted image satisfies the need to have taken something without consent, but different from a physical possession such as a camera, an image also still remains to be used by the owner. I believe it's in this regard that breaching copyright can't be classified as theft.
 
My employers had exactly the same problem a year ago for one of their business. the web designer and publisher was able to provide a link to the site they obtained the picture from. It was in the public domain with no copyright or watermark and our lawyers therefore suggested we send a letter to Getty informing them of this information and the link and we never heard anything else from them!

If the OPs designer can provide a similar link i would suggest he does something similar.
 
Blackwijet said:
My employers had exactly the same problem a year ago for one of their business. the web designer and publisher was able to provide a link to the site they obtained the picture from. It was in the public domain with no copyright or watermark and our lawyers therefore suggested we send a letter to Getty informing them of this information and the link and we never heard anything else from them!

If the OPs designer can provide a similar link i would suggest he does something similar.
Click to expand...

but just because a picture is in the public domain with no watermark or copyright info doesnt automatically mean that its free to use - that description fits about 90% of the images on this site for a start.

every picture is copyright to someone (usually the tog who took it) and they are only free to use if it is expressly stated that they are
 
TriggerHappy said:
I think the technical definition of theft includes an element describing the original owner to have been deprived of use of their possession. Obviously reproducing somebody's copyrighted image satisfies the need to have taken something without consent, but different from a physical possession such as a camera, an image also still remains to be used by the owner. I believe it's in this regard that breaching copyright can't be classified as theft.
Click to expand...

"Theft"
An unskippable anti-piracy film included on movie DVDs equates copyright infringement with theft.Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[5] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[6]

A quick C&P job from wiki, but as demi said earlier semantics, its still a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top