I need help with some questions answered about copyright infringement

[freelanceshots]

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>


Here is the scenario:





I built a basic website for a small to medium sized company here
in Little Rock Arkansas over four years ago where I did all the
photography and design work. The photography included shooting all
their items in their inventory plus exterior shots of the building,
trucks and their products out in the field. When I built the website
I made a simple directions page that had a map that linked to yahoo
maps plus I added two thumbnail images of simple road signs to add to the fact that this was a directions page. I
ended up coping two straight forward road sign images from yahoo images. Both of these images where sized at approx
180 pixel x 70 pixel and where at a strange 96dpi for the web.


Just a few days ago this company received a letter from Getty Images. Getty Images is
claiming that one of the road sign images is/was copyrighted by one of
their photographers and that they are owed 600.00 no questions asked, paid right now.


Today I talked to one of my contract job's project administrators
that handles huge national photography projects and he said he
thought if an image on the web was not noted with copyright info
written on it or if it did not have copyright info in the meta data
then the image was not protected and then open to be copied.


With this said I would have never used an image that was
copyrighted where I thought a thumbnail road sign image would not have been of such importance. I think Getty Images is just trying to push
people around by scaring them since they are such a huge imaging
company where they just think people will fold and pay them the
money. As a working photographer in a tough market I personally would
not flip my lid and try and charge someone 600 dollars for such a
small, low quality and unimportant image. If someone was to use one
of my images that I put on the web I make sure to upload them at a
very small size where I wouldn't really care if someone used it
because of this fact.


Does anyone have any info/suggestions that they could give me from a
professional point of few? We have since taken the image down and
have given an apology where Getty Images is still going to pursue
collecting the money. If the fee was lower and more reasonable I
would just pay it since they are claiming that it was copyrighted but
600 dollars for a thumbnail sized image for web use is outrageous. Remember I downloaded this image 4 to 5 years ago where since then the web has progressed in many ways and that includes copyright rules.

[Geoff]

Based on my limited research in copyright laws, it's my understanding that a work does not need to be explicitly marked as "copyright" for it to be protected under US laws.


The mere act of creating the work (i.e. a photograph) automatically gives it a copyright per a change in the copy right laws by the US congress sometime back in the 1970's, if my memory is correct.

[freelanceshots]

Yea it looks pretty cut and dry at this point but the only thing that gets me is how small and unimportant the image is. I can walk outside my house and take a picture of a road sign. I just don't know what I was thinking at that time when I added it to the site. 600 dollars is way to much for this image and what it was used for. Talk about price gouging!

[Keith B]

Geoff is correct.


I would remove the image asap and ignore the demand for the $600. I'm sure other letters will follow but I doubt there will be any legal action taken.

[HDNitehawk]

Unfortunatly I have spent to much time with an attorney talking about company matters


If I had done what you have done so far, our attorney would have chewed me out for sending an apology letter.


Second, what you didn't say is, Have you verified that the picture does indeed belong to them. I would want to see that proof before I paid a thing.


If you have done a search of internet about this I think you will find alot of people getting the same type of letter.

[freelanceshots]

Once we received the letter I was told to remove the image immediately which I did and the warehouse business manager wrote a email back to the Getty company saying that the image had been removed and that they were not aware that the particular image was copyrighted . An apology was sent as well where Getty's wrote back no excuses and your still responsible to cover the fee. Yesterday I advised the local business that I built the site for to turn it over to their attorney and have him ask for paperwork to be sent to him to verify when the road sign image became property of the Getty's company. Getty Images states that this image is property of one of their photograpahers and that they are taking action because he works for them. I would think that most big organizations would be ok with you taking the image down and be done with it but Getty's seems to be willing to take legal action by the sound of their letters of course. The local business is scared because they have a lot more to loose then say me. I would have laughed at Getty's if they tried to contact me.

[freelanceshots]

Here is the last response Getty sent:



<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]Thank you for your email. The image at issue in this
settlement is a Getty Rights Managed (RM) image, exclusively available for
license through <span style="border-bottom: 2px dotted #366388; cursor: pointer;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1281762485_5"]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.
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]Despite the removal of the image from the <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'sans-serif';"]http://www.________________
<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]website, the prior unauthorized use of the image on the website resulted
in the aesthetic enhancement of the website, which the law considers a benefit
to ----------------------. Since <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1281762485_7"]copyright infringement already
occurred, payment for that benefit is necessary. We are acting on behalf
of our represented photographers who are entitled to compensation for the use
of their intellectual property. Please understand we stand to protect our
photographers from copyright infringement even if it was unintentional.
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]Absent the appropriate licenses surrounding the specific use of
the image in question &ndash; the settlement amount of $600.00 as presented,
represents what Getty Images would expect to receive in a matter such as this
for the unauthorized use of our represented photographer&rsquo;s image. Please
understand that, as exclusive licensor of the image in question, Getty Images
is seeking compensation for the unauthorized usage of our represented
photographers work. Getty Images&rsquo; responsibility to its represented
photographers is not only to appropriately license the use of their images to
its customers, but to also protect its represented photographer&rsquo;s intellectual
property from unauthorized use and to maintain the exclusive availability of
the image through Getty Images. Getty Images needs to recover the lost
licensing fees along with its substantial costs of enforcement (Actual
Damages). Had the infringement not occurred, Getty Images would not have had to
deploy the additional resources needed to pursue this matter with respect to
the infringing website.
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Please get
back to me with your intentions, or with any further questions you may have, so
that we may resolve this issue as quickly and as amicably as possible.
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]Best Regards,

[peety3]

With all due respect, why didn't you take pictures of the road signs while you were shooting all of their products?


If I were handling it, I'd ask how much to license the images for the intended use. If it came in lower than $600, I'd have the attorneys settle for that amount. Otherwise, I'd suggest paying the $600 and moving onward. Your lawyers can burn that much long before the matter is settled.


I'd also explore whether those pictures were unique enough to command a price or even to be able to determine that Getty's images match what you had copied.

[IAMB]

FYI, you should do a bit of digging on the web before even considering paying what they want. Getty is notorious for legal bullying and to my knowledge have never followed through on their legal threats.

[scalesusa]

It always suprises me as to why someone would take a image that does not belong to them and use it to make money. It is plain theft, and stealing a small item versus a large one is still dishonest.


The image likely has a signature recorded in the exif or code that identifies it. Getty and others have search engines that scour the web for unauthorized use of their images.


Just pay up, and count it as a lesson learned.