So upset: cease and desist settlement demand!

[cmsuper]

you get what you paid for

 

[Verve Designs]

I've just been sent an email from istock telling me there's 15% off today if you use the code "15perk".....don't know if that's of any use to anyone.

 

[carlytaylor1986]

Well- technically, you're in breach of copyright I think (again, I'm not a lawyer, I just have to keep an eye on this kind of thing for my work)

The law says that copying and an infringement is "copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form, including storing it in any medium by electronic means".

Now, is the artist REALLY likely to see it? Probably not.

Is he/she a multi-million pound company that uses sophisticated software to track image use violation? No.

Would it be "identical" enough to class as a "copy"? well, without seeing the orignial, we can't say. There are plenty of elephants about.

I probably wouldn't worry too much about it in reality.

As someone whos designs are often "stolen" and used without permission and payment, I find it annoying to be honest (especially as It's actually both mine AND a clients logo people are using). However, I've noticed LOADS of logos that are my "style", and there's nothing I can do about that really- and nor would I want to do anything about it.

I think it would be best to pop the artist an email in the future to see if they mind, and perhaps pop them a tenner via Paypal

p.s. It's very nice!

p.p.s There used to be a law (and I'm not sure if it still stands) that if a work is 33% different then it doesn't class as "copying". If that's true or not, I really don't know- it might have changed. But if your interpretation is sufficiently different then you should be ok.

I didn't want to read and run either...but I had to do law for my legal secretarial course, I am not sure if it is 33% but in law it states something like if it is less than a certain percentage it's not classed as copying, i think it may be less than 33%. so you can use up to that percentage of a person's work without having to get their permission, such as you hear on Eastenders, parts of songs in the pub etc, they wouldn't have had to get permission from the artist to play that part of their song as it was less than a certain percent. hope that helps :-/ xx

 

[LilMissEmmylou]

such as you hear on Eastenders, parts of songs in the pub etc, they wouldn't have had to get permission from the artist to play that part of their song as it was less than a certain percent. hope that helps :-/ xx

Actually TV companies pay hefty licences to the PRS to enable them to play music on their TV shows even as background music.

 

[persianista]

I didn't want to read and run either...but I had to do law for my legal secretarial course, I am not sure if it is 33% but in law it states something like if it is less than a certain percentage it's not classed as copying, i think it may be less than 33%. so you can use up to that percentage of a person's work without having to get their permission, such as you hear on Eastenders, parts of songs in the pub etc, they wouldn't have had to get permission from the artist to play that part of their song as it was less than a certain percent. hope that helps :-/ xx

Incorrect. If part of a song is used on telly, a % of royalty is paid for that use.

On another note, does the business use for photos apply to blogs? I often see photos used on blogs.

 

[Alpenrose]

Getty Images use bullying tactics to get people scared and pay eventually.

However, Male Waxer is right - they will have to prove that you caused them loss equal to the amount stated on the bill, assumption of innocence you know. Also, they should have given you the warning and only demand someting if you refused to remove offending image.

If you don't pay they will just keep sending these scary letters and eventually will pass it on to "debt collectors" who will bully you, but it will not affect your credit rating, as it is not a proper debt collection company - it is just their department designed to bully people into paying. Do not give them any personal information, such as whether you are a homeowner or not or whether you have a car, as they will use it against you.

Eventually they will realise that they won't squeze a penny from you and move on.

It is stressfull, but this is what I did (or rather did not) when I was billed £1200 for one image. I never paid anything, they did not chase me in court and it did not affect my credit score (my credit score is higher than average in UK).

I was in exactly the same situation and totally unaware that I did wrong (now I understand that it is not excuse). I now use Fotolia that is very affordable and you can by images of various resolution and have unlimited use. They have fantastic choice.

 

[Verve Designs]

Getty Images use bullying tactics to get people scared and pay eventually.

However, Male Waxer is right - they will have to prove that you caused them loss equal to the amount stated on the bill, assumption of innocence you know. Also, they should have given you the warning and only demand someting if you refused to remove offending image.

If you don't pay they will just keep sending these scary letters and eventually will pass it on to "debt collectors" who will bully you, but it will not affect your credit rating, as it is not a proper debt collection company - it is just their department designed to bully people into paying. Do not give them any personal information, such as whether you are a homeowner or not or whether you have a car, as they will use it against you.

Eventually they will realise that they won't squeze a penny from you and move on.

It is stressfull, but this is what I did (or rather did not) when I was billed £1200 for one image. I never paid anything, they did not chase me in court and it did not affect my credit score (my credit score is higher than average in UK).

I was in exactly the same situation and totally unaware that I did wrong (now I understand that it is not excuse). I now use Fotolia that is very affordable and you can by images of various resolution and have unlimited use. They have fantastic choice.

That's entirely your perogative- and I'm glad it worked for you.

But there's no such thing (as you now know) as "assumption of innocence"- regardless of whether you agree with it or not, and although it's almost always dealt with as a civil procedure it's still a criminal offence. The amount of loss is irrelevant.

If you stole a Mars Bar from a shop, it's the same as tucking the till under your arm! It's the same offense.

Although I think its absolutely worth contesting as much as you can, I really would advise people in this situation to contact some sort of legal advice first.

p.s. I do think the amounts Getty as the like are asking for are absolutely disgraceful- it's clear in most of these cases that they're simply "accidents" or ignorance of the rules. Just simply asking for the equivalent payment of what it would have cost in the first place surely makes more sense. But is less of a deterrant I suppose.

 

[Alpenrose]

That's entirely your perogative- and I'm glad it worked for you.

But there's no such thing (as you now know) as "assumption of innocence"- regardless of whether you agree with it or not, and although it's almost always dealt with as a civil procedure it's still a criminal offence. The amount of loss is irrelevant.

If you stole a Mars Bar from a shop, it's the same as tucking the till under your arm! It's the same offense.

Although I think its absolutely worth contesting as much as you can, I really would advise people in this situation to contact some sort of legal advice first.

p.s. I do think the amounts Getty as the like are asking for are absolutely disgraceful- it's clear in most of these cases that they're simply "accidents" or ignorance of the rules. Just simply asking for the equivalent payment of what it would have cost in the first place surely makes more sense. But is less of a deterrant I suppose.

If I stole the Mars bar, they would have to prove that I really did, not the other way round. It is not enough to find it in my pocket - I could buy it elswhere. They will have to supply evidence such as witness statement or cctv showing that I have put it in my pocket and left without paying. You cannot walk up to me and say: "I think you stole a Mars bar and I will lock you for 10 years." There are procedures to be followed.

Getty Images can't just put a random amount and send you a bill, this amount has to be justifyied by presenting relevant paperwork, such as costs of producing the image or estimate for potential revenue lost.

Although I totally agree that legal advice is a must, I also think that they know full well why this happens and this is why they create such emotionally scary letters. You are expected to read it, get scared and pay, without even thinking of getting legal advice or at least doing some research on this matter.

 

[Verve Designs]

If I stole the Mars bar, they would have to prove that I really did, not the other way round. It is not enough to find it in my pocket - I could buy it elswhere. They will have to supply evidence such as witness statement or cctv showing that I have put it in my pocket and left without paying. You cannot walk up to me and say: "I think you stole a Mars bar and I will lock you for 10 years." There are procedures to be followed.

Getty Images can't just put a random amount and send you a bill, this amount has to be justifyied by presenting relevant paperwork, such as costs of producing the image or estimate for potential revenue lost.

Although I totally agree that legal advice is a must, I also think that they know full well why this happens and this is why they create such emotionally scary letters. You are expected to read it, get scared and pay, without even thinking of getting legal advice or at least doing some research on this matter.

I think we broadly agree that it's a nasty tactic...but I'm not sure I agree with this

"If I stole the Mars bar, they would have to prove that I really did, not the other way round"

The picture you'd used illegaly would be on your website?...the analogy was about degrees of illegality, not proof. It's actually a damn sight easier to prove you've "stolen" an image.

Yes, they can "make up" an amount to bill you. That's not illegal- it's a bill for that image not a "fine" in a legal sense- and companies can broadly charge whatever they like.

What they're basically saying is "pay this amount" or either a) we'll sue you. b) we call the cops.

Now, that might seem mental that they'd get the law involved for something so apparently trivial, however you must not forget that at the end of the day it is an illegal offense.

I'm a member of lots of design forums and there are rumblings that someone, somewhere is going to get a knock on the door- they'll make a big publicity thing out of it to scare people off (because they're a multi million dollar organisation)...much like they do with illegal music sharing.

It's hugely unlikely, of course, but I don't fancy that being me!

Let's just all agree not to "borrow" the bloody things in the first place! I'm pretty sure Getty's lawyers know how copyright law works. It's kinda crucial to their business

 

[LilMissEmmylou]

Let's just all agree not to "borrow" the bloody things in the first place! I'm pretty sure Getty's lawyers know how copyright law works. It's kinda crucial to their business

here here