Ugh -- looks like I'm a thief - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

04/07/2008 01:16:00 PM · #1

Any advice you can give me is appreciated, although I think I already know the answer.

About eight years ago I set up a website for a family friend's business as a favor. As part of that, I used some images on the site. Some came from him, others I used from a royalty-free collection that came with CorelDraw. And then there was one other that I honestly don't remember where it came from. I was much less knowledgable of photo copyright back then, so it's certainly possible that it came from the web and I thought that it was ok.

I haven't looked at this site in years, but today got an email from the family friend saying he got a bill from Getty Images for the use of the image. Obviously I feel awful on several levels. First, if this guy is getting a bill for something that I screwed up on, I feel bad. Secondly, I feel bad that I used someone's property without their permission. I've seen enough threads on here to understand what that means.

The bill from Getty provides for a 15% discount off the amount if it's paid within the next couple days. My gut feeling is that we should just pay the bill and move on, poorer but smarter.

I guess I don't know what I'm really looking for advice on, but thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone had any thoughts.

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

04/07/2008 01:23:19 PM · #2

Hey Gary,
Is it possible that you obtained the image from a source PRIOR to it being submitted to Getty Images? If it was that long ago, perhaps someone had the image on a personal website and with the growth of stock on the web, subsequently submitted it to Getty. Just a thought, but if the image was posted on the site you made PRIOR to Getty having it and you can show that by file dates...you would probably have to remove the image either way, but perhaps not pay the bill.

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 13:24:34.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/07/2008 01:30:44 PM · #3

Thanks Chris. I'm not sure how I'd find that out. Here's the link to the image on Getty's web site for those that are curious: image

banmorn

Nikon D750

04/07/2008 01:37:40 PM · #4

Hmmmm...RU sure it's the same image? I have doubts that the Getty image actually existed 8 years ago....not sure why. I would inquire as to when the image was uploaded on Getty prior to your paying....

salmiakki

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/07/2008 01:42:15 PM · #5

Why would you think that? Just curious. It would appear to be a Joe Cornish image. He's a rather well known and long established British landscape photographer.
Joe Cornish

Originally posted by banmorn:

Hmmmm...RU sure it's the same image? I have doubts that the Getty image actually existed 8 years ago....not sure why.

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 13:45:42.

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

04/07/2008 01:43:15 PM · #6

The website should have logs or directory printouts that will show when the image was uploaded to the domain. Even 8 yrs. later they should be obtainable.

04/07/2008 01:43:26 PM · #7

It's definitely the same image. I've compared the two side-by-side and they're identical. The date thing is interesting and I will see about pursuing that. I'm morally torn about that, though. Since it's clearly the same image, the photographer in me feels that the photographer deserves to be compensated for it. The other voice on my shoulder is more the cheapskate who would like to find a way out.

Sigma 70-200 /2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM II

04/07/2008 01:44:32 PM · #8

Yes, that's true -- although I didn't know that until all of this unfolded. At least I have good taste :\

Originally posted by salmiakki:

Why would you think that? Just curious. It would appear to be a Joe Cornish image. He's a rather well known and long established British landscape photographer.

Originally posted by banmorn:
Hmmmm...RU sure it's the same image? I have doubts that the Getty image actually existed 8 years ago....not sure why.

Eyesup

Nikon D300

04/07/2008 01:45:25 PM · #9

Originally posted by banmorn:

quote from the Getty website:

"Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein founded Getty Images in 1995 with the goal of turning a disjointed and fragmented stock photography market into a thriving, modernized industry able to meet the changing needs of visual communicators. We were the first company to license imagery via the web, moving the entire industry online."

having said that you should still fing out when they obtained that image to be sure of where you stand... if you got it before they did, you'll likely not have to pay (though you'll likely have to take the photo down.

salmiakki

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/07/2008 01:46:58 PM · #10

Originally posted by eqsite:

Yes, that's true -- although I didn't know that until all of this unfolded. At least I have good taste :\

Definitely!

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

04/07/2008 01:48:55 PM · #11

Interested to see that it is a Joe Cornish photo - he is a very succesful British landscape photographer - several published books (I have two), his own gallery in North Yorkshire etc. His website is here.

Edit - beaten to it by

Salmiakki

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 13:59:36.

04/07/2008 01:49:32 PM · #12

Originally posted by Eyesup:

The photo was down within seconds of getting the email. Thankfully I still remembered the ftp password.

04/07/2008 01:51:59 PM · #13

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:
quote from the Getty website:

"Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein founded Getty Images in 1995 with the goal of turning a disjointed and fragmented stock photography market into a thriving, modernized industry able to meet the changing needs of visual communicators. We were the first company to license imagery via the web, moving the entire industry online."

having said that you should still fing out when they obtained that image to be sure of where you stand... if you got it before they did, you'll likely not have to pay (though you'll likely have to take the photo down.

The photo was down within seconds of getting the email. Thankfully I still remembered the ftp password.

Simply removing the image does not absolve you of infringement, unintentional as it may be.

04/07/2008 01:56:10 PM · #14

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Simply removing the image does not absolve you of infringement, unintentional as it may be.

No argument from me there.

salmiakki

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/07/2008 02:02:54 PM · #15

Originally posted by SaraR:

Edit - beaten to it by Salmiakki

Great minds think alike!

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 14:03:54.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/07/2008 02:06:03 PM · #16

My advice is to simply pay it and learn from the experience. You might send a letter expressing your sincere apologies for what was an unintentional act of infringement and attempt to negotiate a lower fee. (I'd only do this if actually paying the fee would really kill the business.)

P.S. My advice is, along with all of the other legal advice you get in internet forums, is worth the paper it's printed on. I'd call an IP attorney and get a consultation from him. He should at least be able to tell you if it's worth negotiating.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/07/2008 02:06:34 PM · #17

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Simply removing the image does not absolve you of infringement, unintentional as it may be.

No argument from me there.

I think it would be good to pay, but also to clarify whether Getty is entitled to the royalty payment, or whether it is due directly to the photographer; you don't want to end up paying both.

Also, once you pay the royalty/usage fee, you should be able to post it again.

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 14:07:11.

04/07/2008 02:10:36 PM · #18

Originally posted by GeneralE:

...
Also, once you pay the royalty/usage fee, you should be able to post it again.

Actually, the bill is very clear in this regard. Once the bill is paid we would need to negotiate additional licensing before using it again.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/07/2008 02:10:39 PM · #19

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Simply removing the image does not absolve you of infringement, unintentional as it may be.

No argument from me there.

I think it would be good to pay, but also to clarify whether Getty is entitled to the royalty payment, or whether it is due directly to the photographer; you don't want to end up paying both.

Also, once you pay the royalty/usage fee, you should be able to post it again.

Not necessarily.

Often, the royalty fee for infringement is specified for the term of infringement and no more.

That means a new licensing agreement would be needed to continue use of the image.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/07/2008 02:25:59 PM · #20

That's too bad. Hope it gets settled with a minimum of hassle.

banmorn

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/07/2008 02:40:26 PM · #21

From what I read, Getty went on line in 1997 and had 500,000 images on line by the end of 1998. It accumulated more and more stock companies and would have added them to their site over the years. So was the image part of an acuisition of a stock company after 2000? Course the matter seems to be mute cause even if it did acquire the image via another stock company acquisition after 2000 they still own the rights. That is why I wondered about it...longer ago than I thought.

glad2badad

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

04/07/2008 02:45:58 PM · #22

Originally posted by banmorn:

Look at the file properties...the image has a file # of 297xxx. Some files there now number in the millions (i.e. 200,000,000+). I'd say the image being discussed in this thread has been uploaded to stock for a considerable length of time.