Amazing Cash Grab!

[Tom Snyder]

Totally unrelated to HTDV, but an amazing story, and probably a word of warning to anyone who does any design work.

Last week, my Web development company got a letter from the legal department at Getty Images, demanding payment for the use of one of their copyrighted images on our Web site. The price they determined was $1000, but they generously have offered a 10% discount if we pay by this Thursday and avoid a "costly legal battle."

Besides the fact that this whole thinks smacks of extortion, here's the amazing thing about this.

They use "search bots" to scour the Web for their images, and one of those bots managed to find a link in one of our client newsletters, followed that link to client area of our site, where it followed another link to a portfolio section for work we've done for our clients over the years, found a Flash movie we did for a Fortune 500 company several years ago, and about 15 seconds into the Flash movie "saw" an image covered by their copyright.  We licensed and paid for the original use of the image, but were a wholly owned subsidiary of another company at the time, and so the license was in the name that larger company.

But, according to their response to my reply to their letter, none of that is relevant. Nothing other than paying them will be considered acceptable (pleading ignorance, taking down the image and agreeing to not use it again, etc.).  But they did make a concession, and allowed us an additional 10 days to pay up.

I've been doing some research and apparently this has become a revenue strategy for Getty. They have digital "watermarks" embedded in their images, and they are searching for those watermarks in images in Web sites owned by companies who don't appear large enough to have their own legal department to defend against the claims in a court of law.

Moral of the story: If you own, manage and/or host a Web site, make absolutely sure that you have (and can produce) a copyright for ANY images on that site, and are using it in absolute conformity to the acceptable usage terms of that license. Unless you took the photo yourself, there's a chance that it is covered by a license that manages the rites of usage, and could subject you to financial liability.

[Bebop]

Just curious, what is the image?

[Tom Snyder]

It was a photo of a businessperson using a certain type of product (no specific brand) outside in a visibly identifiable European city.

[klwillis45]

It was a photo of a businessperson using a certain type of product (no specific brand) outside in a visibly identifiable European city.

This post begs you to guess what's in the pic.
I'll say it's a guy in Paris using a smartphone. Eiffel tower in background.

[cjucoder]

But, according to their response to my reply to their letter, none of that is relevant. Nothing other than paying them will be considered acceptable

Sounds like you received a canned reply.  I wonder what the chances are of them actually following through with their "costly legal battle" against everybody, or especially against you once a Getty human actually reads your letter.   Annoying regardless.

I don't blame a company for protecting its property, but then they need some GOOD way of matching their bot hits against licensees.  This sounds more like extortion via intimidation.  Can that be legal?

As a developer who does some web programs as well this is interesting to me.  Most of the time I am simply supplied graphics, but now you have me wondering.  Don't remember hearing of this Getty company before but I think I'll check mine anyway.