Getty Images Copyrighted Images and Settlement

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Representing someone in Virginia

I am trying to find the answers to these questions on behalf of my ailed mother, who had once operated a small hobby-business over eBay "Reborning" dolls. She had acquired the efforts of another artist online to create a website some years later to showcase the work, and communicated/financed this effort over emails. Suffice it to say it has been years since the last sale of a doll due to my mother losing her eyesight(cataracts) but the website gallery was there to show what she had done when it was operational.

Inside this template, there was one outside image which was purchased by the web designer through Getty Images. The rights to this purchase and licenses have long been lost due to computer hardware failure and my mother was unaware of the usage of a Getty Images stock photo within her website.

Now that the background information is there for you to evaluate, I will tell you what has occured in the last month: Getty Images sent a Settlement letter addressed directly to the "Legal Department" of my mother's former business, stating not only to remove the image but that she owes them a lofty sum of $800. Mind you the image is no bigger than 200 pixels wide, so I thought this was either a scam or a mistake. I gave the phone number attached to the letter a call after two more letters arrived, each being increasingly more threatning than before. My mother is not a wealthy woman and cannot afford to lose $875.

I called and the number, along with the answering messages, was legitimate enough. I left a message and received a call back today. The lady on the phone stated that they need to pay royalties to their photographer for the image, and the use of the image for a year was $800. I don't know why they believe the picture was online for a year, and we did remove it the moment we were informed of the infringement. When I stated that they are pursuing a lawsuit against a woman who cannot afford this, she wanted to offer a lower settlement. When I asked how much that was, she stated it would be $700. There were no other options. I tried to explain the image was there without the domain owners knowledge, that its usage was, according to the online web designer, purchased. However, the representative insists the use of the image was only allowed for one URL and my mothers' domain is not it.

When she would not offer any more options and was quick to state she will simply note she did offer a lower settlement I told her that I'm sorry but all I can do now is pursue this with the BBB. I am aware that Getty Images is not accredited with the BBB but there are a lot of complaints against them.

Now... what I'm hoping is for someone to read this over and tell me if there is anything that can be done by my mother. She has a poor understanding of English and American laws, especially those pertaining to copyrights. From what I understand, companies are typically supposed to send you a cease and desist order, but Getty images is notorious for asking for a settlement. I have also browsed through other posts of a few people experiencing similar issues on various websites and I wonder if there is anything at all that can be done. They are exploiting and extorting people for mistakes where a warning is what would suffice. At least at first. I understand seeking settlements if the person does not comply to the initial request.


I'm sorry if my own writing is confusing to read and thanks in advance!

Quoted: "If a valid license does not exist for the identified usage and you do not plan to use the image(s), moving forward, you must immediately cease and desist the use of the images and remove them from the website. In addition, attached is a demand representing the monetary settlement for the use of image(s) in question. Payment of the attached demand will settle your company's unlicensed use of the referenced image(s). Please follow the remittance information on the attached demand: Payment must be received within 14 days of the date of this letter."

"Please note that ceasing use of the images does not absolve your company of its responsibility to pay for the images already used without a license. Getty Images copyright compliance team is willing to discuss the circumstances surrounding this matter. However, absent appropriate licenses, images and its artists expect to be fairly compensated for the use of the images in question."

Edit: The notice letter was dated the 10th of February and arrived 13th, stating that if the settlement isn't paid in 14 days will result in escalation of their legal department and "possiblity of legal action being commenced for damages exceeding the amount presently being offered by way of settlement."

You do not mention your mother's age but, if she is a senior, she can probably get legal assistance through a senior advocacy center in Virginia. I will have to do a bit of research and post back with additional information on this, but it may be an avenue to explore.

I would not agree to send off $700 to Getty if this dollar amount would be a hardship for your mother, at least until your mother has a chance to consult with an attorney on the matter.

It is possible that your mother can negotiate with Getty for a lower settlement amount, even below the $700. Although statutory damages that can be awarded in court to a copyright holder will be from $750 to $30,000, the lowest amount a court could award is $200 - this at the judge's discretion and when there is evidence presented showing the infringement was "innocent."

Unfortunately, "innocent" infringement is still infringement, and a copyright holder is entitled to collect damages from an infringer over the unauthorized use of their copyrighted work but, if $200 is an amount more affordable for your mom, you may wish to offer this as an amount to settle the infringement. Getty may consider it reasonable.

Again, however, it is best if your mom can consult with an attorney in her area, who may be better able to negotiate with Getty for a lower amount or even get the matter dropped entirely based on the facts of your mom's situation.

Good luck.


Edit to add: You may wish to call the Southeastern Virginia Legal Aid advocacy center for seniors and they can direct you to a center in your mom's area: 757-461-9481. You can also visit Virginia's government website at http://www.vda.virginia.gov and check out "Legal Concerns and Services."

Truly, truly thank you for your response. I will advise her about those possibilities. In the meantime I have been reading forums and threads regarding Getty Images and their "Lawful" exploitations. A lawyer has set up a website dating back to 2007-8 at ExtortionLetterInfo.com(ELI), where he and his colleagues consider Getty Images practices to be "Legalized Extortion".

I will be honest: These letters are threatning. For a woman prone to strokes, it's very upsetting. That's why I decided to look in to the matter for her, to alleviate some of her burden.

From everything I understand, Getty Images work off of 1976 Copyright Act, and the following excerpt from ELI page says it all: "..that copyright law makes no distinction when determining if there was an infringement. Whether you took it intentionally, unknowingly or by mistake, if it is someone's intellectual property, you are infringing. They are also correct in stating that the law does not require registration. Once a work is created the creator obtains the copyright to it automatically. There is no need to post a copyright notice or a watermark on the image. They do not need to send a "cease and desist" letter first."


According to that, she, even though she is an innocent party who did not have any knowledge of the image usage until she received the letter, is liable for this dollar amount. However... the ELI page advises not to panic, to simply wait it out, especially if it's over a simple single image, to request the forthcoming part 2 involving with the collection agencies to simply stop calling because this is a claim you're willing to dispute and to see.

I understand that a company who sends out hundreds of thousands of these letters a week or even a day probably has other more pressing cases to pursue, but I also have found it hard to follow-up with anyone who has posted on other websites above what resolutions they may have come up with, or if they were jailed/sued for the sometimes unbelievable amount of $150,000. There has to be some established law to prevent companies like Getty Images from outright proclaiming your guilt through a letter, and claiming you have no choice but to pay or else.

As you can probably guess by my tone I am frustrated as much as my mother is. I hope to help her in any way I can but even if it means waiting a while for the collection agency file to go back to Getty, the cycle is simply going to start again. I don't want it to escalate to a lawsuit. When I spoke to Getty Images, the rather rude representative was in no way understanding towards her situation, nor empathetic. I hope the legal advisors she can get a hold of in the state will be able to help her with higher hopes.

It is not really "extortion," siddichan, although I know that many who receive settlement demand letters look at them this way. What settlement letters are is the only way short of a lawsuit that a copyright holder has of protecting his rights in his work by being compensated for the illegal uses of his work.

If you look at this example, perhaps you can understand better the way copyright holders look at infringement:

Let's say you are an author who has spent the better part of 5 years writing a novel, and your book is finally on the market and starts to sell well. Because an author only gets a percentage of the sales price for himself, with the rest of the proceeds from each sale split in many different ways between those who helped get the book to print, many copies of the book will have to be sold for the author to make even a small amount of money on it.

Now let's say someone comes along and decides to print off copies of this book to sell or give away to others. The legal sales of the book dry up, because the infringer is making the same book available to others for free or at a lower cost, and the author makes no money.

It is up to a copyright holder to police his own work and to discover the infringers on his own. The copyright holder may lose thousands and thousands of dollars before discovering the infringement and/or the infringer. The only way he can recover his losses is to attempt to settle with the infringer, or sue the infringer. Lawsuits are expensive to pursue, and many copyright holders cannot afford this expense. They may decide, therefore, that making a living out of being creative (through writing, art, photography) is impossible and they move on to something else. And the world becomes poorer for this decision.

With all of that said, it is true that some people infringe on another's copyrighted material without being aware they are infringing. But in this country, just because you are not aware that a law exists does not excuse your breaking of this law. Your ignorance of the law can help to mitigate, or lessen, the penalties you face, but you still face penalties.

That is why I mentioned the $200 amount. It is an amount that judge's can award that takes into account the rights of the copyright holder to be compensated but with an acknowledgement that the infringer innocently or mistakenly infringed on these rights.

The $150,000 per infringement amount, by the way, would be awarded when an infringer is making a business out of infringing on others' works. And there can also be criminal infringement charges that result from "willful" infringement such as this, and criminal infringement does come with the possibility of jail time.

A simple, one-time, innocent infringement of a single photo would not rise to the level of that sort of lawsuit award, however, or result in criminal infringement charges and jail.

I wish your mother good luck, siddichan.