It doesn’t matter. THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT. It’s their images and nobody and illegally use them. Whether for extra cash or protect their name, or any other reason they see fit - they’re perfectly allowed to go after people illegally using their photos.
Getty’s approach is under a lot of scrutiny and there are big doubts about the legality of what they are claiming. This is already being discussed in another thread. See http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902
Getty & anyone can send out an invoice and a threatening letter. Do they actually follow up with more correspondence or take anyone to court? I suspect they just see who caves & pays on the first letter.
simple answer - where possible take your own pictures & images, use them as you wish 
Ok, you probably aren’t going to get every shot you would ever need like The Rainforests or a wild Tiger but it’s better than getting sued by G£TTY <- (going to try and make that stick like micro$oft)!
The bottom line is royalty free doesnt mean free but I do think that the stock photo sites should make it VERY clear about this.
Good luck to anyone who has G£TTY on their case 
Ok, you probably aren’t going to get every shot you would ever need like The Rainforests or a wild Tiger but it’s better than getting sued by G£TTY
Why not ask someone to do it for you, if you absolutely need photographs from an area outside your own? Most people on the Internet will be able to get in touch with someone who is reasonably close to just about any location.
Besides, any proper zoo will have a tiger 
No chance, forget the thought even entered your head.
The images on my site were all consecutively numbered as they were on the public domain site where my webmaster took them from. The Getty Image in question is numbered right in the middle of all the others which suggests to me the image was in fact on that public domain site and sandwiched in with all the other pictures. If Getty didn’t put the image on there, somebody else did.
People upload copyrighted materials to sites all the time.
These sites generally don’t verify that the items are actually public domain before posting them.
Of course - I wasn’t suggesting it happened by magic.
I’m pointing out that it’s a complete waste of time to entertain the notion that Getty did it to trap people and fine them. Not only is it highly, highly unlikely, but if against all odds it turns out that they did, they’d’ve made damn they’d covered their butts sufficiently.
My money would be on the webmaster (or even you, as I really don’t know you), thinking “if I get caught stealing these images, I’ll just dump them on the web somewhere and say that’s where I found them, and the owner gave permission.” - I’ve seen it so many times before, and every time the person doing thinks they’re the first one to think of it, and that no-one will ever see through it.
That’s my opinion, you’re more than welcome to ignore it.
Bottom line is it’s not worth your time to wonder whether Getty did it or not - sorting things out with them is more important.
Yes, this is my point exactly. People should not be held financially liable for images taken off one of those so called public domain sites. Willfully stealing an image is one thing, innocently taking it off a public domain site is another thing altogether.
As I said in my previous post all the images on my website were consecutively numbered, about 25 images in all with the Getty image somewhere in the middle of the mess. I find it very unlikely that my webmaster took 24 images from the public domain site and then went to Getty and stole one image and numbered it along with all the other images, it just does not make sense. I think the Getty image was # 11 out of the 25.
No I didn’t steal the image, but if I had I would pay up. Also I would not waste my time posting here about Getty coming after me if I had stolen the image, because they would be rightfully coming after me.
You are right, you don’t know me so don’t entertain the notion that perhaps I willfully stole the image off the Getty site.
What’s the saying – possession is 9/10ths of the law? You don’t own the photo, you don’t own the rights to the photo, but the photo is on the site you own. It doesn’t matter if your webmaster knowingly stole the image or unwittingly acquired a stolen image. The image isn’t yours to use and the rightful owner can prove that. Getty is huge in the stock world – the idea that they would plant images is ridiculous. It’s as if Microsoft went after you for using their software without purchasing it, or the Sony going after you for sharing their music – wait, that wouldn’t happen right, it wouldn’t be stealing, now would it? Companies, and people, big and small, have the right to protect their assets. Expect more and more of them to protect their products by going after the people who use them without permission. And, instead of crying foul for getting caught, you should be protecting yourself by making sure your site has legitimate files.
You’ve got nothing to lose by writing a letter pleading your case. That’s all I’d do for now.
But if they do pursue it, it’s probably going to be cheaper to pay the $1k than to get a lawyer!!
That’s up to the law and the courts to decide unfortunately.
As it stands at the moment, ignorance of the source is not a valid defence. I agree that the Internet has really made it difficult to accurately source copyright holders and that this is a huge issue for webmasters everywhere.
ignorance of the law is not an excuse. However being intentially mislead to believe you are using royalty free, and it turns out is is not, should be a valid explanation. Right now I see many sources being quoted as a source of “getty images” template monster, art.com, software installation cds…just to name a few.
I am not saying that you did, I am saying I can’t rule it out and nor should I. There’s a world of difference. The whole reason you are here, as described by you, is a testament to the fact that words are cheap and that you cannot rely on somebody’s word alone - you took the webmaster’s word for it that they were royalty free and they weren’t.
Going after them legally is an option, arguing with some random stranger on a forum because he’s blunt and doesn’t instantly trust you is another, but as I keep saying, and has been my point all along - you have better things to be doing right now if you want to save yourself a legal battle with Getty.
Can anyone find any evidence of a court case? The answer is no because Getty dont want to test this in court as they would lose. They send out thousands of strongly worded letters and people get scared and pay up.
They even offer an incentive to pay early - if they were confident of their position would they need to do that?
good thread here
Well, it has happened.
We got our court summons from Getty for $60,000+ CAD.
We are in Quebec, Canada, and the court papers summoned us to a court in BC (over 4000 km away!).
I’ll keep you posted as the case develops.