Getty, Istock, Corbis and the like

[BuddhaPi]

Greets,

I gather some of you folks do business with the stock photo companys, in terms of selling your images to them.. Have any of you ever sold a set of images to one of these companies, and then sold the same images to a different company?? The reason for this question is I am currently entangled with Getty in regards to a copyright issue. They are claiming I am infringing ( altho I purchased the license and have it , almost 10 years ago) needless to say they want a boatload of money, however they have not proven that they they own the image, nor have they proven that the image is registered with the copyright office, nor have they proven that they manage the rights for the photog/artist, among other things... I have seen several instances of images being in Corbis's collection and then the same images in Getty's collection.. Is this common practice for phtogs to sell the images to different companies. This would help me greatly, as they would then have to prove that the image in question was not or ever has been available in any other catalogs..

Thanx for an insight to these practices

I do a little stock photography.

It was my general impression that stock companies don't own your image, they are just your agents. For them to claim any sort of copyright infringement, they would have to own the image.

But that's just my impression. If it goes too far, I'd contact a lawyer.

[BuddhaPi]

Originally Posted by Photoboothguy

I do a little stock photography.

It was my general impression that stock companies don't own your image, they are just your agents. For them to claim any sort of copyright infringement, they would have to own the image.

But that's just my impression. If it goes too far, I'd contact a lawyer.

Lawyers already on it, Getty is going after literally 1000's of people...

I'm not overly concerned, they have alot to prove first

[Jim Bryant]

You can submit your outtakes to another stock agency, but not the same image that's what Jennifer Coley of Gamma Liaison told me years ago before Getty purchased the agency. The letter does seem like Getty is hoping more and more shooter will jump on the band wagon and ante up the $1,300 or so per image they claim were infringements.

[BuddhaPi]

the real kicker is that they send you an invoice ( basically saying your guilt right out of the gat) if you ignore their letter, they continue to call and eventually turn it over to a collection agancy ( which in and of itself is illegal ) Collection agancy are to be used for past due accounts and such, I have no account with Getty, nor do i have an account with them, and this so called "invoice" is really just a claim, so the collection agency has no rights to collect on a claim..Like you said Jim, they're hoping us "small fish" will be scared and pony up the pennies.. I may be a small fish, buyt i'm not taking the bait.. If they think for one minute i'm gonna pay them 1300.00 for an image that they sell on their site for 49.00, which as stated before I already purchased...they go another thing comin!

[Jim Bryant]

As soon as they purchased Gamma Liaison, I called Getty and asked for my images to be returned. Even through I've been invited to send images to be added to their collections, I stay away.