Church billed £6,000 for website pic
A CHURCH is recovering from the bullying tactics of an online photo company after a volunteer creating the parish website used images without checking the copyright.
When creating the church website the volunteer included a couple of images from Getty, probably the world's largest and richest picture agency – yet they obviously weren’t aware of copyright laws and so didn’t pay anything for them.
Before the church in Staffordshire knew what was going on it had a bill for £6,000 land in its offering plate.
Gavin Drake, the communications director for the diocese's 600 churches took on the case.
"The issue is not that photographs are free on the net for anyone to use, but that enforcement has to be done properly. Getty was basically bullying," Drake says.
After giving the church a telling-off for being foolish Drake then, "tried to talk to Getty about it, and their policy was 'they're our pictures, we'll charge what we want to charge'.”
Upon hearing this Drake decided to scrape together as much money as the church could afford and offer this couple of hundred quid to Getty as fair compensation, yet this wasn’t enough as the company persisted on the entire £6,000.
"In the end I said to the church that Getty was not playing ball or following the normal litigation or dispute resolution procedures and to ignore them. We don't deal with bullies; we deal with legal threats appropriately. I told them by letter that's what they were doing, that we were not going to play, and didn't hear any more," Drake explains.
However, although a surprising amount of money, this case isn’t in any way unique. Many small businesses and charities tell similar stories.
Small organisations are the far more at risk as they don’t have in-house staff to design websites and check copyright status like the bigger ones do.
Yet although these cases prove to be quite common, what’s actually surprising is that this is in no way the first time Getty has thrown a few punches - virtual law firm Limeone has dealt with more than 300 of Getty's infringement claims.
After the intervention of Limeone, Getty has dropped many cases, and none have managed to get to court – yet this doesn’t seem to stop the unhappy snappers from bullying repeatedly.
Drake explains that he can view both sides to the story, however as he says, "I understand the difficulty companies like Getty have and photographers have - they have a product that needs to be protected.”
Yet he rightly points out that Getty have no publicity campaign and they’re not issuing press releases and education to remind people that these images are not to be used.
Nowadays media companies using the image library sites know the rules, "But it's not about media companies any more - it's kids, churches, schools." Getty, Drake says needs "to run a media campaign," otherwise if any of its cases do get to court, they’re never going to stand up. µ
L'Inq
The Guardian
Share this:
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Just because this a church doesn't exclude them from following the law. This isn't "bullying". It's Getty not making special exceptions for "non-profit" (and I use that term loosely) organizations.

If these churches don't have staff to ensure the images they lift aren't copyrighted, they ought to hire out the work to those who do. In fact, they ought to realize that *all* images are copyrighted unless there are explicit release rights. If they want to be really sure, they should just break out their own camera and take the photos themselves.
Ditto on BB's comment, sounds like Drake is just trying to squirm out of this one and has resorted to the good old bullying the church claim.

Though $6000 is excessive for a photo, you need to take into account that in order for this to happen someone would have had to have tracked the photo down, now this could be either a Getty employee scowering the interwebs for stolen product or someone may have come across it by chance but either way time and resources are consumed to find the photo, check against the system as to whether it's actually paid for or stolen, and follow up from there. Also take into account that they're doing this to deter people from stealing their product, and $6000 starts to sound more reasonable.
Yes, I spelled it right.

The law is the law and those who break it should be brought to justice. I bet if a church member "borrowed" an automobile without permission the consequences would be rather severe. As it should be with regards to grand theft auto. But there is always the spirit of the law.

But then when the accused/guilty refuse to admit guilt and instead just vomit up a smoke screen and thereby rely on their pious nature to see them through, well, that's a bit of a different color.

The bill is 6,000 and the church needs to pay up. That is unless this particular body is now actively promoting and condoning theft.
It's not bullying for any legal reasons- the ownership and rights are clear, and the fact it's a church certainly doesn't grant it any privileges-it's bullying because (as far as we can tell from the article) the very first correspondence that occurred was not "you are violating our copyright, and you have the option to stop doing so", it was "oi, you owe us, hand it over now."

There is an option to handle the situation with more tact.
I see you haven't learned anything BB, so here's a clue: STFU. Look up the meaning, since you haven't a clue.

You seem to understand the rights of copywrite holders without any need to know how the rest of the world, including the courts, operates. So let me clue you in.

Generally, when someone pulls an idiotic move that harms another party, the other party is entitled to "just compensation". For example, if this was a multinational corporation inadvertently treading on another multinational corporation's property, a court would normally seize a portion (perhaps the majority) of the profits and force the violator to stop violating. Anything in excess of that is punitive, but punitive damages imply that the violation was intentional.

So now you're dealing with a non-profit organization, which means you can't take away profits. You asses damages justly. How much would the church have paid for the images, had the people working with them known what the heck they were doing? How much harm did the church do to Getty images by publishig without permission? Did the church dillute Getty's trademark?

In this case Getty would not likely get the full $6k in court, unless the church continued to use the images after it was notified. Getty would get something, but it probably wouldn't be $6k. The smart thing for both parties to do would be to negotiate a fair amount without going to court.

But since you BB are the kind to react rather than reason, you'll never understand
To tell people using copyrighted work is against the law and might make them liable?

Really.

Like those that MPAA puts on every bloddy DVD ahead of the movie?

They're *so* effective.

Maybe the government ought to run an advertising campaign telling people murdering people is against the law. People seem to murder one another all the time. They must not know it is illegal.
*sigh* at the comments thus far - please repeat after me:

Copying is not theft!
I've been brainwashed by the MAFIAA!
Copying is not theft!
I've been brainwashed by the MAFIAA!
Copying is not theft!
I've been brainwashed by the MAFIAA!
Was the image clearly marked that it belonged to Getty? If not, tough luck to Getty, if so, the Church is in the wrong, but have done the right thing in trying to make amends by offering what they can - which it sounds like Getty have ignored.
... if the law said you had to kill the first born in your house hold, would you do it because the law said so? No, you'd be a lawbreaker. 

These are churches the fact that Getty tried to grab £6k off of them should get them a ticket straight to hell. It isn't as if churches have people in the know about online picture agencies... 

They do Gods work so lighten up...
Sorry Alex but it being a Church does not exclude it from copyright law. If i set up a business that has a building and people going round collecting money from people does that mean i am a non profit and can go breaking any laws i please?

Companies and the modern world to not follow religion. The gods of old are long forgotten and the gods of the last 2 thousand years will be forgotten also, perhaps if were lucky in the next hundred years.
The traditional tactics of extortionists - be it playground bullies or organized crime - is to find or invent some trifling infraction and then demand exorbitant restitution for that infraction. Getty seems to be following in the footsteps of organized crime -- their actual loss was trivial but they've got their hooks in so they feel justified in extorting whatever they want.

That's what you get with monopolies -- wild estimates of the value of goods and services and an enforcement mechanism straight out of the Mafia.

I see no reason why religious groups should ever be regarded as special cases for anything. They used a commercial picture, let them pay for it at commercial rates.
and pass the story onto Associated Press, the global press agency.

A church puts a few photos onto their website, big deal. What's the harm?

Do Getty have any church pictures, or images of Jesus on a cross etc? Maybe the church should sue getty for using the church's trademarks and symbols! ;-)
Steal money by brain washing the weak into believing in "God" so it's only fair the get trash by someone trying to convince the world that copyright is theft.
I am shocked that an institution like the church is being held to laws and regulations that are valid for everybody else..

Surely an institution that is used to getting special exemptions for all kinds of things financial should get away with not paying for this too..

It's appalling they should pay for something like this like regular people and companies have to..
C'mon people. Getty COULD have done the right thing in this situation, contacted them and asked them to EITHER remove the pictures OR to pay the asking price for the images.

There is middle ground here, especially with a non-profit that actually DOES help the community. I know this goes against a huge belief of many atheist techs out there, but many Churches don't actually HARM the people in the community and do play a helping hand. It isn't a black and white situation at all. Many of these community focused organizations try to get help wherever they can and mistakes do happen. The money they raise often will go towards programs like community kitchens, parenting classes and other free programs for the community.

Getty can feel free to protect their copyright, but they don't need to be overbearing jerks in the same vain as the RIAA. Getty blew this situation and could have actually turned around and gotten itself some positive PR by helping the church by either providing the photos, some other photos that portrayed the same message or even cutting them a deal and released oodles of press releases showcasing how they believe in fair copyright use and helping to educate the un-knowing masses of people who aren't aware of the minefield that exists on the internet.

Instead, they act like spoiled children.

Simply put people, the world isn't black and white. We have one lifetime on this planet and plenty of opportunity to help others and not make it a nightmare for others just by being understanding and kind. Pay it forward afterall.
So many people, so many ignorant idiots. Didn't you get the point of the article? That whole issue dubious buisness practices? Or were you too focused on the fact that the institution being defended was one you despise? Good to know the public is so enlightened! And fair minded to boot! Sheesh, who wouldn't want to ignore the ignorance you spew fourth so loudly?