Getty Images Letter in Belgium: How to Respond

You opened the post or an email and there it is. A demand letter for an image on your Belgian website. The sender is Getty Images, Permission Machine, PicRights or Copytrack. The amount is several hundred euros, sometimes thousands. Your first reaction is either to pay quickly or to throw the letter away. Neither is the right move.

This guide explains what Belgian law actually requires, what a Belgian court has done in similar matters and how to write a measured reply that protects your position. If you want to check the rest of your site for the same problem before more letters arrive, you can run a free image and compliance scan at /be/en/scan.

What Belgian law says

Image copyright in Belgium sits in the Code of Economic Law, Book XI, Title 5. The act is known in Dutch as the Wetboek van economisch recht and in French as the Code de droit économique. Two articles matter for a Getty or Permission Machine matter.

Article XI.165 gives the author of a literary or artistic work the exclusive right to reproduce the work or authorise its reproduction. Photographs are protected as artistic works where they meet the originality threshold (an autonomous creative choice by the photographer, not a mechanical capture). The originality test matters more in Belgium than in some neighbouring jurisdictions. A claimant has to prove it. Generic stock photos sometimes fail this test, which is one of the defences a Belgian court will actually entertain.

Article XI.335 sets out the remedies available to the rights holder. Damages can be calculated as the licence fee that would have been due plus, in cases of bad faith or repeated infringement, an additional uplift. Belgian courts have applied this in the same notional-licence-fee framework that EU Directive 2004/48/EC contemplates.

The limitation period for non-contractual copyright claims is five years from when the rights holder became aware of the infringement and the identity of the infringer, under Article 2262bis of the Civil Code (now coordinated in the new Civil Code). An image that was on your site between 2020 and 2024 is still within range in 2026.

A real Belgian case: the Ghent ruling against Permission Machine

The most useful Belgian primary source for a small business owner is the November 2021 decision of the enterprise court of Ghent. The court dismissed a Permission Machine claim because Permission Machine failed to prove the chain of standing from the photographer to the agency, and failed to establish the originality of the specific image. The Belgian law firm Finnian & Columba's case note summarises the reasoning.

That decision doesn't mean every Permission Machine letter is unenforceable. It means the rights holder has to prove its case on the evidence. The practical effect on a written reply is to ask the agency, politely and in writing, to produce:

1. Proof that the photographer who created the image holds the copyright.
2. Proof of the chain of assignment or representation from that photographer to the agency.
3. Evidence of originality (creative choices in framing, lighting, composition).
4. The actual licence fee that the rights holder would have charged for the specific use.

Many agency letters skip the originality element entirely, presenting the demand as if liability is established. The Ghent decision is the reason to push back.

Who actually sends these letters in Belgium

Three names show up most often.

Permission Machine is a Belgian-Dutch enforcement company that represents photographers and small press agencies. They send the most letters in Flanders and the Netherlands. Their model is to identify use through automated image-matching and pursue settlement before any judicial step.

Copytrack is Berlin-based and represents individual photographers. They also use automated detection. Copytrack letters tend to be aimed at single images with lower stated demands than Getty's.

PicRights is a Swiss agency representing larger rights holders including Reuters, AFP, Associated Press and Getty for parts of its catalogue. PicRights letters to Belgian recipients typically come from a UK or Swiss address.

A direct letter from Getty Images itself usually means the image is from Getty's own catalogue and Getty is acting as rights holder. That carries the most enforcement weight because Getty has the resources and standing to instruct a Belgian law firm if the matter doesn't resolve.

There are also fraudulent shakedown emails imitating this format. A genuine Belgian-targeted letter will name the specific image with a catalogue or file identifier, the URL where the image appeared on your site, the dates of the use, the legal basis (typically XI.165) and a clear sender identity. A vague threat without those elements is almost always not legitimate.

Why your letter is in French or Dutch (or sometimes both)

Belgium's bilingual structure shapes how these letters arrive. Enforcement agencies match the language to your registration at the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (Banque-Carrefour des Entreprises / Kruispuntbank van Ondernemingen, KBO/BCE). A Flemish-registered business gets Dutch. A Walloon-registered business gets French. Brussels-based companies sometimes get both versions or a covering note in the other language.

The language of the letter doesn't change your rights or what you can do. Reply in the registered language of your business. If you're in Brussels and bilingual, choose whichever is clearer for you.

Which Belgian court would decide if this went to a hearing

Court selection depends on the value of the claim and on whether the defendant is a registered business. The Belgian Judicial Code, modified by reforms effective from 1 September 2018, sets the thresholds:

• Justice of the peace (juge de paix / vrederechter) for civil claims up to €5,000.
• Enterprise court (tribunal de l'entreprise / ondernemingsrechtbank) for higher-value commercial matters where the defendant is a registered company.
• Civil court of first instance for non-commercial matters not falling within either of the above.

A single-image dispute against a registered Belgian business with a demand of, say, €1,500 would be filed before the justice of the peace. A multi-image enforcement above €5,000 would head to the enterprise court. The Ghent decision discussed above came out of an enterprise court.

In practice, single-image disputes settle long before any filing. The thresholds matter because they tell you what the rights holder's procedural cost actually looks like, which is what shapes their willingness to accept a sensible settlement.

What to do this week

Numbered steps. None of them is optional.

1. Locate and remove the image. Not just unlinked from the menu. Delete the file from your CMS media library so its URL returns 404. Take a screenshot with the date.
2. Search for a licence. Check Adobe Stock, iStock, Shutterstock and any other accounts you or your previous designer used. A licence covering the image, the date and the use ends the matter.
3. Ask the designer in writing. If you didn't upload the image, ask whoever did to send you the licence or evidence of its source.
4. Acknowledge the letter in writing. Don't ignore it. Don't phone. Email a short, neutral acknowledgement. State that the image has been removed (give the date), that you take the matter seriously and that you'd like to see the rights holder's proof of standing and the originality basis before discussing settlement.
5. Ask for the proof points referenced in the Ghent decision. Standing from photographer to agency, originality, and the actual notional licence fee. This is normal and not aggressive.
6. Propose a settlement calibrated to the notional fee. Frame it as "without prejudice" and as a "full and final" offer subject to written confirmation that no further action will be taken.
7. Get the closure in writing. Before paying, get an email or PDF confirming the specific image, the period covered, and that payment settles the matter.

If the demand is above €5,000 or the image was used in advertising, get advice from a Belgian solicitor with IP experience before responding. Several Belgian firms handle exactly this kind of matter on a fixed-fee basis.

What not to do

Three responses make matters worse.

Ignoring the letter. Enforcement agencies escalate non-responses. A second letter, then a lawyer's letter, then a formal summons through a Belgian bailiff. Each step adds cost that gets folded into a higher demand.

Admitting full liability in the first reply. Acknowledging receipt and removal is fine. Accepting the demanded figure as the right number is not. The Ghent decision shows that the right framework is to ask the rights holder to prove its case.

Replying in the wrong tone. A defensive, aggressive or sarcastic reply is read as bad faith. That feeds into the section XI.335 "uplift for bad faith" argument later if the matter does escalate. Stay neutral and procedural.

How to prevent this happening again

Once this matter is resolved, audit the rest of your site. The most common cause of a second letter is another image from the same source that was uploaded around the same time. You can run a free scan that flags external image sources and known stock CDN patterns, or do it manually by tracing every image back to a licence.

For future images, three sources cover most small business needs without licence exposure:

• Unsplash: free for commercial use, no attribution required for most images.
• Pexels: free for commercial use under the Pexels licence.
• Wikimedia Commons: check each image's individual licence, most are public domain or CC.

For higher-value imagery, buy through Adobe Stock or Shutterstock and keep the receipt with the image file. The receipt is what defends you if a future letter arrives.

For more detail on verifying the sender, see our guide on whether CopyTrack, PicRights and Getty letters are legitimate. For broader cost analysis, see how much a copyright claim actually costs. If your web designer chose the image, our web designer copyright liability guide explains your contract position.

---

This is technical analysis, not legal advice. Consult a Belgian solicitor (avocat / advocaat) for guidance specific to your situation.