Getty Images letter UK: CDPA 1988 response guide

You opened the post or an email and there it is. A demand letter for an image on your UK website. The sender is Getty Images itself or PicRights writing on Getty's behalf. The amount is several hundred pounds, sometimes thousands. Your first reaction is to either pay quickly or to throw the letter away. Neither is the right move.

This guide walks through what UK copyright law actually says, how the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) handles these matters and how to write a 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 /uk/en/scan.

What to do in the first 30 days

Crisis-intent guides need a roadmap. The visual below sets out the sequence the rest of this article walks through.

What CDPA 1988 actually says

UK image copyright sits in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Two sections matter when a Getty matter lands on your desk.

Section 96 gives the copyright owner a civil claim for damages, plus the remedies available for any other property right (injunction, account of profits). The damages are typically assessed on the user principle: the notional licence fee the rights holder would have charged for the use.

Section 97(2) lets the court award additional damages where the infringement is flagrant or the defendant benefited. This is the section that turns a £500 base award into a £6,000 award, as it did in Absolute Lofts South West London Ltd v Artisan Home Improvements Ltd [2015] EWHC 2608 (IPEC). The case is the leading recent authority on additional damages for unauthorised image use.

The limitation period is six years from the date of infringement under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980. An image that was on your site between 2020 and 2024 is still within the limitation period in 2026.

A short post-Brexit note. The UK is no longer covered by EU copyright directives directly, but the Berne Convention and the CDPA mean a US, German or French photograph is fully enforceable in the UK against a UK website operator. The "it's an American photo, doesn't apply here" argument doesn't work.

How Getty UK enforcement differs from PicRights

PicRights acts as an agent instructed by various rights-holders, including Reuters and AP and collects on their behalf. PicRights can't bring proceedings in its own name. If a PicRights matter escalates, proceedings are brought by the rights-holder, often through Higbee & Associates as US instructing counsel or through a UK firm.

Getty Images is itself the rights-holder or exclusive licensee for the images in its catalogue. It can bring CDPA infringement proceedings in its own name in IPEC or the High Court without any referral step. Getty employs in-house legal teams and instructs external UK IP solicitors for litigation. Its enforcement programme is systematic and not dependent on individual letters producing settlement.

Getty sends its own demand letters through an enforcement team and also uses third-party agencies including PicRights for parts of its catalogue. A letter bearing Getty's own branding or sent from a Getty email address is a direct Getty communication. A letter from PicRights that references Getty imagery is a PicRights communication on Getty's behalf.

The practical difference: a direct Getty letter has a higher probability of escalation to solicitor's letters and IPEC proceedings than a PicRights agency letter for a comparable claim value.

<div className="my-6 overflow-x-auto"> <table className="w-full border-collapse text-sm"> <thead> <tr className="bg-slate-100 text-left"> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Aspect</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Letter from Getty Images directly</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Letter from PicRights on Getty's behalf</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Standing to litigate</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Yes. Getty owns or exclusively licenses the catalogue.</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">No. PicRights must refer to the rights-holder to issue proceedings.</td> </tr> <tr className="bg-slate-50"> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Typical sender</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Getty's in-house enforcement team or instructed UK IP solicitors.</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">PicRights agents in the UK, US or EU.</td> </tr> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Probability of IPEC escalation</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Higher. Getty litigates routinely where settlements fail.</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Lower for low-value claims. Escalation requires rights-holder approval.</td> </tr> <tr className="bg-slate-50"> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Negotiation latitude</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Compliance team has authority to settle within policy ranges.</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Agent may need rights-holder sign-off for non-standard settlements.</td> </tr> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Documentation Getty requires</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Image ID, the URL where it appeared, dates of use.</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Same, plus PicRights matter reference.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div>

How to verify a Getty letter

A genuine Getty enforcement letter will name a specific Getty image (catalogue ID or a reproduction of the image), the URL or screenshots showing where the image appeared on your site, the dates of the use and a contact path back to Getty's compliance team.

Look up the catalogue ID on Getty's public search at gettyimages.co.uk. Confirm the image described matches the one shown. Confirm that Getty itself, not a sub-agent, is listed as the licensor. Check the sender domain: genuine Getty communications originate from gettyimages.com addresses.

Fraudulent "copyright" letters from parties with no rights in the claimed image do exist. Getty Images letters are almost always genuine, but the verification step is still worth taking, particularly for unusual image categories or implausible infringement periods.

Calculating the settlement value

The realistic settlement range follows the user-principle framework that UK courts apply to any CDPA infringement claim. For editorial news images (public figures, events, news), the equivalent licence is an editorial web licence. For commercial stock images (product shots, business photography), the equivalent licence is a commercial or business-use web licence.

Getty's pricing for these licences varies by image and subscription type. For a small UK business without a Getty subscription, on-demand web licences for editorial content start at approximately £150 to £250 for 12-month single-site use. Commercial images and the premium Creative collection price higher.

Getty's initial demand will incorporate the base licence value plus enforcement costs plus, often, a punitive element. Demands typically range from two to five times the base licence value. Settlement in the range of one to two times the base licence is achievable for a first-time infringement where the business cooperates.

<div className="my-6 overflow-x-auto"> <table className="w-full border-collapse text-sm"> <thead> <tr className="bg-slate-100 text-left"> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Image type</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Typical base licence (12 months, single site)</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Typical Getty demand</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Realistic first-offence settlement</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Editorial (news, events, public figures)</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">£150-£250</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">£400-£900</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">£200-£500</td> </tr> <tr className="bg-slate-50"> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Commercial / stock</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">£250-£500</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">£700-£1,800</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">£350-£900</td> </tr> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Premium creative collection</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">£500-£2,000+</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">£1,500-£8,000</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">£800-£3,000</td> </tr> <tr className="bg-slate-50"> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Paid-ad campaign use (any tier)</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Base × commercial multiplier</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">3-5x base, plus s.97(2) flag</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Take legal advice before responding</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div>

Two cases set the tone for how IPEC quantifies damages and additional damages.

Sheldon v Daybrook House Promotions Ltd [2013] EWPCC 26 (Judge Birss QC) involved a photograph of Ke$ha and LMFAO used by a Nottingham nightclub. The court awarded £5,682.37 on the user-principle basis. Additional damages were not the focus of that judgment.

Absolute Lofts South West London Ltd v Artisan Home Improvements Ltd [2015] EWHC 2608 (IPEC) (Judge Hacon) awarded £300 user-principle damages plus £6,000 additional damages under section 97(2) for flagrant infringement of 21 loft-conversion photographs. The additional damages were the key driver of the total award.

If you received a previous Getty letter and didn't respond, section 97(2) exposure becomes more relevant. Both cases illustrate how UK courts handle post-notice continuation in the quantum assessment.

If Getty files in IPEC

The IPEC small claims track is the most likely venue for a single-image dispute under £10,000. Court fee is currently around £455 for a claim up to £10,000, plus £255 for an application notice including the Case Management Conference, per Appleyard Lees's IPEC fees note. Hearings are short and informal. The loser seldom pays the winner's costs beyond limited fixed amounts.

The IPEC main track handles claims up to £500,000 with a recoverable costs cap of £50,000 across the entire litigation. Getty's legal costs for a single-image claim through to trial are typically £10,000 to £25,000. Getty makes a cost-benefit assessment on whether to proceed based on the damages likely to be recovered, the precedent value and the defendant's willingness to settle.

For a single-image claim with a realistic damages award of £1,000 to £3,000, Getty is unlikely to litigate unless the defendant's behaviour warrants section 97(2) additional damages. For multi-image claims or commercial misappropriation of valuable photography, the economics shift and the probability of proceedings increases.

The most cost-effective outcome for most businesses is settlement at the realistic licence value before proceedings are issued. Post-issue settlement is still possible but carries the additional cost of the claim fee and any defendant's legal costs already incurred.

Common mistakes that increase exposure

Several business responses make the eventual settlement worse or create additional legal exposure.

Ignoring the letter is the most common error. Getty's enforcement team logs responses and non-responses. A business that doesn't respond will receive a follow-up, then a solicitor's letter. The cost of Getty's time gets incorporated into the escalated demand. Non-response also removes the option of an early settlement at base licence value.

Removing the image after receiving the letter without responding doesn't extinguish the claim. The infringement has already occurred and the relevant period is the duration the image was live. Silently removing the image and waiting doesn't help.

Admitting full liability in the initial response without negotiating on quantum reduces your room to manoeuvre. Acknowledging receipt, identifying the image and proposing settlement are different from a blanket admission. A without-prejudice offer to settle at a specific figure preserves the ability to argue quantum without admitting the full claim.

Disputing Getty's ownership without a factual basis is a poor use of negotiating time. Getty's ownership records for its catalogue are well-maintained and readily producible in proceedings. Unless there's a genuine and specific reason to question ownership, disputes about title tend to extend the pre-action phase without benefit.

Negotiating with Getty

Unlike some collection agencies, Getty's compliance team has authority to negotiate settlements within ranges set by internal policy. A written response acknowledging the letter, identifying the image in question, explaining the circumstances of the use and proposing settlement at a figure calibrated to the notional licence value is the appropriate starting position.

The explanation of circumstances matters to Getty's calculation. A business that unknowingly used an image sourced from a third-party website designer, removed it on discovery and had it on the site for six months sits in a different position from one that downloaded directly from Getty's catalogue and used the image in a paid advertising campaign for three years. Getty's compliance team distinguishes between these scenarios in practice.

If the claim value is below £5,000 and Getty's initial demand is disproportionately higher, a written counter-proposal setting out the notional-licence-fee calculation and the basis for the proposed figure is reasonable. If Getty doesn't engage on a reasonable settlement figure and issues solicitor's letters, get legal advice before responding. The solicitor's pre-action letter is a formal step in the litigation process.

Documenting the settlement and avoiding repeat claims

When a settlement is reached, request written confirmation from Getty or its solicitors that the claim is fully settled and that no further action will be taken on the specified image and period. A settlement that isn't documented in writing leaves open the possibility of a future claim for a different period or a related image.

After settlement, audit all images currently on your website. The most common cause of a second Getty letter is that a previous designer or marketing agency used Getty-sourced images and the business took the files over without a corresponding licence transfer. Getty's licences are generally non-transferable without a re-licensing step and don't follow the image file when it moves from one business to another.

Going forward, free-to-use image sources under Creative Commons licences that permit commercial use remove the exposure category entirely. Provided you check the specific licence conditions of each image at the point of use, these sources carry no notional-licence-fee exposure under CDPA 1988:

• 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.

You can also run a free scan that flags external image sources and known stock CDN patterns on the rest of your site.

For the underlying CDPA 1988 framework, see UK Copyright Act 1988: how image claims work. For PicRights letters specifically, see received a PicRights letter in the UK.

---

This is technical analysis, not legal advice. Consult a solicitor for guidance specific to your situation.