If Jessops have form with the local trading standards it might help but anyway contact trading standards and get a case going on the basis of the lens not being new when you bought it Re the dust issue and the series of repairs that have had to be carried out on it. If Jessops come back with dust ingress being a know issue with the lens then the lens is not fit for purpose. Throw everthing at them.

Time to get more information. The most useful source would be the Canon lens forum on dpreview.com. They will be able to tell you if there are any ongoing problem with this lens model and advise you if the dust behind the front element is a known issue . My view is that this lens may have been a display and demonstration unit that should not have been sold a new, or that it has been refurbished and with use dust retained in the body of the lens migrated to the front element and that the ongoing problems with the lens are not going to go away. Put a complaint through to trading standards once you have some information. No verbal agreements from now on with canon or jessops everything in writing.

PS Another tack would be to complain that you now suspect that the lens was not a new lens when you purchased it but a refurbished one because of the number and the nature of problems that you have had with it.

This is unacceptable with this grade of lens even in professional use. I recommend that you take note of the serial number and ask for a replacement. Point out that dealing with the problems that you have had with the lens has cost you considerable amount of your time and time is money. If you did not have a replacement when yours was away getting repaired then point out to them that you have lost the use of that lens for the period of time it was away being repaired. Canon are general very good but they will keep sending back this sick lens to you unless you put you foot down. I have had similar issues with another camera manufacturer and in the got my money back and at the end of the day it may be better to insist that you get your money back. If they start getting stroppy ask them what is their local trading standards office. The best of luck .

Sorry, I assumed that since the site was consumeractiongroup it was only concerned only with consumers. I stand corrected. Over 25 years ago I did a course for small businesses. A whole ten minutes of the course was spent on copyright and that gave me everything I need to know to run a business. Thegreenpempernal above said everything anyone needs to know to start a business the rest you can find out as you go along. It is not a case of being an expert in copyright litigation you just need to know enough to pay due regard to copyright in the course of promoting your business. I would add that if you get a web designer to build a site make sure that the images are paid for and have licences in the business name. This big guy small guy thing just makes the whole thing more emotive and clouds the objective issues. I don't like Getty at all but the fact is that they represent photographers who are small businesses and rely on the income from the licencing of their photographs. The current state of play. The OP infringed the copyright of a photographer or photographers. Ignorance of the law is no defence. The duration of infringement and number of hits have no bearing on the matter. Options Pay up. See a solicitor, pay them then pay up. Wait and see What will Getty do Continue to demand £600 (May add interest) What about court action? Not likely for some time. There is only one case I can find where Getty have gone to court.. Not allowed to post a link but if you search google for - Getty Images wins £2,000 settlement over unauthorised web use of photo. This was to show what could happen. The company had to pay £1,953.31 in damages and interest, plus Getty's legal costs. It is not clear what there initial demand was but at a guess it would be £1200 to £1600. It is not clear what damages amounts were for insidious damages or/and flagrant infringement. The interest is based on the statutory amount that can be applied to outstanding invoices. At the moment it is around 9% PA and will go up and down with the base rate. Possible court outcome could be £600+damages+interest+Getty's legal costs. There is a good chance that Getty would go for flagrant infringement considering that the OP tried to buy a backdated licence from under the action. If they ever get hold of what the OP has written on this forum and tie it to them then they will certainly have a case for flagrant infringement. If the OP was a sole trader rather that a director of a company then they would get a more sympathetic hearing from the court as there is an expectation that directors have a better grasp of business matters. But it is very unlikely that it will ever go to court but if it does it will not be in the small claims that has stopped dealing with copyright issues. I think that the patent court (that may be called something else now) would be the the place but they will be tied up with other matters for some time. It will be where they can get the best outcome for them. Will Getty sell the dept to a collection agency? - Why not Google it.

Hold on a minute, this is a consumer forum and DRB_UK is the director of a company. I would say that if you go into business as a company that you should equip yourself with some basic business knowledge, like a basic grasp of copyright, and be prepared to take the consequences if you don't. I think Getty as a US based company are using US style tactics which are deplorable. As far as I know Getty only does this to websites that are businesses. There is a huge thread at the Federation of Small Businesses website that I saw last year with people just like DRB_UK - some who have just tried it on and some who have used cheap dodgy web designers. Look at it this way. If it was images that you posted on Flickr and DRB_UK found them on Google and helped himself to them, how would you feel. You would have every right to demand payment and to have the images taken down. What if you were a sole trader photographer struggling to build a business only to find people like DRB_UK nicking your stock? Would DRB_UK have been willing to pay the £39 in the first place - I think not. I commend everyone who has tried to help and advise DRB_UK. It is great that such a helpful bunch of people are so generous with their time and knowledge. In the final analysis and knowing what you know about DRB_UK's business skills, would you use DRB_UK's business?