Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#1

Post by iamben » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 1:30 PM UTC

Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B
petapixel.com

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#2

Post by pavel_lishin » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:10 PM UTC

While $1B seems excessive, and more of a number to make a point, it does seem outrageously egregious to send her a bill for her own photo on her own website that she donated for public use.

It would be like coming home to find a naked vagrant sitting on your couch, demanding that you pay him rent.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#3

Post by _yosefk » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:15 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #2

While $1B seems excessive, and more of a number to make a point, it does seem outrageously egregious to send her a bill for her own photo on her own website that she donated for public use. It would be like coming home to find a naked vagrant sitting on your couch, demanding that you pay him rent.

Your analogy is pretty precise up to the "naked" part. I've heard pretty bad things about Getty Images from their customers (much more expensive than competitors, much worse customer service.) Naked I've never heard...

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#4

Post by steego » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:15 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #2

While $1B seems excessive, and more of a number to make a point, it does seem outrageously egregious to send her a bill for her own photo on her own website that she donated for public use. It would be like coming home to find a naked vagrant sitting on your couch, demanding that you pay him rent.

Copyright thugs have been punishing people with outrageous fines and settlements for years. $1B doesn't seem excessive.

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#5

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:16 PM UTC

Isn't the problem here that she donated all her photos to the Library of Congress without clarifying what that meant? Apparently, the LoC thought that the photos were placed in the public domain, and the photographer thought she was retaining the copyrights.

Also, why the hell is Getty charging for public domain photos? Are they not aware that people can use those without paying Getty?

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#6

Post by dublinben » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #2

While $1B seems excessive, and more of a number to make a point, it does seem outrageously egregious to send her a bill for her own photo on her own website that she donated for public use. It would be like coming home to find a naked vagrant sitting on your couch, demanding that you pay him rent.

It's likely that Getty have also fraudulently charged many other customers licenses for these photos. It's not inconceivable that each of them could individually sue Getty for their own damages. This looks like it could become a very expensive case of sloppy (or deliberately negligent) copyright overreach.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#7

Post by pavel_lishin » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

_yosefk wrote: post #3

pavel_lishin wrote: post #2

While $1B seems excessive, and more of a number to make a point, it does seem outrageously egregious to send her a bill for her own photo on her own website that she donated for public use. It would be like coming home to find a naked vagrant sitting on your couch, demanding that you pay him rent.

Your analogy is pretty precise up to the "naked" part. I've heard pretty bad things about Getty Images from their customers (much more expensive than competitors, much worse customer service.) Naked I've never heard...

I'm going to add a post-hoc rationalization that has something to do with it being a ballsy move, though I wasn't thinking of that at the time...

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#8

Post by pavel_lishin » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #5

Isn't the problem here that she donated all her photos to the Library of Congress without clarifying what that meant? Apparently, the LoC thought that the photos were placed in the public domain, and the photographer thought she was retaining the copyrights. Also, why the hell is Getty charging for public domain photos? Are they not aware that people can use those without paying Getty?

> Isn't the problem here that she donated all her photos to the Library of Congress without clarifying what that meant?

No, because

> why the hell is Getty charging for public domain photos?

There is no amount of clarification there that allows Getty to charge for something. Either it's in the public domain, in which case they have no right to charge for use of the photos, or it's not, in which case they have no right to charge for the photos.

I'd wager that this is some sort of colossal business fuck-up that's not anyone's fault. Mostly because I can't imagine anyone so baldly stealing money.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#9

Post by overcast » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #2

While $1B seems excessive, and more of a number to make a point, it does seem outrageously egregious to send her a bill for her own photo on her own website that she donated for public use. It would be like coming home to find a naked vagrant sitting on your couch, demanding that you pay him rent.

First rule of any price negotiation, always start WAY too high :) On a serious note, Getty has been doing this underhanded shit for ages, and the amount they pay photographers is even worse. From what I've read, they don't even report to photographers, who downloaded their works. So there really is no accountability, on how many you REALLY sold. It's shady nonsense.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#10

Post by johnloeber » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #5

Isn't the problem here that she donated all her photos to the Library of Congress without clarifying what that meant? Apparently, the LoC thought that the photos were placed in the public domain, and the photographer thought she was retaining the copyrights. Also, why the hell is Getty charging for public domain photos? Are they not aware that people can use those without paying Getty?

Regarding your first point: you can place an item into the public domain but retain the copyright. See some of the Creative-Commons licenses that allow free use but disallow commercial use of your IP.

Regarding your second point: Getty is a content distributor. When it comes to stock photos, many designers just go straight to Getty or one of its large competitors to browse for stock photos. The designers aren't going to know which of those photos are available freely and which are not. (By analogy, this is why you when you want to watch a movie, you immediately find it to rent on iTunes, as opposed to spending twenty minutes finding a decent pirated copy.)