Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 165 posts

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#11

Post by overcast »

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?

Anyone can reproduce and sell public domain stuff, which is how you get old books published. The problem comes when Getty claims copyright ownership over something they DO NOT own.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#12

Post by morninj »

dublinben wrote: post #6
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.

Nit: by definition, negligence can't be deliberate.

Edit: "negligence" means you should have known of the risk. "Recklessness" means you knew of the risk but acted anyway.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#13

Post by donatj »

So the library of congress says they're public domain. If they're public domain are you not free to sell copies of them? Such as how you can sell copies of famous paintings or copies of Firefox for that matter.

If they're not actually public domain shouldn't she be suing the library of congress for misrepresenting the license?

Yes, if they're public domain Getty shouldn't be trying to enforce ownership but that seems their only misdeed.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#14

Post by Smushman »

Using some examples from the comments of the article:

It's akin to Getty setting up a small tent inside of Central Park, and asking people that walk by to pay an entry fee.

But Getty goes 1 step further: They hire strongarm guys to go around the park and tell people (one-on-one) that they skipped out on their 5 dollar entry fee and they can 'settle' with them right now or be taken to court.

It's terrible.

I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws, other than scare the bejesus out of them. Which seems to be exactly what the photographer is doing.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#16

Post by tommorris »

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?

Perfectly legal to charge for public domain photos, just as it is legal to charge for software that's released under open source licenses, so long as you follow the terms of the license.

People are lazy and will pay money so they don't have to think about licensing. If you are a graphic designer working in an ad agency and you have a choice between "go online and download a PD work and not be sure" and "pay Getty $50 and if there's a copyright issue, you can tell your boss that you paid Getty", which do you do? Pop it on the corporate credit card is the easier option.

It's the same reason big companies were suspicious of open source for a long time. And some still are.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#17

Post by pavel_lishin »

donatj wrote: post #13

So the library of congress says they're public domain. If they're public domain are you not free to sell copies of them? Such as how you can sell copies of famous paintings or copies of Firefox for that matter. If they're not actually public domain shouldn't she be suing the library of congress for misrepresenting the license? Yes, if they're public domain Getty shouldn't be trying to enforce ownership but that seems…

You might be able to sell prints, but you can't sell the rights to display those prints. You certainly can't come into people's homes and demand that they pay you for a copy you got from the Library itself.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#18

Post by donatj »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #8
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 righ…

People charge for public domain things all the time. I've bought plenty of books from the 17 and 18 hundreds on my kindle. Pay for the convenience and for them putting together a nice version.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#19

Post by codingdave »

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.

Yes, $1B sounds excessive... but that is also a valid legal strategy -- making your complaint cover everything under the sun, for as much damages as possible, expecting their lawyers to fight each point and amount, and hopefully the end result is something you actually find acceptable.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#20

Post by jessriedel »

johnloeber wrote: post #10
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…

> 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.

That's not what public domain means.

> The term “public domain” refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/

> Works in the public domain are those whose exclusive intellectual property rights have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable...The term is not normally applied to situations where the creator of a work retains residual rights, in which case use of the work is referred to as "under license" or "with permission".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Post reply on HN