Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B • Hacker News Board

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#21

Post by newman314 » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:26 PM UTC

morninj wrote: post #12

dublinben wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Extremely careless"

Sorry, could not resist.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#22

Post by ptaipale » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

tommorris wrote: post #16

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…

Is it legal to charge for public domain photos, if you mislead the person who is charged to believe that the photos are not public domain?

I guess this depends on local legislation, but in most jurisdictions, I think this would be called fraud.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#23

Post by forrestthewoods » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

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…

Anyone is perfectly free to charge for content that is in the public domain. Getty still provides a service. For example the ability to search, preview, or download images. Bandwidth does still have a cost.

Of course it's also fine for someone to use Getty to locate a public domain image, and then acquire it for free from another source.

Getty sending copyright notices on works they know (or should know) to be in the public domain is a real problem.

Ulysses is in the public domain. You can buy it for $2. https://www.amazon.com/Ulysses-Wordsworth-Classics-James-Joy...

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#24

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

donatj wrote: post #18

pavel_lishin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But the publishers of those nicer versions don't go around and threaten anyone who got them for free with lawyers.

Getty actively threatened anyone using the public domain images.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#25

Post by syshum » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:29 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?

It is not simply that Getty is attempting to charge for the Photos

But rather Getty is Claiming Copyright over the photos, and are Issue Cease and Deist letters to anyone they find using the photos that did not pay Getty for a License.

So regardless of the status of Public Domain or not, Getty is not the Copyright Holder, and should not be issuing DMCA, or other Demand Letters claiming they are.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#26

Post by sleepychu » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #18

pavel_lishin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What you're buying there is a copy. That's not the same thing as someone coming after you and saying that you need to pay them for the copy you have acquired.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#27

Post by jessriedel » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

tommorris wrote: post #16

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…

Yea, this is an interesting effect. I wonder why there isn't an OpenSourceGetty company that charges a much lower fee for guaranteeing that the IP really is open source? They do the research leg work, and then you pay them $5 for a commitment to reimburse/defend you if you get sued.

I guess someone else could just try to free-ride off them by not doing the research, but honestly the legal commitment ("bonded open source") would be the valuable and expensive part.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#28

Post by aqme28 » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:31 PM UTC

tommorris wrote: post #16

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…

It's (probably) legal to charge for public domain photos, but I don't believe it is to send cease-and-desist letters over the use of public works.

From the comments >The Adventure of Tom Sawyer is public domain. Getty is publishing then the book and attacking anybody who uses the name Tom Sawyer in anything. They got caught when they filed a DMCA complaint against Mark Twain for having the book on his personal website.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#29

Post by LoSboccacc » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:31 PM UTC

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.

eh, if they're listed as public domain on the library of congress and Getty got their images there, wouldn't be the library of congress the one committing copyright infringement?

Getty is using the license they got the images with, after all.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#30

Post by dublinben » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 2:31 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #23

pavel_lishin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Anyone is perfectly free to charge for content that is in the public domain. Getty still provides a service. For example the ability to search, preview, or download images. Bandwidth does still have a cost. Of course it's also fine for someone to use Getty to locate a public domain image, and then acquire it for free from another source. Getty sending copyright notices on works they know (or should know) to be in the…

That $2 pays for the physical paper copy of the book. You aren't buying a license though, because they can't legally sell you one. It's pretty clear here that Getty was selling something (licenses) they had no right to sell. Trying to enforce these fraudulent "licenses" was just the icing on the cake.