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

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#31

Post by cowsandmilk »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #29
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.

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.

If a photo is public domain, why do you believe Getty can sue someone for copyright infringement for using that one photo?

It is not like they are suing people for republishing a collection or something that could Getty could have created and have copyright in.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#32

Post by LoSboccacc »

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…

it's perfectly fine charging public domain stuff(in the same way you can charge for distributing gpl'd stuff form third parties), call it a 'download fee' if that makes you uneasy

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#33

Post by mikeash »

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 only about twice the statutory damages. And it looks like the article is only using $25,000 per work for that number. For willful infringement, statutory damages can go up to $150,000, which would be about $2.8 billion for 18,755 photos here. I'd say she's being fairly generous by offering to settle for a mere $1 billion!

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#34

Post by rm999 »

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?

> "Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain" - Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html)

> "Highsmith says she never abandoned her photo copyrights" -article

Yikes, that seems like a big misunderstanding. I would guess the LOC has a process to transfer the ownership of photos. If so, she probably signed away her copyrights without realizing it (???)

Either way, what Getty is doing is terrible and wrong. I don't see how she can sue for copyright damages if she doesn't have the copyright, but I hope they're punished for it. I'm not a lawyer, so someone please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something here.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#35

Post by onli »

kuschku wrote: post #24
donatj wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, the copyright those nicer versions sometimes claim already lead to this exact situation, with publishers making the case that the derivative work should be awarded new copyright.

Here however it is clear-cut, the photos are not modified.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#36

Post by thehashrocket »

mikeash wrote: post #33
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 only about twice the statutory damages. And it looks like the article is only using $25,000 per work for that number. For willful infringement, statutory damages can go up to $150,000, which would be about $2.8 billion for 18,755 photos here. I'd say she's being fairly generous by offering to settle for a mere $1 billion!

Maybe she's taking a play out of their own book?

"We could have sued you for this much, but instead we're offering you a chance to settle for only this amount."

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#37

Post by LoSboccacc »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #31
LoSboccacc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If a photo is public domain, why do you believe Getty can sue someone for copyright infringement for using that one photo? It is not like they are suing people for republishing a collection or something that could Getty could have created and have copyright in.

many works are distributed under dual licensing and how you obtained the files define it's license.

now what I don't know is the legality of attaching a license to a redistribution of a public domain work - technically one can claim recompression is transformative and that you hold a license to the altered work, in which case the origin of the file matters in defining if third parties are infringing (and this is why gpl works better in these cases, you don't get to change the license downstream)

IAMNYL edit: messed up

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#39

Post by simpsond »

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#40

Post by protomyth »

codingdave wrote: post #19
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.

It might be excessive, but we are talking about 18,755 images, and I bet Getty has won cases over single images in the $55,000 range. Its only fair they pay the same that they won from others.
Post reply on HN