41–50 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You can resell public domain works as much as you want, but you can't go around claiming an exclusive right to the image and trying to force other people to pay you to license a right that you don't possess.
This comes from the same mindset that allow a original video by the author to be put off youtube by a big studio.
I think I read that big recording studios similarly uses lesser known artists songs in records under some weird law (pretending they couldn't find the copyright holder) and basically strongarm them if they come out and complaint. Does anyone know if its true and provide reference?
Essentially the legal system worldover is extremely for the power broker. The ones who needs the least protection gets the most and those that need it in most cases cannot even afford the least.
It's okay that Getty lists high quality images that are public domain or restriction free as part of their search engine, but it is beyond ethically wrong to charge money for them.
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.
That's the problem, isn't it? Many crimes, for the law to apply, have to be committed knowingly. But if your internal controls are weak, and if cross-checking when billing is discouraged you just overbill on the chance that the customer will pay up. And you don't commit crime, only if you check and bill anyway, then it's crime!
If we are arguing language, the correct words should be "criminogenic environment".
Orphaned works (abandoned copyright) can be subject to re-copyrighting by another party from what my laymen's understanding of copyright law is.
Instead she specifically stipulated that these photos are in the public domain and so Getty is obviously operating under bad-faith principles.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So yeah, just selling it on their website is probably fine, but extorting money out of people who have equal right to use the image is probably not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
One can claim whatever one wants, but I doubt the courts would fall for that.