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

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#51

Post by Spare_account » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:16 PM UTC

LoSboccacc wrote: post #37

cowsandmilk wrote: post #31

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…

What does IAMNYL mean? I googled it but I didn't come up with anything

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#52

Post by cookiecaper » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:18 PM UTC

tmd83 wrote: post #43

This is beyond shameless but I'm not surprised that this happens. Big players of copyright seems be doing this sort of thing all the time and getting away with it. 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…

Yes. This is becoming ever-more-salient as large portions of the programming that airs on multi-national news organizations comprises original content posted to social media and owned by the user that originally authored it. Just in the last month we have Nice, Dallas, and Turkey, where it felt like all the news orgs were doing was reading tweets and playing back 60-second clips that people were posting online.

On the one hand, news orgs probably have a reasonable fair use case there, but on the other, they are profiting off content that the OP owns, and OP is rightly entitled to a portion of that evening's advertising proceeds if their content comprises a substantial part of the programming.

If someone snippeted CNN and played it repeatedly on their own channel as fair use, they'd get pursued hard, be unable to fund the legal battle, and be forced to do whatever CNN said lest a long and ruinous legal battle occur with spotty if any representation for the little guy. It'd a big multi-national law firm that bills at $1k/hr v. an innocent little person who probably doesn't know any legal terms at all and would be lucky to have $10k in savings.

Meanwhile, CNN and other large companies will openly trounce anyone and everyone they can because they understand that only a tiny fraction will actually be in a position to hurt them for it, and they'll try to leave that tiny fraction alone if they can help it. You'll try to sue them for an injustice and for the $20k they owe you and it'll explode into an 8-year, multi-million legal battle. The little guy still gets completely screwed over. Since big companies know this, they take full advantage and effectively, operate under a different set of laws from the rest of us.

The easy way to mitigate this specific problem wrt copyrights is to reform copyright law so that we no longer divert a grossly disproportionate amount of money into content companies and so that they don't file lawsuits that there is no hope of winning, but it doesn't really solve the larger issue, which is that the legal system is only really available and functional for those with the capacity to spend $10 million on lawyers at any given time. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that we're going to resolve that during the lifetime of anyone currently living.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#53

Post by anc84 » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:20 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #35

kuschku wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh but surely the images were optimised for computer display in a non-trivial process!

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#54

Post by jimbokun » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:20 PM UTC

Smushman wrote: post #14

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 ima…

"I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws"

What?

Sounds more like they are in flagrant violation of existing copyright laws, and deserve to get their head handed to them in court.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#55

Post by colomon » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:23 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #30

forrestthewoods wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Kindle edition is 99 cents.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#56

Post by krisroadruck » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

Spare_account wrote: post #51

LoSboccacc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does IAMNYL mean? I googled it but I didn't come up with anything

I Am Not Your Lawyer. Probably in this case the person is saying while I am a lawyer... I'm not YOUR lawyer. :P

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#57

Post by dublinben » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

Spare_account wrote: post #51

LoSboccacc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does IAMNYL mean? I googled it but I didn't come up with anything

I Am Not Your Lawyer, I assume. Thank goodness, since they're providing terrible legal advice.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#58

Post by finnh » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:27 PM UTC

morninj wrote: post #41

simpsond wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Gross negligence" means you really really should have known of the risk. But it's still a contradiction to say that someone was deliberately grossly negligent.

Not really, I don't think. That's basically the idea behind deniability - you kinda sort know about something, but you kinda sort make sure you never actually know about it.

Gross negligence is often more along the lines of "we are 99.999% sure you are lying, but we can't prove it".

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#59

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

Spare_account wrote: post #51

LoSboccacc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does IAMNYL mean? I googled it but I didn't come up with anything

[deleted]

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#60

Post by wvenable » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:31 PM UTC

colomon wrote: post #55

dublinben wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Kindle edition is 99 cents.

This misses the point. If you have the public domain ebook already, Amazon isn't knocking on your door asking for their cut.

Getty literally told the photographer she had to pay a license for her own work posted on her website. She didn't acquire it from Getty.

You can acquire a public domain ebook from somewhere else for free or you can pay 99c to acquire it from Amazon. But either way, you're not paying for a license to copy it.