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

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#91

Post by zyxley »

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

Wouldn't prosecution for fraud be enough?

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#92

Post by gvb »

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.

Books in the 1700s and 1800s are no longer under copyright, they are now in the public domain. Anybody can sell them for whatever the market will bear. Since they are not longer under copyright, there is no longer a copyright holder whose rights they are infringing and thus nobody that can charge them for violating copyright law.

The question with Highsmith is whether she still holds the copyright or whether she put the pictures in the public domain. Answering this could be very interesting.

The other angle that I would expect to see come up is whether Getty can sue (or threaten to sue) over pictures that they clearly do not hold the copyright to. That seems to be a clear violation of racketeering laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering

Ref:

* http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain "Works in the public domain are those whose exclusive intellectual property rights have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable."

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#93

Post by jahewson »

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…

> technically one can claim recompression is transformative

No, because transformative applies to uses of the work, not the work itself. A recompressed image has the same uses as the original image so there's absolutely no scope for considering it to be transformative.

As far as attaching licenses to public domain works goes, you can do what you like. There are no restrictions. However, you can't claim to have an exclusive license, and you certainly can't claim to own any copyright in the work, because none exists.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#94

Post by legohead »

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…

Don't know why this needs an analogy at all.

Getty [allegedly] took images that didn't necessarily belong to them, charged for them, and also sent copyright notices after anyone that hadn't paid for them.

It's pretty simple. edit: allegedly

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#95

Post by rbanffy »

Fuxy wrote: post #86
thehashrocket wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Ha ha... funny. I would have sued them for the full amount the law permitted for each image if the company goes under as a result that would act as example/discouragement for any other company that would think about doing that in the future. People get fined ridiculous amounts all the time as discouragement so why shouldn't companies have the same happen to them their technically a person in the US no?

If the company goes under because it can't make the full payment, I'd accept a transfer of the remaining copyrights and promptly place everything in the public domain.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#96

Post by Animats »

Read the court filing. She can win this.

She owns the rights to the images. She licensed the Library of Congress to distribute them for free, but did not release them into the public domain.

Getty is selling her images. That's a for-profit DMCA violation. The statutory penalty applies, which is from $750 per image to $30,000 per image. She makes a case that the higher end of the scale should apply, because some of her images are quite famous. Two have appeared on US stamps, for example.

Getty recently lost a DMCA case for doing something similar. That makes this a second offense and triggers the triple damages provision in the DMCA. So, as a matter of law, she is entitled to at least 18,755 * $750 * 3, or about $42 million. That's a minimum.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#97

Post by fencepost »

tzs wrote: post #61
Spare_account wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Others have already answered the question, but let me add to their answers that "I Am Not Your Lawyer" is usually rendered as IANYL, not IAMNYL, which is why you could not find it. More common is IANAL, which means "I Am Not A Lawyer".

Don't forget IAALBIANYL "I am a lawyer but I am not your lawyer."

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#98

Post by agumonkey »

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 remember kids pulling this in primary school.

- Pay me and I'll make sure this guy won't beat you up

- But that's your brother ..

- So what do you say ?

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#99

Post by [deleted] »

legohead wrote: post #94
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…

Don't know why this needs an analogy at all. Getty [allegedly] took images that didn't necessarily belong to them, charged for them, and also sent copyright notices after anyone that hadn't paid for them. It's pretty simple. edit: allegedly

[deleted]

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#100

Post by jahewson »

cloudjacker wrote: post #67

> public domain > but are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner (and suing others) So the federal government should be suing them instead of the photographer? It doesn't seem like the copyright office has its own enforcement agency, so it probably would be up to the photographer to start a proceeding, since nobody else will. This makes her attempt to get copyright damages to…

No, the images are not actually public domain. She owns the copyright and Getty have infringed her copyright thousands of times. She has many big claims.
Post reply on HN