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

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#121

Post by ktRolster »

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

The most entertaining part is they sent copyright notices to the original creator of the images. That is how she found out they were suing people over it.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#122

Post by amalag »

triangleman wrote: post #78

A google search returned this PDF as the actual court filing: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

This is interesting in there:

Getty was found by this Court to have violated 17 U.S.C. § 1202 within the last 3 years, and ordered to pay over $1 million in damages.

Because Getty has already had a final judgment entered against it by this Court under 17 U.S.C. § 1202 in the past three years, this Court may treble the statutory damages in this case against Getty.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#123

Post by Smushman »

zyxley wrote: post #91
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?

I think its tough to say... It's like I know it smells (real) bad, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is that stinks so much.

I guess I would say it is one thing to 'sell' public domain pictures in your database along with privately held photos - using a subscription model, Getty could say it is just creating a one stop shop and charging for that service. I am sure their lawyers thought about that long ago, when they first brought on the Public Domain photos.

But to go to the level of actually shaking people down for money when they are using a photo that is Public Domain leans toward organized crime, with copyright laws behaving as accessories to enforcement. It's like charging 'protection money' when you should naturally have freedom from harassment.

How many uncounted people have paid that shakedown fee for their Public Domain pictures, not knowing any better...

Proves the old adage - Knowledge is Power.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#124

Post by mdpopescu »

dperfect wrote: post #107
Animats wrote: post #96

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 he…

> ...did not release them into the public domain This is incorrect. According to the Library of Congress: "Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain." [1] [1] http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

It's not possible to renounce copyrights in the US; they're inalienable rights. The only way to get something in the public domain is for the copyright term to pass... and even then there are problems (see the Sherlock Holmes saga).

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#125

Post by dperfect »

Natsu wrote: post #119
dperfect wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't really with Getty charging for those images. If they're in the public domain, then (as I understand it) the photographer has relinquished her copyright on the images. It's perfectly legal for other people to make money with them in that case, but that doesn't mean those other people own the copyright. I think the issue comes into play when Getty tries to enforce a copyright they don't actually own by…

From other sources, she licensed them for free use with attribution, she didn't abandon the copyright.

If that's true, then either the Library of Congress didn't get the memo (they very clearly specify that it's in the public domain), or this is somehow a case where "public domain" means something different from the standard definition.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#126

Post by grengineer »

dperfect wrote: post #107
Animats wrote: post #96

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 he…

> ...did not release them into the public domain This is incorrect. According to the Library of Congress: "Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain." [1] [1] http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

According to exhibit B [1] - The instrument of gift - she did not intend to relinquish her rights as there are specific conditions for reproduction of the works contained in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive.

Also explicit permission is given to the library to make copies of the work for security,preservation etc.

[1] Google Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-2

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#127

Post by balls187 »

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…

Building slightly on that analogy:

Before setting up that tent, some random person tells getty "Hey I own this park," pointing to Central Park, "You can charge admission on my behalf."

Getty then setups up a tent without a second thought about verifying the veracity of the persons claim.

//

I'm not sure if Getty just sucked in all those public domain images and said "Is private now." or through their submission process, some individually claimed to own the copyright, and had Getty do the dirty work.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#128

Post by Natsu »

dperfect wrote: post #125
Natsu wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From other sources, she licensed them for free use with attribution, she didn't abandon the copyright.

If that's true, then either the Library of Congress didn't get the memo (they very clearly specify that it's in the public domain), or this is somehow a case where "public domain" means something different from the standard definition.

It's possible they mislabeled it, but one would think they were still on the hook if they sent any DMCA notices, as they should not have any reason to believe that they were the copyright holders or in any way authorized to sue for "infringement" of the works... particularly when sending notices to the actual copyright holder.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#129

Post by Natsu »

dperfect wrote: post #105
legohead wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The issue isn't really with Getty charging for those images. If they're in the public domain, then (as I understand it) the photographer has relinquished her copyright on the images. It's perfectly legal for other people to make money with them in that case, but that doesn't mean those other people own the copyright. I think the issue comes into play when Getty tries to enforce a copyright they don't actually own by…

What I want to know is if they sent DMCA notices over these.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

(3) Elements of notification.— (A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

[...]

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

=====

I'm having trouble figuring out if there's any way they could have a good faith belief that they were the copyright holders here (I suspect not), though I do not know whether or not they ever sent DMCA notices containing all of the elements.

Post reply on HN