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

131–140 of 165 posts

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#131

Post by gm-conspiracy »

jahewson wrote: post #114
dragonwriter wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having said that, if it turns out that the library of congress is responsible for the infringements (because they published the images and labelled them incorrectly as being public domain) then Getty would be off the hook for infringement It seems to me that mislabeling wouldn't make the LoC legally responsible for the infringement, but might make Getty not liable for any infringement that happened entirely before…

Yes I definitely agree with this assessment. There's more than a few scenarios in which Getty unintentionally infringed but is still liable and will look to sue the third party which misled them.

Why do you say unintentionally?

Was Getty not claiming copyright of public-domain images (from their "assumption")?

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#132

Post by E6300 »

mdpopescu wrote: post #124
dperfect wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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).

I don't think this is actually true. Can you cite any sources referring to copyright as inalienable in the US?

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#133

Post by albedoa »

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.

The basic definition [1] is not about failing to know the risk but rather failing to exercise care. Can one not deliberately fail to exercise that care?

I am not versed in law, so please accept this as a request for clarification, not a debate.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#134

Post by mdpopescu »

E6300 wrote: post #132
mdpopescu wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don't think this is actually true. Can you cite any sources referring to copyright as inalienable in the US?

My bad. In the first place, what I meant is that you can't give up copyright - you can't say "this work is in the public domain". (Or rather, you can, but there's nothing legally preventing you from saying a year later "I changed my mind".) See http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm

However, "inalienable" was incorrect - you can most definitely sell your copyright.

Second, apparently I was wrong even then: see https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html

Face, meet egg.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#135

Post by dahart »

mdpopescu wrote: post #124
dperfect wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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).

Copyrights are transferrable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Transfer_and_licensi...

Are you maybe thinking of Moral Rights? Those are inalienable and not transferrable in many countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

Copyrights are also assigned automatically to the creator by the act of creating something, that might also be what you were thinking of.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#136

Post by dahart »

bad_user wrote: post #83
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?

There's no such thing, no law that allows one to place their work in the public domain! Yes, you can attach a copyright license that allows one to use your work for any purpose, but you still retain the copyright.

You can waive your copyrights in which case you do not retain them. You can also, as you say, assign a public domain license and retain copyrights, but that isn't considered "public domain" per se.

'Examples for works actively dedicated into public domain by their authors are reference implementations of cryptographic algorithms,[6][7][8] NIH's ImageJ,[9] and the CIA's The World Factbook.[10] The term is not normally applied to situations where the creator of a work retains residual rights, in which case use of the work is referred to as "under license" or "with permission".'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#137

Post by balls187 »

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…

It's more nuanced, and more sinister.

Getty maintains the "exclusive right" to license an image on behalf of the copyright owner (typically a photographer). The photographer does not assign ownership, just the right to license.

They use automation to find cases of license violation--using the image without paying Getty a license fee. That triggers an automated message saying "You owe us $500."

Getty doesn't (as far as I can tell) verify that the photographer owns the rights to the image, and when a person asks for that proof, Getty's response is to "Check the website" and will only submit further proof upon subpoena.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#138

Post by artursapek »

chillydawg wrote: post #69
anc84 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's actually not totally unreasonable. Also maybe getty ran some clever image recognition to auto tag them up and organise them all? That's all a useful charge-able service. Going after existing usage is clearly BS, though.

She just had her photo up on her website. They clearly went after her without any reason to believe she used their "clever organization" image searching service. These scumbags were probably using an image recognition bot to scrape the web for all usage and spraying everyone with legal letters.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#139

Post by grengineer »

dahart wrote: post #136
bad_user wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing, no law that allows one to place their work in the public domain! Yes, you can attach a copyright license that allows one to use your work for any purpose, but you still retain the copyright.

You can waive your copyrights in which case you do not retain them. You can also, as you say, assign a public domain license and retain copyrights, but that isn't considered "public domain" per se. 'Examples for works actively dedicated into public domain by their authors are reference implementations of cryptographic algorithms,[6][7][8] NIH's ImageJ,[9] and the CIA's The World Factbook.[10] The term is not normally…

Actually USA goverment works like the CIA World Factbook are public domain only inside USA. According to (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56 (1976)) section 105 page 59

The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Govern­ment works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such pro­tection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#140

Post by imajes »

grengineer wrote: post #126
dperfect wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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

You say that but that's not the reading I make of this contract. "I hereby dedicate to the public all rights, including copyrights,... that i posses in this collection".

that seems pretty clear cut to me. Conditions for reproduction only seem to express the general ways the content should be available for users of the library. Nothing limiting availability, in fact it's promoting methods of being available.

So that leaves the question of a: whether or not getty et al were able to sell works in the public domain. My quick read of it seems that if they can come up with some kind of argument that they are selling derivative work (including perhaps some kind of unique identification layer, or meta data perhaps ... ?), OR that they are selling a reproduction. tenuous, but that may be their justification.

as for requesting a license fee, well that's on LCS and Alamy (who I don't think have had an issue in the past 3 years of this stuff, so the multiplier doesn't apply here)

NB: Alamy being a uk company, so they can hide behind a corporate shield if their assets are mostly offshore...

this is the settle page, from the first exhibit: https://settle.lcs.global/103173853953 -- that's what she got sent. It doesn't appear that they argue they are the exclusive license holder, and especially if they argue they are holding a license to derivative work -- well. that's a whole ball of wax.

Thinking further, since she no longer holds the copyright to these images, and the United States is not listed as a co-plaintiff, I'm not even sure she has standing to bring this case at all -- but, on that, IANAL. :P

Post reply on HN