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

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#141

Post by imajes »

mdpopescu wrote: post #134
E6300 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.y…

just to clarify because i think you sort of said you were wrong but i'm not entirely sure...

if i read 17 U.S. Code § 201 (d) clearly, it suggests you can transfer ownership of copyright in any normal legal way of executing a contract.

I think your confusion is around the idea of works falling into the public domain via expiry of copyright, and/or works that do not have an explicit declaration of rights ownership.

In this case it seems she was pretty clear about her transfer of ownership. I don't believe you can rescind that just as you prefer, at any time.

see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#142

Post by derefr »

jimbokun wrote: post #54
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.

Laws have denotative semantics—what they strictly allow, and what they strictly don't. But any given law will also create (or modify) an incentive structure. Copyright has a problem, in that IP rights get more profitable as you get closer and closer to being in violation of the law. The incentive that creates is for everyone to try to violate the spirit, but not the letter of copyright law.

A better law would fix the incentives: to make copyright "abuse" a sliding scale, one that starts long before the current point where something becomes a violation of the law, where the more profitably-abusive an act is, the bigger a fine you'll get for doing it. The cost-benefit should always work out in favor of not violating the spirit of copyright law.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#143

Post by imajes »

imajes wrote: post #140
grengineer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Also, this appears to be down to a getty user called 'buyenlarge', who is listing all kinds of work they don't own.

For example:

This photo-

http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515020819

is actually this photo:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2178341487

which was taken by a now dead photographer called Russell Lee, and owned by the Farm Security Administration.

PS: this same person appears to have about 500k listings for prints etc on amazon.com..... why aren't they a co-defendant?

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#144

Post by xg15 »

imajes wrote: post #140
grengineer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> 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.

Wouldn't this make all electronically transmitted media into "derivative works", though? This sounds like such a reading would make the concept meaningless (and also possibly contradict the outcome of other infringement/attribution cases)

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#145

Post by grengineer »

imajes wrote: post #140
grengineer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

I am not a lawyer either but I think even if you adhere to the declaratory theory of law and take this waiver literally word for word

I hereby dedicate to the public all rights, including copyrights throughout the world, that I possess in this collection.

I have the feeling the lawyer who drafted this instrument of gift was a very competent one as in USA law the copyright of a collection or compilation does not affect the copyright of the works included in it.

17 U.S.C. § 103(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#146

Post by e40 »

imajes wrote: post #143
imajes wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Also, this appears to be down to a getty user called 'buyenlarge', who is listing all kinds of work they don't own. For example: This photo- http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515020819 is actually this photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2178341487 which was taken by a now dead photographer called Russell Lee, and owned by the Farm Security Administration. PS: this same person appears to have ab…

Good catch!

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#147

Post by nhebb »

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…

> the photographer has relinquished her copyright

From the article:

"Highsmith says she never abandoned her photo copyrights"

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#149

Post by nikdaheratik »

imajes wrote: post #143
imajes wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Also, this appears to be down to a getty user called 'buyenlarge', who is listing all kinds of work they don't own. For example: This photo- http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515020819 is actually this photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2178341487 which was taken by a now dead photographer called Russell Lee, and owned by the Farm Security Administration. PS: this same person appears to have ab…

Well the lawsuit names "John Does 1-100" as co-defendants so I would guess one of them.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#150

Post by paavokoya »

derefr wrote: post #142
jimbokun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Laws have denotative semantics—what they strictly allow, and what they strictly don't. But any given law will also create (or modify) an incentive structure. Copyright has a problem, in that IP rights get more profitable as you get closer and closer to being in violation of the law. The incentive that creates is for everyone to try to violate the spirit, but not the letter of copyright law. A better law would fix the…

>where the more profitably-abusive an act is, the bigger a fine you'll get for doing it

Hahahah... You should do stand-up for Goldman Sachs

Post reply on HN