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

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#161

Post by anarres » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #33

pavel_lishin wrote: post #2

While $1B seems excessive, and more of a number to make a point, it does seem outrageously egregious to send her a bill for her own photo on her own website that she donated for public use. It would be like coming home to find a naked vagrant sitting on your couch, demanding that you pay him rent.

It's only about twice the statutory damages. And it looks like the article is only using $25,000 per work for that number. For willful infringement, statutory damages can go up to $150,000, which would be about $2.8 billion for 18,755 photos here. I'd say she's being fairly generous by offering to settle for a mere $1 billion!

It's because she's asking under DMCA 1202/1203, false copyright information, not for infringement.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#162

Post by anarres » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 9:36 PM UTC

artursapek wrote: post #138

chillydawg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Certainly, not probably. Getty purchased picscout in the past few years, a company making and using such bot, and sending automated demand letter.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#163

Post by anarres » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

rm999 wrote: post #34

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?

> "Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain" - Library of Congress ( http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html ) > "Highsmith says she never abandoned her photo copyrights" -article Yikes, that seems like a big misunderstanding. I would guess the LOC has a process to transfer the ownership of photos. If so, she probably signed away her copyrights without realizing it (???) Either…

I believe you are correct, but I suspect that's why she's not actually asking damages for copyright infringement, but for DMCA false copyright information. Anyone injured by that can sue:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1203

It's a really big deal that this obscure section in DMCA (1202/1203) can be used for this, and I believe she has a good case.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#164

Post by anarres » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

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…

DMCA 1203 doesn't require copyright ownership to sue. (check it)

I understand why you assume she needs a copyright, but read the actual complaint and causes of action. Indeed she sues for copyright and DMCA, but asks for damages under DMCA. If copyright fails, it doesn't affect the rest.

Re: Photographer Suing Getty Images for $1B

#165

Post by wavefunction » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 11:57 PM UTC

chrismcb wrote: post #159

wavefunction wrote: post #46

I will just point out that the two statements that "the photos are in the public domain" and "she never abandoned her photo copyrights" are not in opposition. Orphaned works (abandoned copyright) can be subject to re-copyrighting by another party from what my laymen's understanding of copyright law is. Instead she specifically stipulated that these photos are in the public domain and so Getty is obviously operating u…

Yes, those two statements are in direct opposition. A work in public domain has no copyright. If she kept the copyright, the works are not in public domain.

Abandoning copyright is different than assigning the works to the public domain from what I know.

One is an explicit act (moving works into the public domain) and the other is simply a sin of omission.