Photographer sues Getty for One Billion Dollars for Copyright Infringement

tirediron · Jul 29, 2016

I hope she wins that and more! Link

limr · Jul 29, 2016

tirediron said:
I hope she wins that and more! Link

Totally agree.

unpopular · Jul 29, 2016

This is a tremendously complicated case, and it's really hard to establish injury here. Getty could claim that the fees associated are for stock services for which these images are a part of, and because they are in the public domain the rights aren't included. This would only apply if we're talking about non-exclusive and royalty free. Because in this case the rights of the images aren't being transferred, there is no infringement. Public domain isn't like Creative Commons. And as seady as it would be, as far as I know it'd be completely legal for me to sell collections of public domain images, and in some cases without even crediting the artist.

If Getty is offering exclusive rights, that would be more of a fraud issue, I'd think.

unpopular · Jul 29, 2016

(all that said, what Getty is doing here is definitely dishonest. I'm just not sure it's illegal)

DarkShadow · Jul 29, 2016

Scum Bags, Hope she wins every cent.

tirediron · Jul 29, 2016

unpopular said:
(all that said, what Getty is doing here is definitely dishonest. I'm just not sure it's illegal)

Sad, but true!

unpopular · Jul 29, 2016

DarkShadow said:
Scum Bags, Hope she wins every cent.

Even if there was a case here, I doubt that the court would assign even a significant fraction. Even the statutory damages would probably be negotiated.

The minimum statutory damages for willful infringement is $200 per infraction, and if found not willful no more than $30,000 for the entire body (if I am understanding 17 U.S. Code § 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits correctly)

tirediron · Jul 29, 2016

unpopular said:
DarkShadow said:

Scum Bags, Hope she wins every cent.

Click to expand...

Even if there was a case here, I doubt that the court would assign even a significant fraction. Even the statutory damages would probably be negotiated.

The minimum statutory damages for willful infringement is $200 per infraction, and if found not willful no more than $30,000 for the entire body (if I am understanding 17 U.S. Code § 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits correctly)

Based on the fact that she's asked for one billion dollars, I don't for a second think she is actually after monetary damages because the fact is (I don't like it, but it's a fact), since she gavet hem over to the public domain, she's not out anything... I'm sure her intent here is to draw public attention to what a group of scumbags Getty is!

Gary A. · Jul 30, 2016

unpopular said:
This is a tremendously complicated case, and it's really hard to establish injury here. Getty could claim that the fees associated are for stock services for which these images are a part of, and because they are in the public domain the rights aren't included. This would only apply if we're talking about non-exclusive and royalty free. Because in this case the rights of the images aren't being transferred, there is no infringement. Public domain isn't like Creative Commons. And as seady as it would be, as far as I know it'd be completely legal for me to sell collections of public domain images, and in some cases without even crediting the artist.

If Getty is offering exclusive rights, that would be more of a fraud issue, I'd think.

I read it quite differently, albeit there is a lack of information to factually determine what the 'licensing' that Getty is selling includes/stipulates. I am not am attorney, but I suspect that the usage of an image in the public domain does not include the selling/licensing of said image by a commercial enterprise without the consent of the photographer and/or the entity which received the photographs. The scope of Getty 'stealing' and licensing 18,755 Highsmith images from the Library of Congress and the fact that this is not the first offense of Getty copyright infringement ... per the numbers posted by Highsmith's lawsuit, the $1,000,000,000 seems reasonable.

Again, there are two sides to every coin and we haven't heard from Getty. Should Highsmith prevail, I hope that a complete audit of Getty's licensing activities is ordered.

unpopular · Jul 30, 2016

@Gary A. I really just don't know, and there is definitely a lack of information.

But let's think of it this way. Say I have a customer who needs a specific image for an advertisement. It's pretty common practice to look for images in the public domain for this, and often public domain images do not require citation to use. I check the citation requirements for the image, and confirm this is the case.

So, I incorporate the image into the advert and transfer the license to the client.

How is this any different?

Now, a few caveats: The portion of public property I used in the advert is not technically exclusively "owned" by the client nor by me - it remains in the public domain. So anyone can come along and copypaste out the public imageWhat I am selling isn't that image, but rather the use of that image within a design composition.

Getty may not be actually selling the image, either. They might "license" the image, but if the agreement can be summed up to "enter credit card/download image but rather the stock service product - the search and delivery of the image. Where Getty might get in trouble is giving the impression to customers that the property is exclusive or not within the public domain, and as a result clients might rightfully feel that they were mislead about the product's value.

Also, the license is an agreement between Getty and the Customer, so I don't think it'd even involve the photographer. The license itself doesn't really determine copyright infringement, the copying does. Property transfers might be a little different, but again, if someone sells me stolen property it's not the sale that makes it stolen. For the photography, it's the property theft that's the issue. For the customer it's the lack of disclosure about the product. But these are, afaik, totally unique issues.

But, if the photographer transferred the images into the public domain I don't think she has any claim to them - she owns them, but so do I - and so does Getty. And what Getty does with those images might be outside of her control.

But IDK. I too am not an attorney. It's a really, really complicated case.

unpopular · Jul 30, 2016

Another analogy would be those stupid "background check" websites that sell public records.

Emotionally it's different. I'm not sure if it is legally or not.

EIngerson · Jul 30, 2016

unpopular said:
This is a tremendously complicated case, and it's really hard to establish injury here. Getty could claim that the fees associated are for stock services for which these images are a part of, and because they are in the public domain the rights aren't included. This would only apply if we're talking about non-exclusive and royalty free. Because in this case the rights of the images aren't being transferred, there is no infringement. Public domain isn't like Creative Commons. And as seady as it would be, as far as I know it'd be completely legal for me to sell collections of public domain images, and in some cases without even crediting the artist.

If Getty is offering exclusive rights, that would be more of a fraud issue, I'd think.

This post is SOOOOO unpopular.....

Gary A. · Jul 30, 2016

unpopular said:
@Gary A. I really just don't know, and there is definitely a lack of information.

But let's think of it this way. Say I have a customer who needs a specific image for an advertisement. It's pretty common practice to look for images in the public domain for this, and often public domain images do not require citation to use. I check the citation requirements for the image, and confirm this is the case.

So, I incorporate the image into the advert and transfer the license to the client.

How is this any different?

Now, a few caveats: The portion of public property I used in the advert is not technically exclusively "owned" by the client nor by me - it remains in the public domain. So anyone can come along and copypaste out the public imageWhat I am selling isn't that image, but rather the use of that image within a design composition.

Getty may not be actually selling the image, either. They might "license" the image, but if the agreement can be summed up to "enter credit card/download image but rather the stock service product - the search and delivery of the image. Where Getty might get in trouble is giving the impression to customers that the property is exclusive or not within the public domain, and as a result clients might rightfully feel that they were mislead about the product's value.

Also, the license is an agreement between Getty and the Customer, so I don't think it'd even involve the photographer. The license itself doesn't really determine copyright infringement, the copying does. Property transfers might be a little different, but again, if someone sells me stolen property it's not the sale that makes it stolen. For the photography, it's the property theft that's the issue. For the customer it's the lack of disclosure about the product. But these are, afaik, totally unique issues.

But, if the photographer transferred the images into the public domain I don't think she has any claim to them - she owns them, but so do I - and so does Getty. And what Getty does with those images might be outside of her control.

But IDK. I too am not an attorney. It's a really, really complicated case.

I think that the 'value added' that you created by incorporating the image into a greater entity is different than simply demanding a fee for something which Getty did not add any additional value. Again, I am not an attorney, but ... If you make a coffee cup and incorporate a public image on that cup, I think that is okay because your selling a cup and not just the image. I think Getty knows that their practices will be crossing a copyright line, a legal line, an ethical line and didn't give a rat's thinking that all their attorneys will crush or negotiate a way out of the lines they have crossed and still have a lot of profits left over at the end of the day. Corporations call that risk management. This will be difficult to prove, but if Highsmith's attorney's can discover the smoking gun attesting to Getty acting with malice ... Then the $1B is a very realistic goal. If Highsmith has the wherewithal or the connections to bring a legal team that can match the Getty lawyers ... Then Getty has one hell of a fight on its hands ... Losing will cost the Getty plenty in actual damages and in jobs.