pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/  (Read 18985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 27, 2016, 15:09 »
+10
http://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/


That part is hilarious:

However, Highsmith says she never abandoned her photo copyrights, and says she found out about Getty Images charging for her photos when she was sent a letter from Getty that demanded she pay for her own photo that was being displayed on her own website.


dpimborough

« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2016, 15:20 »
+13
Hahaha the funniest thing I've read

Stupid Getty I hope she wins and makes them bankrupt  ;D

« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2016, 15:27 »
+23
Getty is the model for the next generation of big corporations. Invent nothing, manufacture nothing, add no value - just deploy an army of lawyers to secure and exploit other people's intellectual property.   Make money the old fashioned way: with deception, misdirection and intimidation.   Strike when and where people aren't looking, where you're pretty sure no defense has been erected.   


« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2016, 15:34 »
+7
Getty is the model for the next generation of big corporations. Invent nothing, manufacture nothing, add no value - just deploy an army of lawyers to secure and exploit other people's intellectual property.   Make money the old fashioned way: with deception, misdirection and intimidation.   Strike when and where people aren't looking, where you're pretty sure no defense has been erected.
Not just lawyers. Don't forget the bankers/ owners shifting money about and piling on debts to the company to line their own pockets. Be interesting to see how this works out.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 15:38 by Justanotherphotographer »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2016, 16:05 »
+1
Interesting story, and it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Wonder why the photo being the photo Getty was trying to charge her for has Alamy watermarks in that article?

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2016, 16:10 »
+2
I really hope she wins! I wonder what account (contributor) name the Getty Images are listed under ...

« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2016, 16:16 »
0
Interesting story, and it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Wonder why the photo being the photo Getty was trying to charge her for has Alamy watermarks in that article?

Lots of folks upload public domain images at Alamy. Doesn't explain why the publishers of the article haven't bought a license to use it though....

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2016, 16:17 »
0
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/105986420
"Photographer Carol Highsmith, sighting in a shot in Logan circle, is on a multi-year quest to document America in pictures which she is donating copyright free to the Library of Congress"

« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2016, 16:31 »
+4
Getty is the model for the next generation of big corporations. Invent nothing, manufacture nothing, add no value - just deploy an army of lawyers to secure and exploit other people's intellectual property.   Make money the old fashioned way: with deception, misdirection and intimidation.   Strike when and where people aren't looking, where you're pretty sure no defense has been erected.
Not just lawyers. Don't forget the bankers/ owners shifting money about and piling on debts to the company to line their own pockets. Be interesting to see how this works out.

At least we used to be able to say that bankers and 'financiers' made a contribution to capitalism by assuming risk.  But the massive bailouts and bonuses of 2009 removed even that fig leaf of cover.

« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2016, 16:35 »
+3
I wouldn't be surprised to see these photos on FAA too.  People are on there selling anything they can get away with.   

« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2016, 16:50 »
0
so, who is with the Union (blues)
and who is with the Confederates (greys)???

seriously, she is not a david taking on goliath, if she is suing for 1billion.
i imagine like stockastic says, who really can take on Getty or any agency , really???
Getty is the model for the next generation of big corporations. Invent nothing, manufacture nothing, add no value - just deploy an army of lawyers to secure and exploit other people's intellectual property.   Make money the old fashioned way: with deception, misdirection and intimidation.   Strike when and where people aren't looking, where you're pretty sure no defense has been erected.   


« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 17:14 by etudiante_rapide »

Leo

  • http://www.clipartillustration.com

« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2016, 17:14 »
+18
Nice to see someone has found a way to make decent money from their images in this business
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 17:17 by Leo »

« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2016, 17:17 »
0
On alamy, Carol Highsmith's photos are for sale and marked as Everett Collection Inc / Alamy Stock Photo
They have 757K images but only a portion. I couldn't find the grass with the shuttlecock image shown in the peta pixel article - possibly they've taken it down? The Everett Collection is entertainment and "historical" images.

I hope she makes these folks take their images down as well. Why should they profiit from her gift?

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html

alno

« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2016, 17:21 »
+5
Nice to see someone has found a way to make decent money from their images in this business

Then she would tell her grandchildren about making her first billion on microstock :)

« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2016, 17:30 »
+1
On alamy, Carol Highsmith's photos are for sale and marked as Everett Collection Inc / Alamy Stock Photo
They have 757K images but only a portion. I couldn't find the grass with the shuttlecock image shown in the peta pixel article - possibly they've taken it down? The Everett Collection is entertainment and "historical" images.

I hope she makes these folks take their images down as well. Why should they profiit from her gift?

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html


The Everett Collection seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Alamy...

« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2016, 20:50 »
0
The Everett Collection seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Alamy...


I still see it...

http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx

« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2016, 22:10 »
0
Hahaha the funniest thing I've read

Stupid Getty I hope she wins and makes them bankrupt  ;D

yes, i am sure all photographers would wish her well, ...
so agencies stop taking advantage of the creators of their work.

but, objectively, is she going to get a billion?
how does she come to validate that these photos are worth a billion???

i am not even sure if you put Yuri, Lise G, SJLocke, Dolgachov,etc.. it would come to even
close to a million. how does the donated images account for a billion???

« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2016, 02:03 »
+5
I wonder how many people have paid Getty for images that are in the public domain over the years?  The other sites have them as well, like the NASA images.  If this case is won, I wonder if people will start asking for their money back?  I've never sold unaltered public domain images, it never seemed right.  I don't mind if people totally transform a NASA photo but if it's almost the same as the free photo, I don't see why people should be paying for it.

« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2016, 02:39 »
+5
but, objectively, is she going to get a billion?
how does she come to validate that these photos are worth a billion???

i am not even sure if you put Yuri, Lise G, SJLocke, Dolgachov,etc.. it would come to even
close to a million. how does the donated images account for a billion???

It's in the article:

While the statutory damage liability for Getty in this case is $468,875,000, PDNPulse reports that Highsmith is seeking $1 billion based on the precedent of photographer Daniel Morels lawsuit against Getty, in which he was awarded $1.2 million for the widespread infringement of one photo.

You don't just sue for an exact value of the images, you sue for infringement and illegal behavior.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2016, 03:18 »
+8
but, objectively, is she going to get a billion?
how does she come to validate that these photos are worth a billion???

i am not even sure if you put Yuri, Lise G, SJLocke, Dolgachov,etc.. it would come to even
close to a million. how does the donated images account for a billion???

It's in the article:

While the statutory damage liability for Getty in this case is $468,875,000, PDNPulse reports that Highsmith is seeking $1 billion based on the precedent of photographer Daniel Morels lawsuit against Getty, in which he was awarded $1.2 million for the widespread infringement of one photo.

You don't just sue for an exact value of the images, you sue for infringement and illegal behavior.
Plus there's the harassment of trying to charge her for using her own photo.
Eejits.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2016, 03:29 »
+1
The Everett Collection seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Alamy...


I still see it...

http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx


The photo you linked to earlier has 'sorry, this isn't available' marked on it.
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-west-front-of-the-united-states-capitol-washington-dc-dec-2008-photo-38135335.html
The link above, and clicking on Everett Collection Inc on the photo file page, brings up a totally blank white page under the Alamy heading.

Chichikov

« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2016, 03:31 »
0
Getty is the model for the next generation of big corporations. Invent nothing, manufacture nothing, add no value - just deploy an army of lawyers to secure and exploit other people's intellectual property.   Make money the old fashioned way: with deception, misdirection and intimidation.   Strike when and where people aren't looking, where you're pretty sure no defense has been erected.

Not so new. For years they called this Kapitalizm

Today they have found new sweeter names so we can swallow it easier

« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2016, 03:40 »
0
On alamy, Carol Highsmith's photos are for sale and marked as Everett Collection Inc / Alamy Stock Photo
They have 757K images but only a portion. I couldn't find the grass with the shuttlecock image shown in the peta pixel article - possibly they've taken it down? The Everett Collection is entertainment and "historical" images.

I hope she makes these folks take their images down as well. Why should they profiit from her gift?

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html


Here's the Shuttlecock image: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-nelson-atkins-art-museum-kansas-city-missouri-36080528.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=BD75E0FE-3207-464C-912D-609268E80614&p=74048&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d6%26qt%3dart%2520badminton%2520kansas%2520city%26qt_raw%3dart%2520badminton%2520kansas%2520city%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%7b4AD0E185-1B4F-47D8-A96B-6D06E8C59957%7d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d0%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3dGB%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0
Copyright "The Protected Art Archive"

Shelma1

« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2016, 06:12 »
+4
but, objectively, is she going to get a billion?
how does she come to validate that these photos are worth a billion???

i am not even sure if you put Yuri, Lise G, SJLocke, Dolgachov,etc.. it would come to even
close to a million. how does the donated images account for a billion???

It's in the article:

While the statutory damage liability for Getty in this case is $468,875,000, PDNPulse reports that Highsmith is seeking $1 billion based on the precedent of photographer Daniel Morels lawsuit against Getty, in which he was awarded $1.2 million for the widespread infringement of one photo.

You don't just sue for an exact value of the images, you sue for infringement and illegal behavior.
Plus there's the harassment of trying to charge her for using her own photo.
Eejits.

If they tried to charge her for using her own image, imagine how many other people Getty must have gone after for using her images.

That's quite a little extortion gig they have going. Steal someone's images, claim copyright, then demand who knows how much money from who knows how many people for using them.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2016, 06:21 »
+3
but, objectively, is she going to get a billion?
how does she come to validate that these photos are worth a billion???

i am not even sure if you put Yuri, Lise G, SJLocke, Dolgachov,etc.. it would come to even
close to a million. how does the donated images account for a billion???

It's in the article:

While the statutory damage liability for Getty in this case is $468,875,000, PDNPulse reports that Highsmith is seeking $1 billion based on the precedent of photographer Daniel Morels lawsuit against Getty, in which he was awarded $1.2 million for the widespread infringement of one photo.

You don't just sue for an exact value of the images, you sue for infringement and illegal behavior.
Plus there's the harassment of trying to charge her for using her own photo.
Eejits.

If they tried to charge her for using her own image, imagine how many other people Getty must have gone after for using her images.

That's quite a little extortion gig they have going. Steal someone's images, claim copyright, then demand who knows how much money from who knows how many people for using them.
Exactly.
I hope Ms Highsmith stands her ground and doesn't concede for a quick settlement, an apology and peanuts.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 07:10 by ShadySue »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
135 Replies
25220 Views
Last post August 23, 2012, 20:48
by Sadstock
2 Replies
3550 Views
Last post August 15, 2012, 14:17
by leaf
45 Replies
12363 Views
Last post May 02, 2016, 03:19
by Justanotherphotographer
75 Replies
21342 Views
Last post June 30, 2017, 10:24
by Bad Company
0 Replies
3042 Views
Last post June 30, 2017, 10:41
by JetCityImage

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle