MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/  (Read 18916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2016, 06:38 »
+14
I think that if she wins the case...it's going to be a BME for her.


Why?


Shelma1

« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2016, 07:46 »
+5
She's suing Alamy, too, and yes, Getty demanded payment from others for her free images as well:

http://hyperallergic.com/314079/photographer-files-1-billion-suit-against-getty-for-licensing-her-public-domain-images/

...and this article is now making the rounds among advertising creatives...not good for Getty or Alamy.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 07:48 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2016, 11:10 »
0
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.

ah i see now... many thx for the explanation.
even if she does not get the billion , she is still entitled to 468,875,000

still sounds alot for "stock" photographs , really.
it isn't Ansel Adams custom work , if you know what i mean. it's mostly zero expense photography

« Reply #28 on: July 28, 2016, 11:38 »
+14
still sounds alot for "stock" photographs , really.
it isn't Ansel Adams custom work , if you know what i mean. it's mostly zero expense photography

I wouldn't call it zero expense given the time and travel involved, but it's about the violation of her copyright, not individually valuing the photographs and adding up the total, if you claim statutory damages. If the violation is willful, the statutory damages go up

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

I don't know how her lawyers arrived at the number and I doubt it's what the judgment would be, but it's a great starting place to get a company's attention (Getty and their private equity co-owners). Wouldn't you love to have been a fly on the wall at the Carlyle Group when they heard about this?

« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2016, 11:54 »
0
If these photos were uploaded by contributors, wont the sites just blame it on them and wont they end up being sued?

Will the sites now remove all the public domain images they have?  That will be a lot of images.

Shame to see Alamy involved, I don't care about Getty but it wouldn't be good if Alamy get in a long legal battle.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 11:58 by sharpshot »

« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2016, 11:57 »
+5
still sounds alot for "stock" photographs , really.
it isn't Ansel Adams custom work , if you know what i mean. it's mostly zero expense photography

I wouldn't call it zero expense given the time and travel involved, but it's about the violation of her copyright, not individually valuing the photographs and adding up the total, if you claim statutory damages. If the violation is willful, the statutory damages go up

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

I don't know how her lawyers arrived at the number and I doubt it's what the judgment would be, but it's a great starting place to get a company's attention (Getty and their private equity co-owners). Wouldn't you love to have been a fly on the wall at the Carlyle Group when they heard about this?

yes jo ann , definitely.
aside from how i objectively feel her chance of the billion,
anytime any artist who goes up against abusing giants over works they created,
i am always cheering for them to bleed the abuser good.
.. it would set a precedent if , or when, she wins.

and hopefully these giants will lick their wounds where it hurts most to sit on,
and start thinking they are no longer that powerful enough with all their retained lawyers
to bleed artists and creators of photographs,etc..

so long as the scavengers bleed , it's fine with me.

« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2016, 12:00 »
0
If these photos were uploaded by contributors, wont the sites just blame it on them and wont they end up being sued?

i am not sure what you refer to... as i do not see the comment you're answering to,
but if you are talking about the loophole
like those sites providing contributors to porn ..or youtube,etc..with those waivers (we are not responsible
for any copyright infringement, we are just the provider),
yes, that would be a point the defense will be using, for sure!

all in all, be interesting to follow-up on her case.

« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2016, 12:15 »
+2
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.

Right. It's called punitive damages, on top of specific and actual damages.

« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2016, 12:39 »
+2
If these photos were uploaded by contributors, wont the sites just blame it on them and wont they end up being sued?

i am not sure what you refer to... as i do not see the comment you're answering to,
but if you are talking about the loophole
like those sites providing contributors to porn ..or youtube,etc..with those waivers (we are not responsible
for any copyright infringement, we are just the provider),
yes, that would be a point the defense will be using, for sure!

all in all, be interesting to follow-up on her case.
I think its a bit more than a loophole.  The Alamy contributor agreement clearly states that the contributor has to be the copyright holder or have the copyright holders agreement.  That's why I never understand people that think its OK to upload photos that are still in copyright that they don't have the copyright holders permission to sell.  What would happen if the US government thought this would be a good way to get some extra funding for NASA?  Might not be likely but if Donald Trump becomes president, who knows :)

« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2016, 12:46 »
+2
still sounds alot for "stock" photographs , really.
it isn't Ansel Adams custom work , if you know what i mean. it's mostly zero expense photography

Wouldn't you love to have been a fly on the wall at the Carlyle Group when they heard about this?

Absolutely! It was probably a big "Oh Sh*t" moment over at Camp Getty. Perhaps this will finally be a wake-up call for them. Of course, even a case like this where the amount of money involved in the suit is based on punitive damages, nobody will ever get a billion dollars for settlement of a copyright infringement, even if malicious intent can be proven. But it is good to start high and negotiate from there. I can imagine if this case gains some traction in the courts that the payout could be in the 2-3 million range perhaps. And by putting such a large figure on it helps it to become political, which is all part of the strategy. The lawyers know what they are doing on this one it seems.

I bet Getty has a lot of Starbucks latte-swilling hipsters working at the Getty Farm, thinking they're true masters of the universe and probably take turns giving each other latte enemas in the office. But let's see if those smug, little butt-dart cadets are still giving each other wooyay high-fives when they all get handed a brown box to pack up their sh*t because the numpties at the top can't make payroll anymore.

« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2016, 13:41 »
0
I think its a bit more than a loophole.  The Alamy contributor agreement clearly states that the contributor has to be the copyright holder or have the copyright holders agreement.  That's why I never understand people that think its OK to upload photos that are still in copyright that they don't have the copyright holders permission to sell.  What would happen if the US government thought this would be a good way to get some extra funding for NASA?  Might not be likely but if Donald Trump becomes president, who knows :)
[/quote]

wow, i'm confused too, how did the NASA images become approved in the first place.
would it not be like someone taking a part of your photo and paste it to their own
calling it their copyright?
do those NASA composite even sell at all???

« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2016, 13:44 »
0
I bet Getty has a lot of Starbucks latte-swilling hipsters working at the Getty Farm, thinking they're true masters of the universe and probably take turns giving each other latte enemas in the office. But let's see if those smug, little butt-dart cadets are still giving each other wooyay high-fives when they all get handed a brown box to pack up their sh*t because the numpties at the top can't make payroll anymore.

LMAO latte swilling hipsters!!!  butt-dart cadets!!! latte enemas!!!
PixBoxx , love it !!!
the bigG has all that
and ss has only pizza pingpong bat for butt-darts and no latte enema!!!
no wonder they at ss are not happy and boycotting us contributors!!!

btt, (ie back to topic, ...no typo, i did not miss out the u !!!)...
she will have to have lawyers who are smarter than those at the bigG
or else it will be once again Blues 1 Confederate 0

Leo

  • http://www.clipartillustration.com

« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2016, 14:25 »
+1
Even if this has some level of success (obviously not a billion) it could really effect everyone and impact the industry.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 15:03 by Leo »

« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2016, 15:01 »
+5
you really should read the lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/319553374/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0#fullscreen&from_embed

it is a good read i have to say, interesting stuff, looks like getty and alamy are caught red handed and its quite unbelievable that 2 professional agencies have made these cataclysmic mistakes

« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2016, 15:38 »
+1
you really should read the lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/319553374/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0#fullscreen&from_embed

it is a good read i have to say, interesting stuff, looks like getty and alamy are caught red handed and its quite unbelievable that 2 professional agencies have made these cataclysmic mistakes

Alamy used Getty operations Picscout and LCS to find infringing uses and send out the notices. Alamy has also allowed the Everett Collection Inc to sell on their site. Not really Alamy cataclysmic mistakes. Don't forget that when we upload editorial only they can't verify ownership of every image, the trust is placed on the person uploading. In this case the Everett Collection Inc.

Getty and the companies they created are the major offenders. I can't see them getting away with this illegal use, and false claims of infringement.

« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2016, 15:43 »
+8
did you read the lawsuit? Ms Highsmith has been on the phone with alamy and getty telling them she is the copyright owner of the photos  and they had no rights to sell them, and they kept selling them after the phone call. so yes, alamy and getty made cataclysmic mistakes

in fact had they listened and taken the images down it would probably have been the end of it, but they didnt, they chose to keep selling them knowingly violating her copyrights.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 15:45 by Microstockphoto »

« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2016, 16:06 »
+5
you really should read the lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/319553374/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0#fullscreen&from_embed

it is a good read i have to say, interesting stuff, looks like getty and alamy are caught red handed and its quite unbelievable that 2 professional agencies have made these cataclysmic mistakes

Thank you so much for that link - a great read

The fact that even after Getty and Alamy knew that the demand letters to the copyright owner were bogus (her phone calls to them) they kept the images up and continued to send out demand letters. The fact that Getty has a recent judgement against them for their demand letter misbehavior (and I don't know the details of that case) is what led them to seek triple statutory damages.

The other thing that seems pretty clear is the lawsuits claim that unless the court orders them to stop, Getty will keep on selling licenses and sending out demand letters.

« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2016, 16:22 »
0
Kind of crazy that they didn't take them done when she called.  It seems like it would be pretty easy to verify the copyright owner in this case.  Or are they saying someone else owns the cright and she "stole" the photos to give them away?  :o

« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2016, 16:43 »
+1
Kind of crazy that they didn't take them done when she called.  It seems like it would be pretty easy to verify the copyright owner in this case.  Or are they saying someone else owns the cright and she "stole" the photos to give them away?  :o

we will have to wait and see.

my other question is, had she not donated those photos , would she not be in this situation???
is the crucial argument in this case of ownership  the fact that she donated them, thus giving up her ownership.
eg. if i donate my million dollars i won or i inherited or i earned to charity...
technically i no longer own them. iow, i cannot go back one day , when i am broke
to say, "hey, i didn't expect to be broke, so i want my money back!"

you cannot take back (ownership) of something you gave away.

i get the feeling this is where the straw to break the camel's back.
she does not own what she donated.

« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2016, 16:48 »
0
I guess it would depend on exactly what she donated.  It's not as clear with intangible rights as it is with $1 million-which I would love to see and would not "donate" entirely away.

« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2016, 17:08 »
0
I guess it would depend on exactly what she donated.  It's not as clear with intangible rights as it is with $1 million-which I would love to see and would not "donate" entirely away.

definitely.
she would have received some sort of written statement to "value-fy" her donation.
normally, we donate something and in return, we claim that donation in our tax returns.
when you donate money or gifts in kind,etc.. there is a value ,
and we used that value in our PnL under donations for tax savings purpose, ie to reduce our
taxes.

in donation, there is a transfer of property, or else, how is it going from one hand to another?
you cannot donate a chair , or blood, or photographs,
and still not transfer the ownership to the donee.

if the transfer of ownership is not done, i cannot see how that qualifies as a donation.
it would a 'on loan", but definitely not a "donation"...
you cannot be a "lender" and a "donor" at the same time.

i think she will lose if she has a written agreement of donation
to the donee.
it does not matter whether she think she has not transfer the ownership,
if so, how does that qualify as a donation?

the other question is, as i said, she would have certain obtained some benefit to "donate"
this. so most likely it was for some tax-reduction accounting stretegy.
in which case, i don't think any case in the world would not consider this a transfer of ownership.

even a two-bit "lawyer" ..like me... can use this as an argument
i can see why Getty is going to win.

« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2016, 17:19 »
+13
why dont you read the lawsuit? it is all explained there. she didnt give up her copyrights, nor ownership, she donated the images to the LoC with a licence to share the images with the public for free. they are not in the public domain, she still owns copyright.

« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2016, 17:22 »
+1
I guess it would depend on exactly what she donated.  It's not as clear with intangible rights as it is with $1 million-which I would love to see and would not "donate" entirely away.

definitely.
she would have received some sort of written statement to "value-fy" her donation.
normally, we donate something and in return, we claim that donation in our tax returns.
when you donate money or gifts in kind,etc.. there is a value ,
and we used that value in our PnL under donations for tax savings purpose, ie to reduce our
taxes.

in donation, there is a transfer of property, or else, how is it going from one hand to another?
you cannot donate a chair , or blood, or photographs,
and still not transfer the ownership to the donee.

if the transfer of ownership is not done, i cannot see how that qualifies as a donation.
it would a 'on loan", but definitely not a "donation"...
you cannot be a "lender" and a "donor" at the same time.

i think she will lose if she has a written agreement of donation
to the donee.
it does not matter whether she think she has not transfer the ownership,
if so, how does that qualify as a donation?

the other question is, as i said, she would have certain obtained some benefit to "donate"
this. so most likely it was for some tax-reduction accounting stretegy.
in which case, i don't think any case in the world would not consider this a transfer of ownership.

even a two-bit "lawyer" ..like me... can use this as an argument
i can see why Getty is going to win.

It is easily possible to donate prints, or a book or a jpegs to a library but not the intellectual property rights.  The case will be about that.  People who try to profit from public domain and creative commons art need to be very careful.  Much in this world is labeled incorrectly. 

« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 17:32 by trek »

« Reply #48 on: July 28, 2016, 17:27 »
+3
her images are not in the public domain

« Reply #49 on: July 28, 2016, 17:41 »
0
I guess it would depend on exactly what she donated.  It's not as clear with intangible rights as it is with $1 million-which I would love to see and would not "donate" entirely away.

definitely.
she would have received some sort of written statement to "value-fy" her donation.
normally, we donate something and in return, we claim that donation in our tax returns.
when you donate money or gifts in kind,etc.. there is a value ,
and we used that value in our PnL under donations for tax savings purpose, ie to reduce our
taxes.

in donation, there is a transfer of property, or else, how is it going from one hand to another?
you cannot donate a chair , or blood, or photographs,
and still not transfer the ownership to the donee.

if the transfer of ownership is not done, i cannot see how that qualifies as a donation.
it would a 'on loan", but definitely not a "donation"...
you cannot be a "lender" and a "donor" at the same time.

i think she will lose if she has a written agreement of donation
to the donee.
it does not matter whether she think she has not transfer the ownership,
if so, how does that qualify as a donation?

the other question is, as i said, she would have certain obtained some benefit to "donate"
this. so most likely it was for some tax-reduction accounting stretegy.
in which case, i don't think any case in the world would not consider this a transfer of ownership.

even a two-bit "lawyer" ..like me... can use this as an argument
i can see why Getty is going to win.

It is easily possible to donate prints, or a book or a jpegs to a library but not the intellectual property rights.  The case will be about that.  People who try to profit from public domain and creative commons art need to be very careful.  Much in this world is labeled incorrectly.

indeed. each one of us has a different perception of what is ...
this case will definitely re-defined these vagueries or perceptions.
in this sense, it will complicate/uncomplicate things for us.

it all depends on what was signed ...
and what was not signed but deemed that way.
what one construes to be so, when another does not,
that is how we all end up in court.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
135 Replies
25162 Views
Last post August 23, 2012, 20:48
by Sadstock
2 Replies
3546 Views
Last post August 15, 2012, 14:17
by leaf
45 Replies
12321 Views
Last post May 02, 2016, 03:19
by Justanotherphotographer
75 Replies
21309 Views
Last post June 30, 2017, 10:24
by Bad Company
0 Replies
3037 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