MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/  (Read 18927 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2016, 23:02 »
0


« Reply #51 on: July 29, 2016, 00:45 »
+1
http://resourcemagonline.com/2016/07/getty-images-faces-1-billion-copyright-claim/68973/

I think this will really change the landscape. Not a clue what number she will finally get but I also always felt that selling public domain images (which it is not so clear they are in this case) was wrong. But to go against buyers for using public domain images even more.

On Getty press Statement they say "We are reviewing the complaint. We believe it is based on a number of misconceptions, which we hope to rectify with the plaintiff as soon as possible. If that is not possible, we will defend ourselves vigorously." Lets see how all this pans out. Somehow I think Getty will loose this battle independently on how "vigorously" they defend themselves.

« Reply #52 on: July 29, 2016, 01:02 »
+1
so getty is certain that the images are in the public domain, if that was the case, i dont think the photographer would have made such a fuss. unless there is indeed a twist to this case. if the images are not in the public domain, getty is going to bite the dust

« Reply #53 on: July 29, 2016, 02:43 »
+7
They can't get around sending her a demand letter over her use of her own work

I'll read the Getty stuff tomorrow. Can't imagine they have anything beyond bluster

Shelma1

« Reply #54 on: July 29, 2016, 02:47 »
+12
Even IF the images were in the public domain (and that's a big if), this exposes a business practice that's quite shady. Not only to charge people a licensing fee for images they could use for free, but also to have an entire arm of your business that engages in sending letters of demand for monetary damages to who knows how many people who used images in the public domain. They very well could have come from the Library of Congress, and then they get a nasty letter from Getty demanding payment...a letter that shifts the blame to their graphic designer or web developer and tells them the use could have been inadvertent on their part, giving designers and developers a bad reputation in their clients' eyes.

Their press release is really lame. They swiftly decided not to demand payment from the copyright holder? How big of them. But they kept licensing her images even after she asked them not to.

« Reply #55 on: July 29, 2016, 04:34 »
+4
you make a good point shelma, not related to this case, they are asking for compensation on pd images, of which no one can claim copyright, unless they created derived works. selling pd images is a tricky business

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: July 29, 2016, 06:04 »
+6
They can't get around sending her a demand letter over her use of her own work

I'll read the Getty stuff tomorrow. Can't imagine they have anything beyond bluster

What they're claiming is: "In this instance, LCS pursued an infringement on behalf of its customer, Alamy. Any enquiries regarding that matter should be directed to Alamy; however, as soon as the plaintiff contacted LCS, LCS acted swiftly to cease its pursuit with respect to the image provided by Alamy and notified Alamy it would not pursue this content."
I only wish LCS/Alamy would act to recover for me over 20 unreported/unpaid uses from one of their biggest customers, claim pending since January. How ironic that they were wasting time pursuing a tog for using her own work.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 06:06 by ShadySue »

« Reply #57 on: July 29, 2016, 07:21 »
+5
Thank you for the link to the suit, what a read!

What I don't get is - if Getty sells licenses to photos they aquired from public domains why would they even bother to track "illegal" uses of those photos in the web - they are available for free anyway, right? Or did Getty somehow considered those images to be exclusive with them after they became available for licensing?

My bet is (based on everything I remember from "The Good Wife" haha) they will nego big in favor of Carol and avoid the trial. And then they will cut royalties on IStock down to 5% to make up for it :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #58 on: July 29, 2016, 07:31 »
+1
Thank you for the link to the suit, what a read!

What I don't get is - if Getty sells licenses to photos they aquired from public domains why would they even bother to track "illegal" uses of those photos in the web - they are available for free anyway, right? Or did Getty somehow considered those images to be exclusive with them after they became available for licensing?

My bet is (based on everything I remember from "The Good Wife" haha) they will nego big in favor of Carol and avoid the trial. And then they will cut royalties on IStock down to 5% to make up for it :)

Getty is claiming that the pursuing company was pursuing on behalf of Alamy, not them, although they both use the same company.
I'm guessing the checking for unpaid uses is automatic, and there was no manual checking done as to the original source of the image.

Shelma1

« Reply #59 on: July 29, 2016, 09:40 »
+4
Thank you for the link to the suit, what a read!

What I don't get is - if Getty sells licenses to photos they aquired from public domains why would they even bother to track "illegal" uses of those photos in the web - they are available for free anyway, right? Or did Getty somehow considered those images to be exclusive with them after they became available for licensing?

My bet is (based on everything I remember from "The Good Wife" haha) they will nego big in favor of Carol and avoid the trial. And then they will cut royalties on IStock down to 5% to make up for it :)

Getty is claiming that the pursuing company was pursuing on behalf of Alamy, not them, although they both use the same company.
I'm guessing the checking for unpaid uses is automatic, and there was no manual checking done as to the original source of the image.

They could have set up an algorithm that excludes images they've licensed without the photographer's permissionthat way their shady practice might have stayed on the down low. But they're so greedy they couldn't be bothered paying someone to do that, nor paying a human to eyeball their extortion letters before they went out. Yet they had no problem paying someone to download, then upload and keyword more than 18,000 images from the Library of Congress.

« Reply #60 on: July 29, 2016, 10:23 »
0
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.

ok, don't get your knickers all twisted !!! this is a forum, we're making comments..
you don't have to get so smarty pants. LOL

as i said, the key point of argument here is going to be the definition of "donate".

you can scream all you want, but the decision is not decided yet,
and everyone of us here can make our own point of view, can't we???


« Reply #61 on: July 29, 2016, 10:52 »
0
I believe the legal firm is a spin off of getty's legal department that now offers their services to other companies. One of the news sites covering the story points out they share the same address. No doubt a way to insulate getty from this kind of thing. They can always declare the legal firm bankrupt and start it again overnight.

« Reply #62 on: July 29, 2016, 11:50 »
+2
We should all stop talking about these images being "in the public domain".   It clearly isn't that simple, and at some point a court will decide whether that's true and if so, to what extent.  When we assume they're PD we're just making Getty's case for them.


« Reply #63 on: July 29, 2016, 12:31 »
0
We should all stop talking about these images being "in the public domain".   It clearly isn't that simple, and at some point a court will decide whether that's true and if so, to what extent.  When we assume they're PD we're just making Getty's case for them.

lol, i doubt anything we say here is going to make any impact on the judgement.
none of us are lawyers and we are simply making a lot of noise... like some of our photographs
in mid stock and macro \\l\lol

« Reply #64 on: July 29, 2016, 13:25 »
0
The sad thing about this case is that the net result of the law suit will only be that Getty get's smarter and more ruthless about their future acts of criminality. And the result of that is it will only become more difficult to catch the Getty thieves the next time they are stealing money or content from other picture creators.  :(

« Reply #65 on: July 29, 2016, 14:07 »
+8

Their defense is crazy. It's common for companies to issue licenses for public domain content? And then to pursue settlements for the use of that content without a license? What??

I don't see them getting off without paying out a nice settlement of their own to the photographer in this case. And rightfully so. What a deplorable company.

« Reply #66 on: July 29, 2016, 14:10 »
+5
...But they're so greedy they couldn't be bothered paying someone to do that, nor paying a human to eyeball their extortion letters before they went out...

Scary, isn't it? How they blast out these extortion letters with such frequency that they've basically made it an automated process with seemingly no human oversight.

« Reply #67 on: July 29, 2016, 15:33 »
+6

Their defense is crazy....


So there's a big difference between work that is so old that it's out of copyright and where the agency which has purchased prints or negatives takes the time to scan the works and make them available to prospective buyers. The image is out of copyright, but without someone making it available, that work wouldn't be used by anyone.

Then you have a collection of works given to the nation to be used by anyone at no charge. Available for download via the library of congress. How can any agency send out demand letters regarding any of these images? They can't know where the image came from as there are other legitimate ways the users could have obtained it.

Even if you forgive the scummy practice of changing your customers for images they could use for free (read the lawsuit), Getty's demand letters regarding these images can't be valid. I guess this racket is lucrative and enough people pay up (even something) to make it worth giving it a go.

So Getty did no work to justify collecting anything from anyone - one can't even talk about them sharing the collections from the demand letters with the photographer as I assume they pocket the lot?

« Reply #68 on: July 29, 2016, 17:32 »
+7
Imagine being a lawyer working for Getty, and having to stand before a judge and justify this action.  "Your honor, my company is in the business of looking for legal loopholes that let us profit from other people's work.  We believe we found one in this case."

 

« Reply #69 on: July 29, 2016, 18:00 »
+2
I can imagine there will also be quite a few refund requests/demands. I think they have "a situation" there.

« Reply #70 on: July 29, 2016, 18:07 »
0
Imagine being a lawyer working for Getty, and having to stand before a judge and justify this action.  "Your honor, my company is in the business of looking for legal loopholes that let us profit from other people's work.  We believe we found one in this case."

and the judge says, "butt butt butt have you not heard the saying --- no free lunch?"
and the lawyer laughs , staggers, falling to the floor, explicitly.. "ah yes we did,
your honor, butt butt butt , that's only for humans;
we are Getty !.. don't you Get it? Get-ty??"

« Reply #71 on: July 29, 2016, 19:08 »
+4
I have no sympathy for Getty. They had it coming for their indiscriminate extortion letters. Their unethical behavior has finally caught up with them.

With that being said, there are also some unethical contributors, who take public domain images and sell them on stock websites. I've seen contributors sell NASA photos, historical photos, historical drawings and selling work that was traced from my work. Non-US contributors are the biggest offenders.

I know that it's hard for the agencies to track everything, but Getty's tactics invite trouble. And to make things worse, they threaten the copyright owner and didn't take the photos down when she made it clear she was the copyright owner. I can imagine the case being brought up to management and some idiot higher up think he's playing poker and tried to call her bluff. She has a royal flush and he's stuck with a junk hand.

« Reply #72 on: July 30, 2016, 02:20 »
0
theres contruibutors who blow up PD or Nasa images and improve quality, so there is something to say for that, but then again, some indeed just sell originals, in the end, an original pd image cant be copyrighted. its a mine field
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 12:09 by Microstockphoto »

« Reply #73 on: July 30, 2016, 04:02 »
+1
Imagine being a lawyer working for Getty, and having to stand before a judge and justify this action.  "Your honor, my company is in the business of looking for legal loopholes that let us profit from other people's work.  We believe we found one in this case."
You need to understand the mindset of a lawyer. As far as they are concerned it is just licensing an image by other means. They don't care or even think about the stress and harm they are causing to people getting falsely accused.

Shelma1

« Reply #74 on: July 31, 2016, 09:03 »
+3


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
135 Replies
25183 Views
Last post August 23, 2012, 20:48
by Sadstock
2 Replies
3548 Views
Last post August 15, 2012, 14:17
by leaf
45 Replies
12335 Views
Last post May 02, 2016, 03:19
by Justanotherphotographer
75 Replies
21319 Views
Last post June 30, 2017, 10:24
by Bad Company
0 Replies
3039 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