MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Dumc on July 27, 2016, 15:09
-
http://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/ (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.
-
Hahaha the funniest thing I've read
Stupid Getty I hope she wins and makes them bankrupt ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I really hope she wins! I wonder what account (contributor) name the Getty Images are listed under ...
-
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....
-
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/105986420 (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"
-
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.
-
I wouldn't be surprised to see these photos on FAA too. People are on there selling anything they can get away with.
-
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.
-
Nice to see someone has found a way to make decent money from their images in this business
-
On alamy, Carol Highsmith's photos are for sale and marked as © Everett Collection Inc / Alamy Stock Photo
(http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-west-front-of-the-united-states-capitol-washington-dc-dec-2008-photo-38135335.html) 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 (http://everettcollection.com/) 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 (http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html)
-
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 :)
-
On alamy, Carol Highsmith's photos are for sale and marked as © Everett Collection Inc / Alamy Stock Photo
([url]http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-west-front-of-the-united-states-capitol-washington-dc-dec-2008-photo-38135335.html[/url]) 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 ([url]http://everettcollection.com/[/url]) is entertainment and "historical" images.
I hope she makes these folks take their images down as well. Why should they profiit from her gift?
[url]http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html[/url] ([url]http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html[/url])
The Everett Collection seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Alamy...
-
The Everett Collection seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Alamy...
I still see it...
http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx (http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx)
-
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???
-
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.
-
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 Morel’s 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.
-
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 Morel’s 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.
-
The Everett Collection seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Alamy...
I still see it...
[url]http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx[/url])
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 (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.
-
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…
-
On alamy, Carol Highsmith's photos are for sale and marked as © Everett Collection Inc / Alamy Stock Photo
([url]http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-west-front-of-the-united-states-capitol-washington-dc-dec-2008-photo-38135335.html[/url]) 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 ([url]http://everettcollection.com/[/url]) is entertainment and "historical" images.
I hope she makes these folks take their images down as well. Why should they profiit from her gift?
[url]http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html[/url] ([url]http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/07/photographer-seeking-1-billion-getty-images-copyright-infringement.html[/url])
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 (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"
-
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 Morel’s 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.
-
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 Morel’s 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.
-
I think that if she wins the case...it's going to be a BME for her.
Why?
-
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/ (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.
-
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 Morel’s 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
-
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 (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?
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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 Morel’s 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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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???
-
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
-
Even if this has some level of success (obviously not a billion) it could really effect everyone and impact the industry.
-
you really should read the lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/319553374/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0#fullscreen&from_embed (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
-
you really should read the lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/319553374/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0#fullscreen&from_embed (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.
-
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.
-
you really should read the lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/319553374/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0#fullscreen&from_embed (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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
her images are not in the public domain
-
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.
-
Getty responds: http://press.gettyimages.com/statement-regarding-highsmith-claim/ (http://press.gettyimages.com/statement-regarding-highsmith-claim/)
-
http://resourcemagonline.com/2016/07/getty-images-faces-1-billion-copyright-claim/68973/ (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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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 permission—that 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.
-
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???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :(
-
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.
-
...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.
-
Their defense is crazy....
So there's a big difference between work that is so old that it's out of copyright (http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm) 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?
-
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."
-
I can imagine there will also be quite a few refund requests/demands. I think they have "a situation" there.
-
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??"
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Article about the suit in the L.A. Times.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html)
-
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.
precisely. the lawyer represents a client. it is not to represent someone who is not guilty.
consider the name of a very well-known criminal lawyer who is hired in the 60s ,etc..
i remember as my father used to mention to my mother during conversation,
if you're guilty , you just hire this guy ...no name mentioned here to protect the guilty ;)
and the criminal will go scott free.
-
Oh come on guys. I know a couple of lawyers, and a retired judge. They're people just like you and me; and they know quite well when they're being paid to push some story or "interpretation" that they know is bogus - or when their client is a ball of corporate slime.
They're able to perform their duties and say what they need to say, but in the back of their minds, they're thinking just what you or I would be thinking.
-
Oh come on guys. I know a couple of lawyers, and a retired judge. They're people just like you and me; and they know quite well when they're being paid to push some story or "interpretation" that they know is bogus - or when their client is a ball of corporate slime.
They're able to perform their duties and say what they need to say, but in the back of their minds, they're thinking just what you or I would be thinking.
of course, the keyword here is "being paid".
;)
-
Oh this is just too good to be true... Did Getty seriously put a watermark on these images with the name "buyenlarge", as in "Buy N Large" (or "BnL"), the huge corporation from the film Wall-e responsible for the culture of glut and waste that leads the earth to it's state of being uninhabitable in the story?
(http://www.emberstudio.com/random/buyenlarge.jpg)
Getty = Buy N Large? :o You just can't make this stuff up any better than they do it themselves.
-
thats hilarious, isnt that name a registered trademark by pixar? http://pixar.wikia.com/wiki/Buy_n_Large (http://pixar.wikia.com/wiki/Buy_n_Large)
could getty be in violation here as well?
violating copyright under a stolen name haha
-
Getty's is buyenlarge....but yeah, its really funny shiat.
-
well, thats what mike said
-
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 can be copyrighted. its a mine field
Not illegal to sell PD images or edit and sell them. No you can't copyright the original PD image just by copying it, making minor adjustments and selling. If you combined PD images and made something new, maybe.
Alamy contributor put the collection up, not Alamy. Alamy used IS company to find and send notices. Alamy should have removed or blocked the collection and her images as soon as Highsmith contacted them with the facts.
Getty and IS send these letters out like peanuts and don't know what their computers are doing. We don't get paid for these claims or payments. Shake Down Crooks is a nice way of calling Getty what they are. Then they have their shadow companies sending out these claims for others?
Nice to see Getty getting a bit of their own medicine.
This could change some things for us as well. Make DMCA for payment instead of just a notice and free use after take down. Time to make people pay for stealing our work.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/28/24405612/could-this-lawsuit-change-photo-history-a-photographer-is-suing-getty-for-1-billion (http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/28/24405612/could-this-lawsuit-change-photo-history-a-photographer-is-suing-getty-for-1-billion)
"By giving away her work for free, Ms. Highsmith has reduced the potential for a working photographer to get assignments or sell stock of those same subjects. It is SO challenging to get enough good paying work as a photographer when you are competing against FREE! In addition, the more high quality imagery that is available for free, the more photographs in general lose their value in the public eye,"
-
not sure why you explain this to me, i know all that, never said pd is illegal to sell either
edit: i noticed i made a typo in my comment, you cant copyright original pd work
-
just got an email from imagebrief trying to make money on the back of this case, vultures
-
Getty responds on this Dpreview post:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3605442413/getty-images-says-1-billion-lawsuit-is-based-on-misconceptions (https://www.dpreview.com/news/3605442413/getty-images-says-1-billion-lawsuit-is-based-on-misconceptions)
Sounds like Alamy should lawyer up!
-
Sounds like getty is missing the point. As I understand it Getty is part of the suit because the legal firm is actually part of getty, not because the content is from getty's site. No one is claiming licensing the content is illegal as far as I know. Trying to sue people for using public domain content that you don't own the copyright for is the issue. That is where trying to claim copyright comes in, by suing people over the use of the content they are claiming to have the rights to do so, which it seems they don't. Knowing public domain imagery is commonly distributed by agencies like themselves and alamy only implicates them further, they can't claim to be ignorant of the fact that the content could be public domain so ownership should be verified before perusing people over usage. Unless alamy specifically asked them to go after use of that particular part of the collection.
-
There were Getty watermarks on some of those images. I think they'll have a hard time passing the buck on this one.
-
i still see people going on about that these images were in the public domain, here and on dpreview, the images werent in the public domain! getty was claiming copyright of the images and then selling copyrighted images of someone who didnt give them permission to sell them, when the images were donated to the LoC to be used for free.
-
There were Getty watermarks on some of those images. I think they'll have a hard time passing the buck on this one.
Actually when I first saw this thread, the picture show an Alamy watermark, then they changed it to Getty's and now I just checked again and it's back to Alamy's...
-
There were Getty watermarks on some of those images. I think they'll have a hard time passing the buck on this one.
Actually when I first saw this thread, the picture show an Alamy watermark, then they changed it to Getty's and now I just checked again and it's back to Alamy's...
LOL, musical chairs 8)
-
i still see people going on about that these images were in the public domain, here and on dpreview, the images werent in the public domain! getty was claiming copyright of the images and then selling copyrighted images of someone who didnt give them permission to sell them, when the images were donated to the LoC to be used for free.
Good point. Sorry I fell into that trap.
-
Another article about the suit and public domain images at Getty:
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-88007658/ (http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-88007658/)
-
I just became aware of this. Funny. I suspect the photographer will settle for a few mill or lose.
Isn't compensation for loss of income?
-
*,
http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/ (http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/)
-
[url]http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/[/url] ([url]http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/[/url])
Not sure what this exactly means. Does Getty still get to extort people for using those public domain images? There is no mention of whether or not they can still sell licenses to those photos.
-
America = Mafia. They are all connected, that's why they will get away with it and that author of images will go bankrupt. #fact
-
Their defense is crazy....
But they basically won
-
i guess was wrong then and you can copyright images in the PD, still dont understand how you can sell an unaltered PD work and claim copyright. if i now start selling those same images, can getty then sue me? surely not
-
i guess was wrong then and you can copyright images in the PD, still dont understand how you can sell an unaltered PD work and claim copyright. if i now start selling those same images, can getty then sue me? surely not
My guess is the court found that when she donated the pictures, she donated the copyright. Therefore, she didn't have grounds for a claim against Getty for selling them. I'm not entirely sure how they could get by with claiming cr though. Anybody can sue anybody in this country, but they shouldn't win...