Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Getty Sued For $1 Billion For Selling Publicly Donated Photos (thestack.com)

Posted by msmash on from the wrong-practice dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Online stock media library Getty Images is facing a $1 billion lawsuit from an American photographer for illegally selling copyright for thousands of photos. The Seattle-based company has been sued by documentary photographer Carol Highsmith for 'gross misuse', after it sold more than 18,000 of her photos despite having already donated them for public use. Highsmith's photos which were sold via Getty Images had been available for free via the Library of Congress. Getty has now been accused of selling unauthorized licenses of the images, not crediting the author, and for also sending threatening warnings and fines to those who had used the pictures without paying for the falsely imposed copyright.ArsTechnica has more details.

10 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Rules for thee, not for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Glad to see a copyright troll getting what it deserves.

    1. Re:Rules for thee, not for me by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She is still the copyright owner.
      Getty took her work and sold it without her permission as well as harassing others she freely gave it away to. Damaging her reputation, as well her customers. The fact that she gave them away for free doesn't mean mean that they didn't have value.

      Heck in slashdot when we find a company breaking the GPL we want Blood from them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Rules for thee, not for me by taustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hard to sue:

      • Her images are now in public domain.

      No, they're not. She licensed the Library of Congress to distribute them royalty free, but did not place them in the public domain. In fact, the license to the LoC specifically requires that they, and anyone they distribute the photos to, give her credit. So your premise is factually incorrect.

      And what really pissed her off was when the Getty sent her a legal threat and demanded money for using her own photos on her own web site, when the Getty had no permission to use the photos in any way.

      Honestly, a billion dollars in damages seems perfectly reasonable to me, and the Getty will hardly notice it.

    3. Re:Rules for thee, not for me by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's statutory damages as set by law. It's tripled because Getty is a repeat offender. Unlike the many cases of *AA vs. Grandma where the same statutory damages were applied, Getty is exactly the sort of defendant the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote the law and the evidence is much more clear.

      If the courts do not award the full amount, they will demonstrate once and for all that natural people are second class citizens.

    4. Re:Rules for thee, not for me by Holi · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the LoC she actually has relinquished her rights.

      "Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist."

      https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...

      This may cause problems with her standing to sue.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  2. Getty threatened her is how she found out by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ironically the photographer found out when LCS threatened her with copyright infringement unless she paid $120 after she used one of her own photos. Getty does not acknowledge their relationship with LCS however LCS uses the same address as Getty's corporate office. I would suspect LCS is their enforcement subsidiary so that they don't get negative press.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Getty threatened her is how she found out by locofungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even more fun, in their original letter to her they said:

                      97. The Letter went on to state as follows: "Although this infringement might have
      been unintentional, use of an image without a valid license is considered copyright infringement
      in violation of the Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code. This copyright law
      entitles Alamy to seek compensation for any license infringement."

                    104. In the "Frequently Asked Questions" section of the Letter, the answer to the
      question "What if I didn't know?" includes the following language: "You may have employed a
      third party, former worker or intern to design and develop your company's site. However, the
      liability of any infringement ultimately falls on the company (the end user) who hired that party,
      employee or intern." The answer to the question "What if I simply remove the image?"Â
      includes the following language: "While we appreciate the effort of removing the material in
      question from your site, we still need compensation. Your company has benefited by using our
      imagery without our permission. As the unauthorized use has already occurred, payment for that
      benefit is necessary."

      Hoist by their own petard.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  3. Getty screwed up by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you dig around a bit, you'll see that the artist did not make her photos public domain. She licensed them to the Library of Congress and gave a permissive license for anyone else to use them --- presumably including to sell them --- as long as users give notification that the these are the photographer's work. Nonetheless, she retains copyright. This is basically a BSD-style license. Getty is not only suing her for using her own copyrighted work, but is also not informing customers that they're her work, in violation of the license. She's suing to preserve the terms of her license.

    --
    Finding God in a Dog
    1. Re:Getty screwed up by Jhon · · Score: 5, Informative

      You should write article summaries for /.

      Seriously.

  4. $1 billion is actually pretty reasonable by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    The music industry set the bar at $22,500 per violation ($675,000 for 30 works) for an individual violating copyright without a profit motive. $1 billion for 18,000 works is only $55,555 per violation, which is relative to the Tenenbaum case is not unreasonable when you consider this is commercial copyright violation. Her lawyers are actually being nice by "only" asking for $1 billion. Copyright law allows her to sue for up to $150,000 per violation, which would be a cool $2.7 billion.

    In other words, if she gets less than $22,500 * 18,000 = $405 million out of this, there's been a gross miscarriage of justice either in her case or the Tenenbaum cause. Unlike filesharing, what Getty Images did is precisely the sort of thing copyright law was made to prohibit - profiting off the work of others.