Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$1 Billion Getty Images Public Domain Photograph Dispute is Over (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the sorting-out dept.

Earlier this year, photographer Carol Highsmith received a $120 settlement demand from Getty Images after she used one of her own public domain images on her website (which is she had donated to the Library of Congress and made available to the public to reproduce and display for free). Highsmith responded with a $1bn lawsuit but after a few short months, as TorrentFreak reports, the case is all over, with neither side a clear winner. From the report: To begin, on October 28, US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff dismissed each of Carol Highsmith's federal copyright claims. "Defendants Getty Images (US), Inc., License Compliance Services, Inc., Alamy, including that Inc., and Alamy Ltd. collectively moved to dismiss all claims of plaintiffs Carol Highsmith and This is America!, Inc. under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act,... the Lanham Act,... New York General Business Law,... and New York common law of unfair competition," the Judge wrote. "Upon consideration, the Court grants defendants' motions,â he added. With the federal claims gone, three state law claims were including that Getty charged licensing fees for images when it shouldn't have and collected settlements from alleged infringers when it had no right. However, these claims have now also been dismissed, along with the rest of the case. "It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and among the parties, that this action shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each party to bear its own costs and fees," the Judge wrote in his dismissal. Since the case was dismissed with prejudice, it is done and cannot be brought back to court.

20 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong person sued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Conclusion of confusing article:
    The original photographer, as she released them to the public domain, had no basis for any claims for activity around them afterwards. Rather, she was free to use those photos because they were, indeed, public domain.

    Perhaps a class action lawsuit is required by all of those who've paid for a "valid license" when no valid license was required, and Getty Images was no more than owner than anyone else.

    1. Re:Wrong person sued by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      She should have ignored their demand and if they then started legal action, countersued for malicious/abusive prosecution.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Wrong person sued by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... countersued for malicious/abusive prosecution.

      That would cost her way way way more than she would have a prayer of a chance of collecting. She could save time by just stuffing her life savings into the garbage disposal. The end result would be the same.

  2. "which is she had donated to the LoC" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, she had donated which "is"? Ugh...

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Standing. by Macdude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As she has released her photos into the public domain she has no standing to sue for damages. Getty Images, and anyone else, is free to use the images as they see fit, including selling them.

    But Getty shouldn't be getting away scott free, as the images are in the public domain they have no standing to sue anyone for using the images without a license.

    This is not an area the legal system is setup to handle very well.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    1. Re: Standing. by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That the plaintiff has no standing

      This is why Highsmith 'lost'. Sure, she didn't have to pay $120 for the use of photos that were in the public domain. But she isn't the proper plaintiff to raise legal issues over Getty Images activities. What they are doing is committing fraud: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. They don't own exclusive rights to her works, but they represent themselves as having them.

      Sadly, there is no one in a position of standing to protect the public domain that is willing to file such charges. Theoretically, that should be the arm of the federal government in charge of copyrights. Or possibly the DoJ. But it appears that current policy is to allow rent seeking activities using public property.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re: Standing. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As soon as person A releases the work to the public domain they no longer own copyright on it. They have standing to sue when B tries to license it back to them or restrict there own use of it.

      But they can't sue B for the 'general misuse of that public domain image' in terms of their attempts to license it to others.

      Now personally, I see a wedge of reason for there to be a cause of action there,

      I've been mulling that over too since posting. By releasing it into the public domain, one interpretation is that their are no copyright holders; but another is that the 'public' is the copyright holder and the copyrights have been transferred to "the public". And by that interpretation any member of the public could sue over misuse... but also by that interpretation Getty images is also a legitimate copyright holder attempting to sell licensing. (admittedly they are attempting to sell licensing to people who are already themselves copyrigth owners... but im not sure that is illegal.

      For example... Michael Jackson owned the Beatles catalog at one time, but there was nothing illegal or even shady about the prospect of say a record store wanting to sell him a Beatles CD and effectively get him to pay for a licensed copy of music he already owned the copyright on.

      On the other hand, the whole thing smacks of abuse here with getty images ... and if its not illegal it certainly should be. But the courts function is to adjudicate the law, not make it. So as is often the case, it falls to a dysfunctional congress to fix it.

  4. "Neither Side a Clear Winner" by hipp5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Neither Side a Clear Winner"

    From the summary it appears as if yes, there certainly was a clear winner: Getty Images. I guess you could argue that they didn't get the $120 they demanded from Highsmith, but they've managed to get all of the claims against them dismissed.

    1. Re:"Neither Side a Clear Winner" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And the judge also sealed the pre-trial discovery of information under a gag order... which I figure would protect Getty WAY more than the plaintiff Ms. Highsmith.

      Also, the judge won't release his reasoning until later.

      This smells to me....

  5. Re:Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No.

    What really pissed her off was getting a bill for using her own images on her own website.

  6. Re:Not surprised by pr0fessor · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except when that commercial use is to file law suites against people using those public domain images claiming copyright infringement and attempting to take down and/or receive payment based on copyrights that they don't posses.

  7. fraud and extortion by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2

    Basically she has helped establish that the companies are copyright tolls, prone to a little fraud and extortion.

  8. Getty now a known perjurer by laughingskeptic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hopefully defense attorneys will use this effectively going forward. Getty won't be able to claim anything and should have to prove everything. Signed document ... no good, we want to depose the signers, etc. That employee doesn't work for you anymore? ... too bad. Normally a judge would not considered these requests reasonable, but they are reasonable in the face of a corporation that has knowingly misrepresented their ownership of copyrights in court.

  9. Re:Not surprised by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

    gizmodo.com/study-people-who-point-out-typos-are-jerks-1767969516

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  10. Re: Not surprised by Calydor · · Score: 2

    Then they were NO ONE's pictures.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  11. Yes, but that's the point by aussersterne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    She received threats from Getty about not paying for using the images... which SHE HERSELF had taken and placed into the public domain.

    None of this would have happened if someone hadn't decided to go after licensing fees for images that were taken from the public domain. Yes, they're free to sell what's in the public domain if someone is willing to pay for them, but the images are in the public domain. To go after people for using the images that Getty/Alamy themselves pulled from the public domain, and demand payment whenever they see those images used... is slimy.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    1. Re:Yes, but that's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      umm.... wut?

  12. Re: Not surprised by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then they were NO ONE's pictures.

    They were EVERYONE's pictures.

    FTFY

    Public domain belongs to everyone, yet we let companies like Getty shit all over OUR property, then charge us for the privilege.

    Wake up people...

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  13. This is why FOSS / CC is better than PD by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is why FOSS / Creative Commons is better than public domain.
    Had she released her images under a appropriate CC license, she could've sued Getty into next wednesday as she attempted.
    With the images only being public domain, none of her rights were infringed expect for the unjustified bill.

    I feel sorry for her. We should collect some donations.
    This is one of the reasons I hate big-ass foundries, be it font or images. And the same reason I love CC and the artists creating things for a reasonable price.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  14. Re: Not surprised by jaa101 · · Score: 2

    Then they were NO ONE's pictures.

    No, they were and are her pictures. She retains the right to identify herself as the creator of the pictures. This is a valid sense of ownership. Or are you going to tell me that "Huckleberry Finn" is no longer Mark Twain's novel because it's in the public domain?