Author Topic: photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/ (Read 27055 times)

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #75 on:** July 31, 2016, 16:17 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on July 30, 2016, 04:02

Quote from: stockastic on July 29, 2016, 17:32
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.

stockastic · « **Reply #76 on:** July 31, 2016, 18:29 »

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.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #77 on:** July 31, 2016, 19:55 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 31, 2016, 18:29

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".

EmberMike · « **Reply #78 on:** July 31, 2016, 21:43 »

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?

Getty = Buy N Large?

You just can't make this stuff up any better than they do it themselves.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #79 on:** July 31, 2016, 23:49 »

thats hilarious, isnt that name a registered trademark by pixar? http://pixar.wikia.com/wiki/Buy_n_Large

could getty be in violation here as well?

violating copyright under a stolen name haha

Dumc · « **Reply #80 on:** August 01, 2016, 09:45 »

Getty's is buyenlarge....but yeah, its really funny shiat.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #81 on:** August 01, 2016, 10:31 »

well, thats what mike said

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #82 on:** August 02, 2016, 11:04 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on July 30, 2016, 02:20

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

"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,"

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #83 on:** August 02, 2016, 12:03 »

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

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #84 on:** August 02, 2016, 12:04 »

just got an email from imagebrief trying to make money on the back of this case, vultures

jamesbenet · « **Reply #85 on:** August 02, 2016, 12:18 »

Getty responds on this Dpreview post:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3605442413/getty-images-says-1-billion-lawsuit-is-based-on-misconceptions

Sounds like Alamy should lawyer up!

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #86 on:** August 02, 2016, 13:48 »

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.

EmberMike · « **Reply #87 on:** August 02, 2016, 13:58 »

There were Getty watermarks on some of those images. I think they'll have a hard time passing the buck on this one.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #88 on:** August 02, 2016, 14:59 »

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.

op · « **Reply #89 on:** August 02, 2016, 15:56 »

Quote from: EmberMike on August 02, 2016, 13:58

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...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #90 on:** August 02, 2016, 16:50 »

Quote from: op on August 02, 2016, 15:56

Quote from: EmberMike on August 02, 2016, 13:58

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

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #91 on:** August 03, 2016, 02:13 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on August 02, 2016, 14:59

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #92 on:** August 03, 2016, 12:53 »

Another article about the suit and public domain images at Getty:

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-88007658/

goober · « **Reply #93 on:** August 04, 2016, 19:56 »

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?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #94 on:** November 22, 2016, 20:18 »

*,

http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/

Minsc · « **Reply #95 on:** November 23, 2016, 00:58 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on November 22, 2016, 20:18

http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/

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.

Video-StockOrg · « **Reply #96 on:** November 23, 2016, 02:32 »

America = Mafia. They are all connected, that's why they will get away with it and that author of images will go bankrupt. #fact

CJH Photography · « **Reply #97 on:** November 23, 2016, 11:15 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 29, 2016, 15:33

Quote from: EmberMike on July 29, 2016, 14:07

Their defense is crazy....

But they basically won

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #98 on:** November 23, 2016, 11:21 »

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

CJH Photography · « **Reply #99 on:** November 23, 2016, 14:55 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on November 23, 2016, 11:21

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...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/ (Read 27055 times)

etudiante_rapide

stockastic

etudiante_rapide

EmberMike

Microstockphoto

Dumc

Microstockphoto

YadaYadaYada

Microstockphoto

Microstockphoto

jamesbenet

Justanotherphotographer

EmberMike

Microstockphoto

op

etudiante_rapide

Justanotherphotographer

Shelma1

goober

Sean Locke Photography

Minsc

Video-StockOrg

CJH Photography

Microstockphoto

CJH Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors