7 ms·

Using some examples from the comments of the article: It's akin to Getty setting up a small tent inside of Central Park, and asking people that walk by to pay

Using some examples from the comments of the article: It's akin to Getty setting up a small tent inside of Central Park, and asking people that walk by to pay an entry fee. But Getty goes 1 step further: They hire strongarm guys to go around the park and tell people (one-on-one) that they skipped out on their 5 dollar entry fee and they can 'settle' with them right now or be taken to court. It's terrible. I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws, other than scare the bejesus out of them. Which seems to be exactly what the photographer is doing.

jimbokun 10y ago
"I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws" What? Sounds more like they are in flagrant violation of existing copyright laws, and deserve to get their head handed to them in court.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I suppose the point is that the current laws are difficult to enforce and the process is ripe for abuse.
- Natsu 10y ago
  I think they wanted to avoid the situation rather than punish it after the fact.
- derefr 10y ago
  Laws have denotative semantics—what they strictly allow, and what they strictly don't. But any given law will also create (or modify) an incentive structure. Copyright has a problem, in that IP rights get more profitable as you get closer and closer to being in violation of the law. The incentive that creates is for everyone to try to violate the spirit, but not the letter of copyright law. A better law would fix the incentives: to make copyright "abuse" a sliding scale, one that starts long before the current point where something becomes a violation of the law, where the more profitably-abusive an act is, the bigger a fine you'll get for doing it. The cost-benefit should always work out in favor of not violating the spirit of copyright law.
  - paavokoya 10y ago
    >where the more profitably-abusive an act is, the bigger a fine you'll get for doing it Hahahah... You should do stand-up for Goldman Sachs
joering2 10y ago
Couldn't be a more evil company to be sued. Wish Thier would represent him and kick a hole in Getty!
- uptown 10y ago
  > Wish Thier would represent him and kick a hole in Getty! The photographer is a female, and the person you named spells his last name Thiel.
legohead 10y ago
Don't know why this needs an analogy at all. Getty [allegedly] took images that didn't necessarily belong to them, charged for them, and also sent copyright notices after anyone that hadn't paid for them. It's pretty simple. edit: allegedly
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wmil 10y ago
  Well it's more likely that a photographer submitted a bunch of public domain images claiming he/she owned the copyright. Then Getty images handled the situation poorly. Look at another Getty case. Haitian photographer Daniel Morel posted some photos to TwitPic. 'Lisandro Suaero' downloaded them and sold them to AFP / Getty. Then Getty tried to sue Morel. [1] Morel was awarded 1.2 million [2]. Getty tried to use a weird argument that they had a deal with Twitter so they didn't owe him anything. [1] http://blog.jeremynicholl.com/2010/05/03/afp-steal-photos-then-sue-photographer-2/ http://blog.jeremynicholl.com/2010/05/03/afp-steal-photos-th... [2] http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/1-2-million-lawsuit-shouldnt-steal-photos-twitter/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/1-2-million-lawsui...
- dperfect 10y ago
  The issue isn't really with Getty charging for those images. If they're in the public domain, then (as I understand it) the photographer has relinquished her copyright on the images. It's perfectly legal for other people to make money with them in that case, but that doesn't mean those other people own the copyright. I think the issue comes into play when Getty tries to enforce a copyright they don't actually own by threatening people who use the images. That's where they've crossed a line, and I'm fairly confident that if Getty tried to sue anyone over it, the courts would decide in favor of the defendants. Of course, just defending oneself in court against someone like Getty could get expensive, so it's obviously better if the issue could be sorted out preemptively (as this photographer seems to be doing).
  - Natsu 10y ago
zyxley 10y ago
> I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws Wouldn't prosecution for fraud be enough?
- Smushman 10y ago
  I think its tough to say... It's like I know it smells (real) bad, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is that stinks so much. I guess I would say it is one thing to 'sell' public domain pictures in your database along with privately held photos - using a subscription model, Getty could say it is just creating a one stop shop and charging for that service. I am sure their lawyers thought about that long ago, when they first brought on the Public Domain photos. But to go to the level of actually shaking people down for money when they are using a photo that is Public Domain leans toward organized crime, with copyright laws behaving as accessories to enforcement. It's like charging 'protection money' when you should naturally have freedom from harassment. How many uncounted people have paid that shakedown fee for their Public Domain pictures, not knowing any better... Proves the old adage - Knowledge is Power.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Only if it's an effective and accessible protection. Note that the victims of Getty's RICO tactics here don't have standing to sue for copyright violation. Only for the possible fraud elements. This reduces the number of parties with significant legal protections tremendously. The case has to proceed quickly and effectively. Long delays or appeals will steal the thunder. The sting's got to be harsh. I'm liking the billion-dollar amount, as that's enough to make virtually any company sit up and take notice. But the real problem is that low-grade penny-ante DMCA takedown, C&D, or other strong-arming, on questionable bases, are likely to remain profitable for a long time.
agumonkey 10y ago
I remember kids pulling this in primary school. - Pay me and I'll make sure this guy won't beat you up - But that's your brother .. - So what do you say ?
balls187 10y ago
Building slightly on that analogy: Before setting up that tent, some random person tells getty "Hey I own this park," pointing to Central Park, "You can charge admission on my behalf." Getty then setups up a tent without a second thought about verifying the veracity of the persons claim. // I'm not sure if Getty just sucked in all those public domain images and said "Is private now." or through their submission process, some individually claimed to own the copyright, and had Getty do the dirty work.

jimbokun 10y ago

"I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws" What? Sounds more like they are in flagrant violation of existing copyright laws, and deserve to get their head handed to them in court.

emodendroket 10y ago
I suppose the point is that the current laws are difficult to enforce and the process is ripe for abuse.
Natsu 10y ago
I think they wanted to avoid the situation rather than punish it after the fact.
derefr 10y ago
Laws have denotative semantics—what they strictly allow, and what they strictly don't. But any given law will also create (or modify) an incentive structure. Copyright has a problem, in that IP rights get more profitable as you get closer and closer to being in violation of the law. The incentive that creates is for everyone to try to violate the spirit, but not the letter of copyright law. A better law would fix the incentives: to make copyright "abuse" a sliding scale, one that starts long before the current point where something becomes a violation of the law, where the more profitably-abusive an act is, the bigger a fine you'll get for doing it. The cost-benefit should always work out in favor of not violating the spirit of copyright law.
- paavokoya 10y ago
  >where the more profitably-abusive an act is, the bigger a fine you'll get for doing it Hahahah... You should do stand-up for Goldman Sachs

joering2 10y ago

Couldn't be a more evil company to be sued. Wish Thier would represent him and kick a hole in Getty!

uptown 10y ago
> Wish Thier would represent him and kick a hole in Getty! The photographer is a female, and the person you named spells his last name Thiel.

legohead 10y ago

Don't know why this needs an analogy at all. Getty [allegedly] took images that didn't necessarily belong to them, charged for them, and also sent copyright notices after anyone that hadn't paid for them. It's pretty simple. edit: allegedly

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wmil 10y ago
Well it's more likely that a photographer submitted a bunch of public domain images claiming he/she owned the copyright. Then Getty images handled the situation poorly. Look at another Getty case. Haitian photographer Daniel Morel posted some photos to TwitPic. 'Lisandro Suaero' downloaded them and sold them to AFP / Getty. Then Getty tried to sue Morel. [1] Morel was awarded 1.2 million [2]. Getty tried to use a weird argument that they had a deal with Twitter so they didn't owe him anything. [1] http://blog.jeremynicholl.com/2010/05/03/afp-steal-photos-then-sue-photographer-2/ http://blog.jeremynicholl.com/2010/05/03/afp-steal-photos-th... [2] http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/1-2-million-lawsuit-shouldnt-steal-photos-twitter/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/1-2-million-lawsui...
dperfect 10y ago
The issue isn't really with Getty charging for those images. If they're in the public domain, then (as I understand it) the photographer has relinquished her copyright on the images. It's perfectly legal for other people to make money with them in that case, but that doesn't mean those other people own the copyright. I think the issue comes into play when Getty tries to enforce a copyright they don't actually own by threatening people who use the images. That's where they've crossed a line, and I'm fairly confident that if Getty tried to sue anyone over it, the courts would decide in favor of the defendants. Of course, just defending oneself in court against someone like Getty could get expensive, so it's obviously better if the issue could be sorted out preemptively (as this photographer seems to be doing).
- Natsu 10y ago

zyxley 10y ago

> I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws Wouldn't prosecution for fraud be enough?

Smushman 10y ago
I think its tough to say... It's like I know it smells (real) bad, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is that stinks so much. I guess I would say it is one thing to 'sell' public domain pictures in your database along with privately held photos - using a subscription model, Getty could say it is just creating a one stop shop and charging for that service. I am sure their lawyers thought about that long ago, when they first brought on the Public Domain photos. But to go to the level of actually shaking people down for money when they are using a photo that is Public Domain leans toward organized crime, with copyright laws behaving as accessories to enforcement. It's like charging 'protection money' when you should naturally have freedom from harassment. How many uncounted people have paid that shakedown fee for their Public Domain pictures, not knowing any better... Proves the old adage - Knowledge is Power.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Only if it's an effective and accessible protection. Note that the victims of Getty's RICO tactics here don't have standing to sue for copyright violation. Only for the possible fraud elements. This reduces the number of parties with significant legal protections tremendously. The case has to proceed quickly and effectively. Long delays or appeals will steal the thunder. The sting's got to be harsh. I'm liking the billion-dollar amount, as that's enough to make virtually any company sit up and take notice. But the real problem is that low-grade penny-ante DMCA takedown, C&D, or other strong-arming, on questionable bases, are likely to remain profitable for a long time.

agumonkey 10y ago

I remember kids pulling this in primary school. - Pay me and I'll make sure this guy won't beat you up - But that's your brother .. - So what do you say ?

balls187 10y ago

Building slightly on that analogy: Before setting up that tent, some random person tells getty "Hey I own this park," pointing to Central Park, "You can charge admission on my behalf." Getty then setups up a tent without a second thought about verifying the veracity of the persons claim. // I'm not sure if Getty just sucked in all those public domain images and said "Is private now." or through their submission process, some individually claimed to own the copyright, and had Getty do the dirty work.