4 ms·

The DMCA isn't the most important part here, the (classical) infringement itself is the big factor, because the images are under the photographer's exclusive co

The DMCA isn't the most important part here, the (classical) infringement itself is the big factor, because the images are under the photographer's exclusive copyright. Adding the DMCA claim of falsifying copyright information certainly helps her case though. Having said that, if it turns out that the library of congress is responsible for the infringements (because they published the images and labelled them incorrectly as being public domain) then Getty would be off the hook for infringement but the DMCA claim of falsifying the copyright information would still apply (as you can't claim exclusive copyright over a public domain work). I suppose it's possible that an unscrupulous third party falsely licensed the "public domain" images to Getty, which would make Getty responsible for neither the falsification of copyright information, nor the infringement. I guess in that case Getty would still be found to have been infringing, but not deliberately.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Having said that, if it turns out that the library of congress is responsible for the infringements (because they published the images and labelled them incorrectly as being public domain) then Getty would be off the hook for infringement It seems to me that mislabeling wouldn't make the LoC legally responsible for the infringement, but might make Getty not liable for any infringement that happened entirely before they were made aware of the incorrect labeling. Or maybe not; since willfulness is an enhancement on liability for infringement liability [0], not a prerequisite, the fact that Getty did not know that the images were subject to copyright may not be a defense. > I suppose it's possible that an unscrupulous third party falsely licensed the "public domain" images to Getty, which would make Getty responsible for neither the falsification of copyright information, nor the infringement. AFAICT, that wouldn't necessarily legally relieve Getty of liability, though it would make the other party liable to the copyright owner for willful infringement, fraudulent claims of ownership, and contributory infringement (with regard to Getty's infringement), and also liable to Getty for fraud and potentially other torts. [0] see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c)(2)
- jahewson 10y ago
  Yes I definitely agree with this assessment. There's more than a few scenarios in which Getty unintentionally infringed but is still liable and will look to sue the third party which misled them.
  - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
    Why do you say unintentionally? Was Getty not claiming copyright of public-domain images (from their "assumption")?
- Natsu 10y ago
  I wonder if they filed any DMCA claims over those images, though? The clause you attest to under penalty of perjury is that you represent the copyright holder of the works claimed to be infringed. So if they sent her a DMCA of her own images, as one might assume based on what was said, then it could be interesting if that gets brought up in court.
chrischen 10y ago
Youtube is required to police copyright, why not Getty?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Youtube is required to police copyright They do police copyright. Whether they are required to (other than as a contractual matter with certain owners) is a little more debatable.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Having said that, if it turns out that the library of congress is responsible for the infringements (because they published the images and labelled them incorrectly as being public domain) then Getty would be off the hook for infringement It seems to me that mislabeling wouldn't make the LoC legally responsible for the infringement, but might make Getty not liable for any infringement that happened entirely before they were made aware of the incorrect labeling. Or maybe not; since willfulness is an enhancement on liability for infringement liability [0], not a prerequisite, the fact that Getty did not know that the images were subject to copyright may not be a defense. > I suppose it's possible that an unscrupulous third party falsely licensed the "public domain" images to Getty, which would make Getty responsible for neither the falsification of copyright information, nor the infringement. AFAICT, that wouldn't necessarily legally relieve Getty of liability, though it would make the other party liable to the copyright owner for willful infringement, fraudulent claims of ownership, and contributory infringement (with regard to Getty's infringement), and also liable to Getty for fraud and potentially other torts. [0] see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c)(2)

jahewson 10y ago
Yes I definitely agree with this assessment. There's more than a few scenarios in which Getty unintentionally infringed but is still liable and will look to sue the third party which misled them.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  Why do you say unintentionally? Was Getty not claiming copyright of public-domain images (from their "assumption")?
Natsu 10y ago
I wonder if they filed any DMCA claims over those images, though? The clause you attest to under penalty of perjury is that you represent the copyright holder of the works claimed to be infringed. So if they sent her a DMCA of her own images, as one might assume based on what was said, then it could be interesting if that gets brought up in court.

chrischen 10y ago

Youtube is required to police copyright, why not Getty?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Youtube is required to police copyright They do police copyright. Whether they are required to (other than as a contractual matter with certain owners) is a little more debatable.