7 ms·

Getty has a model of convincing people to buy images available for free. There's no crime, or damages, in ripping people off. If Getty sues you for thinking y

Getty has a model of convincing people to buy images available for free. There's no crime, or damages, in ripping people off. If Getty sues you for thinking you didn't have their license for an image in public domain, that'll be funny. But thats not currently what they are doing, and when their processes gets to that part of the funnel on occasion, their human lawyer looks at it and decides not to do anything.

geofft 8y ago
Why doesn't it count as fraud? It's misrepresenting the truth in the context of a business transaction for your monetary gain and their monetary loss. Is the deal that Getty doesn't know for sure that they don't own the rights, and therefore it doesn't legally count as deliberate / knowing deception? Or is it that Getty says "You can buy a license from us" but does not say "We own the copyright for this" or "We are the exclusive licensors of the copyright for this," so they're not actually lying?
- kbsletten 8y ago
  Yeah, Getty is selling photos that are public domain. Photos in the public domain are already free to use, though some people might pay to have peace of mind that they didn't take a similar, not-public domain work by mistake or something.
  - vkou 8y ago
    There's no peace of mind, just because you paid for it. I can sell you the rights to a photo I don't own, and the original copyright holder can go after you for infringement.
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      IANAL but I'm pretty sure Getty is guaranteeing you won't get sued From their license > Warranty of Non-Infringement. For all licensed content (excluding content marked “access only”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or re-focusing done by you) will not infringe on any copyrights or moral rights of the content owner/creator. https://www.gettyimages.com/eula https://www.gettyimages.com/eula Note, I have many photos CC-BY on Flickr. One company wanted to use an image I took in the Louvre and wanted me to sign a different license. I refused as their license required I indemnify them and I had no idea what the legality of that image is given it was taken inside the Louvre
      - vkou 8y ago
        That's what they say, but will they actually stand by this, if they discover they sold you an image they don't own?
- HenryBemis 8y ago
  Perhaps legislation needs to be in place to force the various Getty's of the country, to clearly mention the source of the "free content" that Getty (and others sell). So when you use the Getty search system for 'space photos' and a nice NASA photo pops up, Getty would be obliged to have a URL of the original (and freely accessible) photo location. Then the 'Gettys' will feel the pain of running a search engine/maintaining a library with the high possibility that it won't yield scammy profit.
- caprese 8y ago
  > Why doesn't it count as fraud? It's misrepresenting the truth in the context of a business transaction for your monetary gain and their monetary loss. They are selling "copyright licenses" to the gullible. It has NEVER EVER EVER been on the consumer to know who has a license to sublicense and who doesn't. The consumer gets to assume that Walmart has acquired all the licenses for everything it sells, and incurs no liability when Walmart doesn't. The merchant gets to pay for access under any name they call it. Nobody actually cares if Getty calls it a "copyright license" or "download a high res photo we found in exchange for money". What you ask for is a semantic change. If anything, maybe the case goes to discovery process and answers the other questions you asked.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > It has NEVER EVER EVER been on the consumer to know who has a license to sublicense and who doesn't. Exactly, it's been on the seller. In your Walmart analogy, Getty is Walmart, and if it's selling licenses to things it doesn't have a right to sublicense, it's committing fraud, just as Walmart would be if it were selling things it didn't have the legal right to sell. Getty's MO in defending against such suits thus far seems to be that, since the images are in the public domain, no one has standing to sue them, not even the people who originally created the images and put them in the public domain. That strikes me as a candidate for a new definition of chutzpah, to say the least.
    - mikekchar 8y ago
      > if it's selling licenses to things it doesn't have a right to sublicense, it's committing fraud Except it's not (as per TFA). You have the right to license public domain images. Anyone does. The fact that nobody needs a license is completely beside the point. People buy things they don't need all the time. It might be fraud if you told people that they needed a licence. But it might not either -- it depends a lot on the situation (and IANAL). Think about it this way. It would be stupid if I couldn't make a poster of a public domain image and sell it. That's the whole point of the public domain. You don't need to buy my poster -- you can make your own if you want. But I'm offering it to you for some money. It's just as stupid if I can't sell a download service for the same image on my website. You don't need to use the download service. You can get the image somewhere else. But I'm offering it to you for some money. Just like Penguin Books can offer the complete works of Shakespeare and not tell you that you could have gotten them somewhere else for free, so too can you get an image from Getty, even though you can get that image for free somewhere else. What's goofy is that they offer a license as well. It's strange, but there is nothing wrong with it. You download my picture and pay me $500 and I'll be completely happy if you make as many copies as you like of it. I'll even offer you a license for my happiness. Goofy, yes, but illegal, no. What might be illegal is if they said that you can't make a copy of this image without their license. However, I don't believe that they say this, so it's a moot point.
- wyldfire 8y ago
  IMO it gets really murky if you create derived works from public domain content. I think people should be able to license derived works (provided they don't infringe on trademarks etc). If Getty just fails to disclose that the (unmodified?) image is public domain, that strikes me as dishonest. > Is the deal that Getty doesn't know for sure that they don't own the rights, and therefore it doesn't legally count as deliberate / knowing deception? It may or may not be fraud but their business is predicated on not merely delivering but establishing provenance for this kind of content. Whoever added the content to the catalog definitely knew where it came from.
- gnopgnip 8y ago
  For the same reason you are allowed to sell open source software.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    Are you allowed to claim that the software you're selling is proprietary, owned and copyrighted by you and then go after people that obtained them from the source (or are the original creator of said software)? Because that appears to be what Getty is doing.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Open Source != Public Domain
  - geofft 8y ago
    Most open source licenses have an attribution and license-preservation clause specifically so buyers know that the software contains things derived from OSS code. I can certainly sell you ReallyCoolSSL which is just a rebranding of OpenSSL, but you're going to see the OpenSSL license and then go wonder what OpenSSL is. Works in the public domain do not have a license and therefore do not have this obligation to tell people what's going on.
- mindslight 8y ago
  It's not fraud when no sale took place. The problem with trying to civilly go after attempted fraud is having no standing, because you've suffered no harm. As long as Getty simply refunds whomever complains, they can close off 90% of the avenues of legal attack.

geofft 8y ago

Why doesn't it count as fraud? It's misrepresenting the truth in the context of a business transaction for your monetary gain and their monetary loss. Is the deal that Getty doesn't know for sure that they don't own the rights, and therefore it doesn't legally count as deliberate / knowing deception? Or is it that Getty says "You can buy a license from us" but does not say "We own the copyright for this" or "We are the exclusive licensors of the copyright for this," so they're not actually lying?

kbsletten 8y ago
Yeah, Getty is selling photos that are public domain. Photos in the public domain are already free to use, though some people might pay to have peace of mind that they didn't take a similar, not-public domain work by mistake or something.
- vkou 8y ago
  There's no peace of mind, just because you paid for it. I can sell you the rights to a photo I don't own, and the original copyright holder can go after you for infringement.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    IANAL but I'm pretty sure Getty is guaranteeing you won't get sued From their license > Warranty of Non-Infringement. For all licensed content (excluding content marked “access only”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or re-focusing done by you) will not infringe on any copyrights or moral rights of the content owner/creator. https://www.gettyimages.com/eula https://www.gettyimages.com/eula Note, I have many photos CC-BY on Flickr. One company wanted to use an image I took in the Louvre and wanted me to sign a different license. I refused as their license required I indemnify them and I had no idea what the legality of that image is given it was taken inside the Louvre
    - vkou 8y ago
      That's what they say, but will they actually stand by this, if they discover they sold you an image they don't own?
HenryBemis 8y ago
Perhaps legislation needs to be in place to force the various Getty's of the country, to clearly mention the source of the "free content" that Getty (and others sell). So when you use the Getty search system for 'space photos' and a nice NASA photo pops up, Getty would be obliged to have a URL of the original (and freely accessible) photo location. Then the 'Gettys' will feel the pain of running a search engine/maintaining a library with the high possibility that it won't yield scammy profit.
caprese 8y ago
> Why doesn't it count as fraud? It's misrepresenting the truth in the context of a business transaction for your monetary gain and their monetary loss. They are selling "copyright licenses" to the gullible. It has NEVER EVER EVER been on the consumer to know who has a license to sublicense and who doesn't. The consumer gets to assume that Walmart has acquired all the licenses for everything it sells, and incurs no liability when Walmart doesn't. The merchant gets to pay for access under any name they call it. Nobody actually cares if Getty calls it a "copyright license" or "download a high res photo we found in exchange for money". What you ask for is a semantic change. If anything, maybe the case goes to discovery process and answers the other questions you asked.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > It has NEVER EVER EVER been on the consumer to know who has a license to sublicense and who doesn't. Exactly, it's been on the seller. In your Walmart analogy, Getty is Walmart, and if it's selling licenses to things it doesn't have a right to sublicense, it's committing fraud, just as Walmart would be if it were selling things it didn't have the legal right to sell. Getty's MO in defending against such suits thus far seems to be that, since the images are in the public domain, no one has standing to sue them, not even the people who originally created the images and put them in the public domain. That strikes me as a candidate for a new definition of chutzpah, to say the least.
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    > if it's selling licenses to things it doesn't have a right to sublicense, it's committing fraud Except it's not (as per TFA). You have the right to license public domain images. Anyone does. The fact that nobody needs a license is completely beside the point. People buy things they don't need all the time. It might be fraud if you told people that they needed a licence. But it might not either -- it depends a lot on the situation (and IANAL). Think about it this way. It would be stupid if I couldn't make a poster of a public domain image and sell it. That's the whole point of the public domain. You don't need to buy my poster -- you can make your own if you want. But I'm offering it to you for some money. It's just as stupid if I can't sell a download service for the same image on my website. You don't need to use the download service. You can get the image somewhere else. But I'm offering it to you for some money. Just like Penguin Books can offer the complete works of Shakespeare and not tell you that you could have gotten them somewhere else for free, so too can you get an image from Getty, even though you can get that image for free somewhere else. What's goofy is that they offer a license as well. It's strange, but there is nothing wrong with it. You download my picture and pay me $500 and I'll be completely happy if you make as many copies as you like of it. I'll even offer you a license for my happiness. Goofy, yes, but illegal, no. What might be illegal is if they said that you can't make a copy of this image without their license. However, I don't believe that they say this, so it's a moot point.
wyldfire 8y ago
IMO it gets really murky if you create derived works from public domain content. I think people should be able to license derived works (provided they don't infringe on trademarks etc). If Getty just fails to disclose that the (unmodified?) image is public domain, that strikes me as dishonest. > Is the deal that Getty doesn't know for sure that they don't own the rights, and therefore it doesn't legally count as deliberate / knowing deception? It may or may not be fraud but their business is predicated on not merely delivering but establishing provenance for this kind of content. Whoever added the content to the catalog definitely knew where it came from.
gnopgnip 8y ago
For the same reason you are allowed to sell open source software.
- luckylion 8y ago
  Are you allowed to claim that the software you're selling is proprietary, owned and copyrighted by you and then go after people that obtained them from the source (or are the original creator of said software)? Because that appears to be what Getty is doing.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Open Source != Public Domain
- geofft 8y ago
  Most open source licenses have an attribution and license-preservation clause specifically so buyers know that the software contains things derived from OSS code. I can certainly sell you ReallyCoolSSL which is just a rebranding of OpenSSL, but you're going to see the OpenSSL license and then go wonder what OpenSSL is. Works in the public domain do not have a license and therefore do not have this obligation to tell people what's going on.
mindslight 8y ago
It's not fraud when no sale took place. The problem with trying to civilly go after attempted fraud is having no standing, because you've suffered no harm. As long as Getty simply refunds whomever complains, they can close off 90% of the avenues of legal attack.