4 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > You have the right to license public domain images. Anyone does. Huh? If it's in the public domain, you don't own it, because nobody owns it. And if you don't own it, and don't have permission to sublicense from the owner (which you can't since there is no owner), how can you have the right to license it? I agree that you have the right to sell public domain content, if you can convince anyone to buy it (and apparently lots of people can indeed be so convinced). But I don't think anyone has the right to license public domain content. > 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 From what I can gather, they have sent demand letters to people who originally created public domain content they claim to license, telling those people that they can't use the content on their website.
    - mikekchar 8y ago
      In copyright law, nobody owns the text. What you own is the right to make a copy. If you have a copyright, it is an exclusive right to make a copy. You can sell a license for someone else to make a copy. If the text is in the public domain, you also have the right to make a copy. You do not have an exclusive right. You can sell the right to make a copy, just like you can sell the right to jump up and down. Nobody needs that right because they already have it, but nothing is stopping you from selling it. Remember that in all "intellectual property", the "property" is a right, not the thing itself.
luckylion 8y ago
> The consumer gets to assume that Walmart has acquired all the licenses for everything it sells, and incurs no liability when Walmart doesn't. If you buy some Disney-branded stuff from Walmart and re-sell them, Disney will come after you if they aren't licensed. You can then go after Walmart to reimburse you for damages, but you can't say "sorry, Disney, I got these from Walmart, take it up with them", can you? It would be way to easy to set up a shell company that takes the fall if that was true.
- trickstra 8y ago
  > and re-sell them Then you are the seller
  - luckylion 8y ago
    And if you publish a picture you bought on the web, you are the publisher and liable for copyright infringement. You'll still be accountable, "I didn't know they weren't able to sell licenses" doesn't protect you.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- acct1771 8y ago
  You can make as many legal excuses like that as you can afford to stall about in court. Walmart has more lawyers than you.

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.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > You have the right to license public domain images. Anyone does. Huh? If it's in the public domain, you don't own it, because nobody owns it. And if you don't own it, and don't have permission to sublicense from the owner (which you can't since there is no owner), how can you have the right to license it? I agree that you have the right to sell public domain content, if you can convince anyone to buy it (and apparently lots of people can indeed be so convinced). But I don't think anyone has the right to license public domain content. > 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 From what I can gather, they have sent demand letters to people who originally created public domain content they claim to license, telling those people that they can't use the content on their website.
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    In copyright law, nobody owns the text. What you own is the right to make a copy. If you have a copyright, it is an exclusive right to make a copy. You can sell a license for someone else to make a copy. If the text is in the public domain, you also have the right to make a copy. You do not have an exclusive right. You can sell the right to make a copy, just like you can sell the right to jump up and down. Nobody needs that right because they already have it, but nothing is stopping you from selling it. Remember that in all "intellectual property", the "property" is a right, not the thing itself.

luckylion 8y ago

> The consumer gets to assume that Walmart has acquired all the licenses for everything it sells, and incurs no liability when Walmart doesn't. If you buy some Disney-branded stuff from Walmart and re-sell them, Disney will come after you if they aren't licensed. You can then go after Walmart to reimburse you for damages, but you can't say "sorry, Disney, I got these from Walmart, take it up with them", can you? It would be way to easy to set up a shell company that takes the fall if that was true.

trickstra 8y ago
> and re-sell them Then you are the seller
- luckylion 8y ago
  And if you publish a picture you bought on the web, you are the publisher and liable for copyright infringement. You'll still be accountable, "I didn't know they weren't able to sell licenses" doesn't protect you.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
acct1771 8y ago
You can make as many legal excuses like that as you can afford to stall about in court. Walmart has more lawyers than you.