4 ms·

Getty is the epitome of the evil corporation. They threatened a number of my customers (who all won against Getty via lawyers) for putting photos on their sites

Getty is the epitome of the evil corporation. They threatened a number of my customers (who all won against Getty via lawyers) for putting photos on their sites with dubious ownership rights. I have experience with copyright law (unpleasantly) and there is a process required by the law to actually win a settlement on copyright infringement, and Getty uses thug tactics and threats to get small parties to pay up. Their empire deserves to crumble. https://www.extortionletterinfo.com/ https://www.extortionletterinfo.com/

potency 7y ago
I had the same experience. Had my website designed by a designer, then a few years later received a threatening letter saying that if I didn't fork over 4-figures for a small image that they used, they'd come after me. I ignored the letter and several follow-ups and never heard from them again, but I could absolutely see how they could intimidate a small business to pay up.
leeoniya 7y ago
ah yes... "Internet rages after Google removes “view image” button, bowing to Getty" https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-getty/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after...
tomxor 7y ago
Yeah, looks like the majority of their revenue is literally based on entrapment: > Just over half of Getty’s revenues, according to industry estimates, come from distributing “stock” photos — images of generic subjects, such as “house” or “orange juice” or “corporate executive,” that a commercial client might use in brochures, websites or advertisements.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  They have some bots crawling around the web and sending out automated letters then to people who they think need to license their photos. I fucked around with the bit and wasted its energy since it came to my territory, at least 4 years ago it wasn't very smart. I just told them point blank to fuck off, probably they go only after American customers since they are in the legislation area to threaten.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    So you stole someone else's property and told them to fuck off? And you expect praise for this? Even if you hate Getty, they're a platform that resells images individual photographers take.
    - sudhehhrhd 7y ago
      What's it like being a voluntary shill? Nothing that person said implied theft, they talked about a bots and then mentioned fucking with the bot.
      - iudqnolq 7y ago
        Edit: Reply showed me I was wrong. Leaving the comment up so the chain makes sense. They talked about fucking with a bot that caught them infringing copyright because they knew they'd be hard to hunt down. Copyright theft is (currently) theft. Did you create this account just to leave that comment? Why? What did you think would happen as a result?
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Please stop spreading this lie. Copyright "infringement" is a breaking of a contract. This is the black and white law. Copyright infringment is absolutely not theft. That is just evil propaganda spread by a cartel of super rich and powerful media moguls and corps. And the abuse of this lie affects the poorest and lowest in society most.
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        Thank you. I looked the issue up and learned that legally copyright infringement is distinct from theft. I still think the term is a good inexact colloquial approximation. However, I couldn't find anything to support your assertion that copyright violation is a breach of contract. It doesn't make sense: breach of contract requires an agreed upon contract to be breached. Also, cite for the idea that copyright law hurts the poorest the most? Haven't seen that before.
- jefftk 7y ago
  How is that entrapment?
- xsmasher 7y ago
  Their business is selling pictures of "orange juice" to people who need pictures of "orange juice." Sometimes people use their images without paying the fee.* How is that entrapment? * this is separate from issue of bogus requests to people who didn't copy their images without a license.
codereflection 7y ago
I never knew this. I've known several developer who worked for Getty and had a positive experience. Of course that experience has nothing to do with their legal tactics.

potency 7y ago

I had the same experience. Had my website designed by a designer, then a few years later received a threatening letter saying that if I didn't fork over 4-figures for a small image that they used, they'd come after me. I ignored the letter and several follow-ups and never heard from them again, but I could absolutely see how they could intimidate a small business to pay up.

leeoniya 7y ago

ah yes... "Internet rages after Google removes “view image” button, bowing to Getty" https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-getty/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after...

tomxor 7y ago

Yeah, looks like the majority of their revenue is literally based on entrapment: > Just over half of Getty’s revenues, according to industry estimates, come from distributing “stock” photos — images of generic subjects, such as “house” or “orange juice” or “corporate executive,” that a commercial client might use in brochures, websites or advertisements.

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
They have some bots crawling around the web and sending out automated letters then to people who they think need to license their photos. I fucked around with the bit and wasted its energy since it came to my territory, at least 4 years ago it wasn't very smart. I just told them point blank to fuck off, probably they go only after American customers since they are in the legislation area to threaten.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  So you stole someone else's property and told them to fuck off? And you expect praise for this? Even if you hate Getty, they're a platform that resells images individual photographers take.
  - sudhehhrhd 7y ago
    What's it like being a voluntary shill? Nothing that person said implied theft, they talked about a bots and then mentioned fucking with the bot.
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      Edit: Reply showed me I was wrong. Leaving the comment up so the chain makes sense. They talked about fucking with a bot that caught them infringing copyright because they knew they'd be hard to hunt down. Copyright theft is (currently) theft. Did you create this account just to leave that comment? Why? What did you think would happen as a result?
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Please stop spreading this lie. Copyright "infringement" is a breaking of a contract. This is the black and white law. Copyright infringment is absolutely not theft. That is just evil propaganda spread by a cartel of super rich and powerful media moguls and corps. And the abuse of this lie affects the poorest and lowest in society most.
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        Thank you. I looked the issue up and learned that legally copyright infringement is distinct from theft. I still think the term is a good inexact colloquial approximation. However, I couldn't find anything to support your assertion that copyright violation is a breach of contract. It doesn't make sense: breach of contract requires an agreed upon contract to be breached. Also, cite for the idea that copyright law hurts the poorest the most? Haven't seen that before.
jefftk 7y ago
How is that entrapment?
xsmasher 7y ago
Their business is selling pictures of "orange juice" to people who need pictures of "orange juice." Sometimes people use their images without paying the fee.* How is that entrapment? * this is separate from issue of bogus requests to people who didn't copy their images without a license.

codereflection 7y ago

I never knew this. I've known several developer who worked for Getty and had a positive experience. Of course that experience has nothing to do with their legal tactics.