19 ms·

> would still be subject to arbitrary usage limits. Didn't the ruling achieve the exact opposite? Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage lim

> would still be subject to arbitrary usage limits. Didn't the ruling achieve the exact opposite? Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder. Taking the images and using them for whatever is fine, taking them and then trying to forbid anybody else from taking them (the originals, not getty's copies) is not and unrelated to the license.

bootloop 7y ago
If they are public domain you can do with it whatever you want. Also republish them, charge money for it or limit usage. That's the point of it. So everything is fine. BUT, if someone prints the images and ignores any usage limits and then gets sued you might just get a jail free card because you can claim that's anyway public domain.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  You may be able to limit usage of your own derivative works, but you can't just declare that everyone using a public domain image owes you royalties.
- Hamuko 7y ago
  Like blackmail people into paying a licensing fee with the threat of legal action?
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  > Also republish them, charge money for it or limit usage Of your copy or derivative work, not of the public domain one you copied. The fact that they tried to force their limits on other people using the public domain works is what is the issue here and is not fine. > you might just get a jail free card because you can claim That seems entirely the wrong way around. Getty knows it is public domain because that is where they got it from. The fact that they sue for damages despite this should put them in contempt of court and not me in a position where I have to defend myself.
  - smaryjerry 7y ago
    You are dead right but I wonder if the article is badly representing the story or her lawyers were bad because Getty won the lawsuit anyways. Perhaps she did download the photo from Google images or something and it did have Getty watermark in it when she used it. Otherwise I see this as a slam dunk against Getty.
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      What lawsuit did Getty win? The article says they haven't responded formally to her suit yet, and it doesn't mention them suing her.
      - diffeomorphism 7y ago
        The article is from 2016. Links to the outcome of the lawsuit are further up the thread.
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      From the representation of her story in the article, it hardly seems like Getty has caused her a billion dollars in damages. It's a slam dunk that Getty did something wrong, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily owe her any money.
oliwarner 7y ago
Public domain is special. You free yourself of all ownership which means that somebody else can pick it up and relicense their distribution of it, including saying you cannot do things with it. I emphasise "saying" because that's pretty much all you can do unless they know they're the only entity distributing it. The problem here was trying to enforce on something that was obviously non-exclusive. This mistake happens with all sorts of content available through multiple channels. Getty should have marked it as such on ingestion.
- chrismcb 7y ago
  My reading of this article is getty was claiming they own the rights to the photos, and requested payment from the photographer. Because they didn't have a record of her paying them... Despite the fact she didn't get it from them.
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    Yeah, that's my reading too. Getty treated this as if it were exclusive and that they were working as sole agent for the owner. They do this for lots of the things they distribute. But PD is incidental here. Getty could have legitimately had a exclusive license and still incorrectly gone after its creator.
  - anticensor 7y ago
    Getty treated itself as the state and the work as a government royalty subject. (government royalty subject is what your work becomes if you do a work-for-hire for a continental European government, i.e. the government becoming the copyright owner)
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      In the USA all works of the government are considered public domain. The idea of a public copyright is a legal contradiction in terms. So it's perfectly legal to take PDFs of official government publications and republish them if you think there's a market for it.
ChrisLomont 7y ago
>Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder. The article states this is not the case. "It acknowledges that the images are in the public domain, but still maintains that it has the right to charge a fee for distributing the material. “Distributing and providing access to public domain content is different to asserting copyright ownership of it,” Getty says."
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  That is misleading. They are perfectly within their rights to charge for distributing their copy of the material. Nobody claimed they weren't. What they did instead is claim exclusive rights of distribution over the the other public domain works as well. So, yes what they say is perfectly true, but also entirely irrelevant.
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    Your name is diffeomorphism, so I assume you like math, and care about accuracy. You started with this: >>Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder. They did not claim copyright as you stated. Now you've changed to this: >What they did instead is claim exclusive rights of distribution over the the other public domain works as well. You originally stated they claimed they were the sole copyright holder. They did not. Moving the goalposts or downvoting does not change your original claim is incorrect. Accuracy matters, in math and in public discourse.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      I still don't understand what your point is. Fine, they claimed they were the exclusive "distribution rights holder". And then argued that you don't need to claim copyright to distribute and sublicense PD works. Yeah, fine. But that is irrelevant. The "exclusive" is what is the issue and their comment does not address that at all.

bootloop 7y ago

If they are public domain you can do with it whatever you want. Also republish them, charge money for it or limit usage. That's the point of it. So everything is fine. BUT, if someone prints the images and ignores any usage limits and then gets sued you might just get a jail free card because you can claim that's anyway public domain.

daveFNbuck 7y ago
You may be able to limit usage of your own derivative works, but you can't just declare that everyone using a public domain image owes you royalties.
Hamuko 7y ago
Like blackmail people into paying a licensing fee with the threat of legal action?
diffeomorphism 7y ago
> Also republish them, charge money for it or limit usage Of your copy or derivative work, not of the public domain one you copied. The fact that they tried to force their limits on other people using the public domain works is what is the issue here and is not fine. > you might just get a jail free card because you can claim That seems entirely the wrong way around. Getty knows it is public domain because that is where they got it from. The fact that they sue for damages despite this should put them in contempt of court and not me in a position where I have to defend myself.
- smaryjerry 7y ago
  You are dead right but I wonder if the article is badly representing the story or her lawyers were bad because Getty won the lawsuit anyways. Perhaps she did download the photo from Google images or something and it did have Getty watermark in it when she used it. Otherwise I see this as a slam dunk against Getty.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    What lawsuit did Getty win? The article says they haven't responded formally to her suit yet, and it doesn't mention them suing her.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      The article is from 2016. Links to the outcome of the lawsuit are further up the thread.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    From the representation of her story in the article, it hardly seems like Getty has caused her a billion dollars in damages. It's a slam dunk that Getty did something wrong, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily owe her any money.

oliwarner 7y ago

Public domain is special. You free yourself of all ownership which means that somebody else can pick it up and relicense their distribution of it, including saying you cannot do things with it. I emphasise "saying" because that's pretty much all you can do unless they know they're the only entity distributing it. The problem here was trying to enforce on something that was obviously non-exclusive. This mistake happens with all sorts of content available through multiple channels. Getty should have marked it as such on ingestion.

chrismcb 7y ago
My reading of this article is getty was claiming they own the rights to the photos, and requested payment from the photographer. Because they didn't have a record of her paying them... Despite the fact she didn't get it from them.
- oliwarner 7y ago
  Yeah, that's my reading too. Getty treated this as if it were exclusive and that they were working as sole agent for the owner. They do this for lots of the things they distribute. But PD is incidental here. Getty could have legitimately had a exclusive license and still incorrectly gone after its creator.
- anticensor 7y ago
  Getty treated itself as the state and the work as a government royalty subject. (government royalty subject is what your work becomes if you do a work-for-hire for a continental European government, i.e. the government becoming the copyright owner)
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    In the USA all works of the government are considered public domain. The idea of a public copyright is a legal contradiction in terms. So it's perfectly legal to take PDFs of official government publications and republish them if you think there's a market for it.

ChrisLomont 7y ago

>Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder. The article states this is not the case. "It acknowledges that the images are in the public domain, but still maintains that it has the right to charge a fee for distributing the material. “Distributing and providing access to public domain content is different to asserting copyright ownership of it,” Getty says."

diffeomorphism 7y ago
That is misleading. They are perfectly within their rights to charge for distributing their copy of the material. Nobody claimed they weren't. What they did instead is claim exclusive rights of distribution over the the other public domain works as well. So, yes what they say is perfectly true, but also entirely irrelevant.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  Your name is diffeomorphism, so I assume you like math, and care about accuracy. You started with this: >>Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder. They did not claim copyright as you stated. Now you've changed to this: >What they did instead is claim exclusive rights of distribution over the the other public domain works as well. You originally stated they claimed they were the sole copyright holder. They did not. Moving the goalposts or downvoting does not change your original claim is incorrect. Accuracy matters, in math and in public discourse.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    I still don't understand what your point is. Fine, they claimed they were the exclusive "distribution rights holder". And then argued that you don't need to claim copyright to distribute and sublicense PD works. Yeah, fine. But that is irrelevant. The "exclusive" is what is the issue and their comment does not address that at all.