3 ms·

No. The photos were placed into public domain, copyright free. Anyone can copy them # but it also means anyone can sell them.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
I'm still not clear how being able to sell them seems to mean they can demand licensing fees from anyone who uses the image - effectively claiming they are the sole and exclusive rights holder. I understand that Getty can license PD images through their own site. Legally this seems to be covered by caveat emptor and by the fact that Getty provide search and indexing services to users. But trying to demand licensing rights for a PD image from users who have found the image through another channel[1] is a whole other thing, and seems more like a plain old monopolistic land grab, bordering on extortion. I'm surprised - although not entirely, for cynical reasons - that the court didn't pursue this argument. "Mistakes were made" isn't really a mitigation here. Besides, I'm not sure it's even possible to place work into the public domain under US law without a formal written waiver of moral rights. [1] Including their own camera.
- smaryjerry 7y ago
  My guess why Getty won the lawsuit is because lawsuits are in order to grant damages and she wasn't able to prove monetary damages to herself as it was already in the public domain. Unfortunately there is very much law enforcement against entities falsely claiming copyrights, especially those that technically have no owner. It seems hard enough for you tubers who get claimed by copyright troll companies constantly and steal their advertising revenue.. or YouTube technically steals and res distributes to the copyright troll. Even those cases you won't see criminal charges or even civil or monetary charges unless the copyright holder wants to go to court. It's basic time scamming. Copyright trolls can claim 100 million videos in the time it takes one person to defend one of those claims. Basically every day these companies make claims that would take the combined lifespan of the entire world to defend against.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

I'm still not clear how being able to sell them seems to mean they can demand licensing fees from anyone who uses the image - effectively claiming they are the sole and exclusive rights holder. I understand that Getty can license PD images through their own site. Legally this seems to be covered by caveat emptor and by the fact that Getty provide search and indexing services to users. But trying to demand licensing rights for a PD image from users who have found the image through another channel[1] is a whole other thing, and seems more like a plain old monopolistic land grab, bordering on extortion. I'm surprised - although not entirely, for cynical reasons - that the court didn't pursue this argument. "Mistakes were made" isn't really a mitigation here. Besides, I'm not sure it's even possible to place work into the public domain under US law without a formal written waiver of moral rights. [1] Including their own camera.

smaryjerry 7y ago
My guess why Getty won the lawsuit is because lawsuits are in order to grant damages and she wasn't able to prove monetary damages to herself as it was already in the public domain. Unfortunately there is very much law enforcement against entities falsely claiming copyrights, especially those that technically have no owner. It seems hard enough for you tubers who get claimed by copyright troll companies constantly and steal their advertising revenue.. or YouTube technically steals and res distributes to the copyright troll. Even those cases you won't see criminal charges or even civil or monetary charges unless the copyright holder wants to go to court. It's basic time scamming. Copyright trolls can claim 100 million videos in the time it takes one person to defend one of those claims. Basically every day these companies make claims that would take the combined lifespan of the entire world to defend against.