4 ms·

As a business model it makes perverse sense: 1. Use bots to vacuum up as many images as you can online, and claim ownership. 2. Use bots to search for infring

As a business model it makes perverse sense: 1. Use bots to vacuum up as many images as you can online, and claim ownership. 2. Use bots to search for infringement and automatically send claim letters against them. 3. For any pushback, have a team of lawyers and clerks of various grades to deal with situations as they escalate. Push or capitulate after sizing up the opponent. Most people either just want it over, or don't have the means to fight back for any length of time. The money you make from such a scheme would far outweigh the legal costs due to the scale of the automated income. It would only become problematic if someone else started a rival company, at which point they'd need to set up an oligopoly agreement to avoid destroying one another with their bots.

jopsen 7y ago
I suspect you eventually go to jail on fraud charges. Getty can probably argue that they made a mistake when classifying the image. But this argument only works if you have rights to a lot of legitimate works. (Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer)
- kstenerud 7y ago
  It would more likely be fines, especially once you're big enough to pull strings. It wouldn't be too much trouble to add "copyright checker" code to the bots that's good enough to provide a fig leaf for your defense. Automated large-scale systems make mistakes all the time, after all. Pay the fines, do the minimum work necessary to comply with the court order, rinse and repeat, and keep your PR team on standby.
  - jopsen 7y ago
    Fair enough, maybe I should have said that in theory they could go to jail for fraud. In practice, it's unlikely that even a dedicated scam operation gets the attention of the authorities.. it rarely happens, probably because there are more serious crimes to prosecute.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  > I suspect you eventually go to jail on fraud charges You don't. At most you get slapped with a 1.5 million dollar fine. Getty's revenue is ~1 billion dollars. This gets written of as minor expense. In all other cases you team of lawyers gets the court to dismiss the case.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    RICO their asses and send their company brass to jail.
  - jopsen 7y ago
    Until shown otherwise, I think it's reasonable to assume that Getty does not have an internal policy of filing bogus copyright claims. But yes, even if they do.. the authorities probably have worse criminals to pursue. So in practice you could probably get away with it for a long time.
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      Their internal policy is to gobble up images and then file automatic claims on them.
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    Which is then problem with the law and justice system, if fraud can be a valid buisness model.
dkdk8283 7y ago
Most people are indeed afraid of the law. Let’s not forget Getty is the reason we no longer have the “View image” button on image search.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Brand D does: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=view+image&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=view+image&t=h_&iax=images&ia=imag...
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Unfortunately DuckDuckGo’s image search is worse than their regular one :(
- throw_m239339 7y ago
  They are not afraid of the law. In US civil lawsuits are expensive as hell. That's not the case in a lot of other countries where systems are in place to resolve conflicts, before a judge, at a very low cost.
  - LeoTinnitus 7y ago
    The US system is based on common law though which is in the minority of every other countries remember. Both systems have their place. Common law systems tend to favor what people culturally perceive as the law as opposed to what is actually the law. My examples would be jim crow murderers getting away with killing black people and juries not convicting them even though clearly they did. Also recently the Oregan militia in the US that I believe killed a federal agent in a firefight was found not guilty by a jury for things any judge would've said they were in a heartbeat. Basically common law is good when the government is after you and your peers as a jury hate the government more than you. Civil law is better when it flat out comes down to a competent individual interpreting the law fairly quick.
marzell 7y ago
How does the first step work, legally? What does it mean to 'vacuum up' (web scrape?) images and claim ownership... I mean, is this a fundamentally false precedent that you are describing, or is there some legal basis for 'claiming' images that you (meaning, a business) previously have no connection to, but simply want to 'own'?
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  The ones in public domain.
  - marzell 7y ago
    That's what I mean.. if it's in public domain doesn't that mean it is free for anyone to use? How does someone legally then claim ownership? Or are they just 'claiming' without any truthful ownership? So then if they make a DMCA request on it or something, companies will comply by default to be on the safe side?
fma 7y ago
People do this for small business owners and ADA compliant website. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has specifically stated in rulings that websites should be designed so they are accessible to individuals who have vision, hearing, and physical disabilities. There’s a growing body of case law where the DOJ required companies to provide an ADA compliant website and levied hefty penalties when sites failed to measure up. https://www.business.com/articles/is-your-website-ada-compliant-how-to-check-and-how-it-affects-your-business/ https://www.business.com/articles/is-your-website-ada-compli...

jopsen 7y ago

I suspect you eventually go to jail on fraud charges. Getty can probably argue that they made a mistake when classifying the image. But this argument only works if you have rights to a lot of legitimate works. (Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer)

kstenerud 7y ago
It would more likely be fines, especially once you're big enough to pull strings. It wouldn't be too much trouble to add "copyright checker" code to the bots that's good enough to provide a fig leaf for your defense. Automated large-scale systems make mistakes all the time, after all. Pay the fines, do the minimum work necessary to comply with the court order, rinse and repeat, and keep your PR team on standby.
- jopsen 7y ago
  Fair enough, maybe I should have said that in theory they could go to jail for fraud. In practice, it's unlikely that even a dedicated scam operation gets the attention of the authorities.. it rarely happens, probably because there are more serious crimes to prosecute.
dmitriid 7y ago
> I suspect you eventually go to jail on fraud charges You don't. At most you get slapped with a 1.5 million dollar fine. Getty's revenue is ~1 billion dollars. This gets written of as minor expense. In all other cases you team of lawyers gets the court to dismiss the case.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  RICO their asses and send their company brass to jail.
- jopsen 7y ago
  Until shown otherwise, I think it's reasonable to assume that Getty does not have an internal policy of filing bogus copyright claims. But yes, even if they do.. the authorities probably have worse criminals to pursue. So in practice you could probably get away with it for a long time.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    Their internal policy is to gobble up images and then file automatic claims on them.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  Which is then problem with the law and justice system, if fraud can be a valid buisness model.

dkdk8283 7y ago

Most people are indeed afraid of the law. Let’s not forget Getty is the reason we no longer have the “View image” button on image search.

dredmorbius 7y ago
Brand D does: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=view+image&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=view+image&t=h_&iax=images&ia=imag...
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Unfortunately DuckDuckGo’s image search is worse than their regular one :(
throw_m239339 7y ago
They are not afraid of the law. In US civil lawsuits are expensive as hell. That's not the case in a lot of other countries where systems are in place to resolve conflicts, before a judge, at a very low cost.
- LeoTinnitus 7y ago
  The US system is based on common law though which is in the minority of every other countries remember. Both systems have their place. Common law systems tend to favor what people culturally perceive as the law as opposed to what is actually the law. My examples would be jim crow murderers getting away with killing black people and juries not convicting them even though clearly they did. Also recently the Oregan militia in the US that I believe killed a federal agent in a firefight was found not guilty by a jury for things any judge would've said they were in a heartbeat. Basically common law is good when the government is after you and your peers as a jury hate the government more than you. Civil law is better when it flat out comes down to a competent individual interpreting the law fairly quick.

marzell 7y ago

How does the first step work, legally? What does it mean to 'vacuum up' (web scrape?) images and claim ownership... I mean, is this a fundamentally false precedent that you are describing, or is there some legal basis for 'claiming' images that you (meaning, a business) previously have no connection to, but simply want to 'own'?

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
The ones in public domain.
- marzell 7y ago
  That's what I mean.. if it's in public domain doesn't that mean it is free for anyone to use? How does someone legally then claim ownership? Or are they just 'claiming' without any truthful ownership? So then if they make a DMCA request on it or something, companies will comply by default to be on the safe side?

fma 7y ago

People do this for small business owners and ADA compliant website. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has specifically stated in rulings that websites should be designed so they are accessible to individuals who have vision, hearing, and physical disabilities. There’s a growing body of case law where the DOJ required companies to provide an ADA compliant website and levied hefty penalties when sites failed to measure up. https://www.business.com/articles/is-your-website-ada-compliant-how-to-check-and-how-it-affects-your-business/ https://www.business.com/articles/is-your-website-ada-compli...