3 ms·

> This mistake happens with all sorts of content available from multiple areas. Sure, mistakes happen. But I think someone in the business of licensing should

> This mistake happens with all sorts of content available from multiple areas. Sure, mistakes happen. But I think someone in the business of licensing should be held to a higher standard and that there should be a punishment for false demands/false presentation of copyright. The fact that they can threaten someone for thousands of dollars and then just say "honest mistake. You get nothing for your troubles" might be legal, but I am not convinced it should be.

oliwarner 7y ago
It was not a false representation of copyright. PD allows this. It was just stupid to assume that nobody else would have a legitimate copy. The tactics used are questionable, but asking for $120 is at the softer end of the spectrum when it comes to demands.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  They didn't just ask. They threatened the author of the photograph with court action for "unlicensed distribution".
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    No. I know we're supposed to assume that all HN commenters have read the source material, but did you? The letter stakes their claim and then immediately —before any numbers mentioned or "threats" made— say "If we are wrong and you do have a valid license"... In fact, they make no threats of lawsuit. All inference there is from the LA Times. IP licensing is hard. Enforcement is harder. This example is a very soft approach.
    - stefan_ 7y ago
      This is not preschool. You can't just excuse all your actions with a "if I'm wrong". Everyone has a "valid license" to a public domain image.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      There is no such thing as a license to public domain material. That's what public domain means -- no license required.
- quietbritishjim 7y ago
  In your other comment (too deeply nested for me to reply to) you mitigate their actions with the quotation: > If we are wrong and you do have a valid license The crux of the matter is that this sentence does not make it clear that a licence may not be needed at all. In fact it seems to re-enforce the idea that you definitely do need a licence. The appropriate sentence that they could have used instead is more like "if we are wrong and do not actually own the copyright", which is materially different from what they said. Of course, aside from that being a totally different meaning and implication, as others have said it is 100% Getty's responsibility to figure out what they do not own the copyright to.

oliwarner 7y ago

It was not a false representation of copyright. PD allows this. It was just stupid to assume that nobody else would have a legitimate copy. The tactics used are questionable, but asking for $120 is at the softer end of the spectrum when it comes to demands.

dmitriid 7y ago
They didn't just ask. They threatened the author of the photograph with court action for "unlicensed distribution".
- oliwarner 7y ago
  No. I know we're supposed to assume that all HN commenters have read the source material, but did you? The letter stakes their claim and then immediately —before any numbers mentioned or "threats" made— say "If we are wrong and you do have a valid license"... In fact, they make no threats of lawsuit. All inference there is from the LA Times. IP licensing is hard. Enforcement is harder. This example is a very soft approach.
  - stefan_ 7y ago
    This is not preschool. You can't just excuse all your actions with a "if I'm wrong". Everyone has a "valid license" to a public domain image.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    There is no such thing as a license to public domain material. That's what public domain means -- no license required.
quietbritishjim 7y ago
In your other comment (too deeply nested for me to reply to) you mitigate their actions with the quotation: > If we are wrong and you do have a valid license The crux of the matter is that this sentence does not make it clear that a licence may not be needed at all. In fact it seems to re-enforce the idea that you definitely do need a licence. The appropriate sentence that they could have used instead is more like "if we are wrong and do not actually own the copyright", which is materially different from what they said. Of course, aside from that being a totally different meaning and implication, as others have said it is 100% Getty's responsibility to figure out what they do not own the copyright to.