5 ms·

Putting copyright matters aside, there is an issue of misrepresentation. A case that would be interesting would be one where Getty had represented that they we

Putting copyright matters aside, there is an issue of misrepresentation. A case that would be interesting would be one where Getty had represented that they were acting on behalf of an exclusive copyright holder, and where a third party had acquiesced to those demands, only to subsequently learn that Getty was not the rights holder. This is about basic contract issues. Getty falsely represented themselves to be X, with the use of aggressive language, leading to a contract being formed based on invalid premises. If it is a pattern of practice, it starts to look like a RICO matter.

jacobush 7y ago
I think cases like this is why public domain does not exist in Sweden, nor can you disown Copyright, only “commercial Copyright”. What always remains is “moral Copyright”, which can’t be used for much except that it’s some sort of attribution to the original author which always remains.
- anticensor 7y ago
  Moral rights are not transferable in the USA either, but they are much more limited in scope. Pictures are included in this protection.
oliwarner 7y ago
I disagree on the fundamental point that this was misrepresentation. They had every right to enforce a claim, they were just stupid to assume others wouldn't have their own claims.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  You're breathing air. I own all the air. Pay me. Now, if I claimed this seriously, most people would laugh me out of the room. But some might not and actually pay up. Especially if I threatened to sue them if they didn't pay up and the "I" was a big, well-known company. What Getty does is not just muddy grey misrepresentation, it's outright fraudulent. - They say it's copyright infringement in their letter. It is not. - They say you need a valid license to use the image. You do not. - They demand a license fee. Not a "you used our service to find and download this public domain work" fee. A license fee. - There is no indication whatsoever Getty/Alamy had any role in how the photograph got onto the website of Highsmith's foundation. Given it's her own photograph, it's unlikely she used Getty at all. But they do not claim a fee for using their services anyway, they claim a license fee based on copyright law, which they cannot. Highsmith gave up her copyright and cannot demand attribution or damages under the copyright law, so I agree with the court there. What she instead should have done is file a criminal complaint and a civil suit regarding the attempt to defraud her.
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    I take an amazing photo and give it to you with all rights to redistribute and sublicense it as you wish. You choose to redistribute it under a restrictive license for cash. As far as you know you're the only person selling this photo. You see my photo being used in a national advert. The advertiser is not your customer. Again, you think you're the only person with the right to redistribute this photo, and infer that your rights to a licensing fee is being infringed. As I say, they were stupid to treat this as if they had an exclusive license, but they had every right to redistribute under their license and ask for a license fee. Just as the recipient of that demand had the right to tell them go away.
    - rndgermandude 7y ago
      >I take an amazing photo and give it to you with all rights to redistribute and sublicense it as you wish. This is not what happened. They never were granted the rights to sublicense it. It is in the public domain. They can use it, redistribute it, or charge you if you somehow use their services to do things with it, or even create derivative works which they then own. But they cannot relicense it or claim they own it, or represent the owner. Now, the only thing I would let them bring forward as their argument is if they themselves were defrauded by somebody claiming ownership of the photograph. I see no indication that this is what had happened, tho.
      - foo101 7y ago
        > This is not what happened. They never were granted the rights to sublicense it. This is not what happened. They were granted the rights to sublicense it. Placing a piece of work in public domain automatically grants others to do whatever they want with it including sublicensing it.
        Marazan 7y ago
        They were not granted the exclusive right to sub licence it. Happy now?
- dariosalvi78 7y ago
  It's extortion.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  It's fraud.
icebraining 7y ago
> it starts to look like a RICO matter. I don't think false representation counts as a racketeering activity. Also, which defendant would the action be brought against? The CEO?
- p0sixlang 7y ago
  They charged Huawei with RICO.
- Causality1 7y ago
  One of the worst things about the modern world: when you automate a crime and do it ten thousand times it becomes likely the justice system will simply ignore you.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    And don't forget there exist people that will literally try to defend this behaviour by claiming it is "too hard" (doesn't scale, or whatever) to do it right. Like Facebook moderation, or Youtube complaints.
  - geggam 7y ago
    See : SPAM

jacobush 7y ago

I think cases like this is why public domain does not exist in Sweden, nor can you disown Copyright, only “commercial Copyright”. What always remains is “moral Copyright”, which can’t be used for much except that it’s some sort of attribution to the original author which always remains.

anticensor 7y ago
Moral rights are not transferable in the USA either, but they are much more limited in scope. Pictures are included in this protection.

oliwarner 7y ago

I disagree on the fundamental point that this was misrepresentation. They had every right to enforce a claim, they were just stupid to assume others wouldn't have their own claims.

rndgermandude 7y ago
You're breathing air. I own all the air. Pay me. Now, if I claimed this seriously, most people would laugh me out of the room. But some might not and actually pay up. Especially if I threatened to sue them if they didn't pay up and the "I" was a big, well-known company. What Getty does is not just muddy grey misrepresentation, it's outright fraudulent. - They say it's copyright infringement in their letter. It is not. - They say you need a valid license to use the image. You do not. - They demand a license fee. Not a "you used our service to find and download this public domain work" fee. A license fee. - There is no indication whatsoever Getty/Alamy had any role in how the photograph got onto the website of Highsmith's foundation. Given it's her own photograph, it's unlikely she used Getty at all. But they do not claim a fee for using their services anyway, they claim a license fee based on copyright law, which they cannot. Highsmith gave up her copyright and cannot demand attribution or damages under the copyright law, so I agree with the court there. What she instead should have done is file a criminal complaint and a civil suit regarding the attempt to defraud her.
- oliwarner 7y ago
  I take an amazing photo and give it to you with all rights to redistribute and sublicense it as you wish. You choose to redistribute it under a restrictive license for cash. As far as you know you're the only person selling this photo. You see my photo being used in a national advert. The advertiser is not your customer. Again, you think you're the only person with the right to redistribute this photo, and infer that your rights to a licensing fee is being infringed. As I say, they were stupid to treat this as if they had an exclusive license, but they had every right to redistribute under their license and ask for a license fee. Just as the recipient of that demand had the right to tell them go away.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    >I take an amazing photo and give it to you with all rights to redistribute and sublicense it as you wish. This is not what happened. They never were granted the rights to sublicense it. It is in the public domain. They can use it, redistribute it, or charge you if you somehow use their services to do things with it, or even create derivative works which they then own. But they cannot relicense it or claim they own it, or represent the owner. Now, the only thing I would let them bring forward as their argument is if they themselves were defrauded by somebody claiming ownership of the photograph. I see no indication that this is what had happened, tho.
    - foo101 7y ago
      > This is not what happened. They never were granted the rights to sublicense it. This is not what happened. They were granted the rights to sublicense it. Placing a piece of work in public domain automatically grants others to do whatever they want with it including sublicensing it.
      - Marazan 7y ago
        They were not granted the exclusive right to sub licence it. Happy now?
dariosalvi78 7y ago
It's extortion.
anigbrowl 7y ago
It's fraud.

icebraining 7y ago

> it starts to look like a RICO matter. I don't think false representation counts as a racketeering activity. Also, which defendant would the action be brought against? The CEO?

p0sixlang 7y ago
They charged Huawei with RICO.
Causality1 7y ago
One of the worst things about the modern world: when you automate a crime and do it ten thousand times it becomes likely the justice system will simply ignore you.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  And don't forget there exist people that will literally try to defend this behaviour by claiming it is "too hard" (doesn't scale, or whatever) to do it right. Like Facebook moderation, or Youtube complaints.
- geggam 7y ago
  See : SPAM