9 ms·

Fuck Getty Images. Fuck IP law. Fuck copyright. All that shit needs a massive refactor. I can't bear to think about how much harm has been done to software and

Fuck Getty Images. Fuck IP law. Fuck copyright. All that shit needs a massive refactor. I can't bear to think about how much harm has been done to software and human reality in general by lawyers and MBAs seeking to extract the maximum amount of value from things. I'm glad things like this exist, but so sad that they need to. EDIT: and as one commenter astutely pointed out, fuck Pintrest too, a perfect example of the hubris of SEO focused trashes with no morals or sense of personal responsibility; degrading the commons for their own gain

amelius 6y ago
You forgot to mention Pinterest.
gkoberger 6y ago
What's wrong with Getty? They spend a lot of money to take pictures, and other people pay money to use them. How would you change their business model? EDIT: I hadn't realized that Getty is the reason for the removal of the view image button! I stand by my comment in general, however I do think removing that button is crappy.
- markdown 6y ago
  Getty charges $1000 for public domain photos. Fuck 'em! EDIT: They also fraudulently claim to own public domain photos and legally threaten people who use them, demanding payment.
  - gkoberger 6y ago
    I don't understand your point. If you hate copyright and IP, then you inherently also have to believe Getty should be allowed to take public domain photos (or someone else's photos) and sell them.
    - matttb 6y ago
      I'd never heard of this before so I searched it and the first result turned up this[0] (see lines 2-4/Exhibit A). Big jump from selling public domain images to seeking out payment for public domain images. [0] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3001353/Filed-Complaint-Exhibits.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3001353/Filed-Com...
    - markdown 6y ago
      > If you hate copyright and IP Are you responding to someone else? Wrong thread? Because I haven't expressed that sentiment here. > you inherently also have to believe Getty should be allowed to take public domain photos (or someone else's photos) and sell them. Are you responding to someone else? Wrong thread? Because I never said they shouldn't be allowed to profit off public domain photos. There is profit, and then there's just fucking people over. $1000 for a photo they didn't take and didn't pay for is just disgusting. All it does is restrict access to historical photos to 99% of the world, allowing only the very rich access to this window into our past.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      They have the right to sell them. I'm not sure it's ethical to do so for $1k/image. It's definitely not OK that they billed the photographer who took the public domain photos for using them on her own site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._Highsmith#Getty_Images/Alamy_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._Highsmith#Getty_Image...
      - de6u99er 6y ago
        I think people buy public domain images from Getty, because Getty will be liable in case that an unknown license of a public domain image suddenly pops up. Means they protect their customers from IP trolls. That being said, anything published on the web should be free. E.g. if some don't want their image to be used, they should not publish it publicly in the first place.
        markdown 6y ago
  - Proven 6y ago
    > Getty charges $1000 for public domain photos. Fuck 'em! Why is that a problem? You don't have to pay for their services, and you can get the same photos elsewhere.
  - leonry 6y ago
    Maryam Jafri has had a small installation called "Getty vs. Ghana" (https://www.maryamjafri.net/gettyVsGhana.htm https://www.maryamjafri.net/gettyVsGhana.htm) that was once shown in the MAC/VAL.
- Xelbair 6y ago
  What's worse - instead of fixing their shit, they bloody sue google.
- 0df8dkdf 6y ago
  This is the exact reason why I don't like these large corporations. Suing to take down content vs hiring competent IT personal to put images you don't want unauthorised person to download behind an authentication (there are plenty out there).
- mackrevinack 6y ago
  duckduckgo lets you view images no problem
syndacks 6y ago
We wouldn't have modern civilization without IP law. Curious how you make a living; if it's like anything like the vast majority of the people on this site, or society in general for that matter, it's rooted in laws protecting theft of intellectual property.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > We wouldn't have modern civilization without IP law. Disney focused copyright laws have nothing to do with the development of modern civilization. There is plenty of case where overly tight licensing has proven detrimental to a technology.
- lolc 6y ago
  The term "intellectual property" lumps together quite disparate concepts. It's not helpful to use it. And "theft" is a poor analogy. I'd say society wouldn't change much if copyright were abolished. Probably for the better. Claiming authorship should still be protected in my opinion, see next point. Trademark law gives some nice protections to consumers, so I'd vote for that one to stay. Patent law? Ahhahaha where do I begin? To think that we rely on that crutch to develop medication makes my head hurt.
  - mminer237 6y ago
    Wouldn't programming, writing, music, and art as careers basically be gone overnight without copyright? Who is going to create a book, video game, or movie when they can't sell it? Programmers would be the best off of those I guess, but only because they would have the option to move all code server-side to stop piracy.
    - Fargren 6y ago
      Copyright law has existed for only a few centuries, and people created art and science before it, as careers, for the entirety of human history. These jobs would be a lot different without IP law. They might be payed less and be done less, or maybe not. If they are payed less, it's true probably they wouldn't be as prolific. But they would still exist, it's disingenuous to claim IP law is a requirement for creative endeavors. As a matter of fact, programming already works as if IP law didn't exist from the point of view of many programmers.I'm hired by a company to produce a product, in exchange for a salary. I don't know any IP that I might produce as a result of my work. I'm simply paid for my time. Could (as an example) novel writers be payed for the time spent writing a book rather than as a function of the sales of their books? I see not logistical reason why not. Maybe the market won't bear many writers under those conditions... But they would still exist, right? Note: I think Trademark law is really good. And patents have issues but they are mostly good. I'm only talking about copyright here. I'm not entirely against the concept of IP, but I do think copyright law is not nearly as critical as it's made out to be. Maybe the optimal solution is weak copyright rather than no copyright, but I think it's important to understand that no copyright is not as crazy as it sounds.

amelius 6y ago

You forgot to mention Pinterest.

gkoberger 6y ago

What's wrong with Getty? They spend a lot of money to take pictures, and other people pay money to use them. How would you change their business model? EDIT: I hadn't realized that Getty is the reason for the removal of the view image button! I stand by my comment in general, however I do think removing that button is crappy.

markdown 6y ago
Getty charges $1000 for public domain photos. Fuck 'em! EDIT: They also fraudulently claim to own public domain photos and legally threaten people who use them, demanding payment.
- gkoberger 6y ago
  I don't understand your point. If you hate copyright and IP, then you inherently also have to believe Getty should be allowed to take public domain photos (or someone else's photos) and sell them.
  - matttb 6y ago
    I'd never heard of this before so I searched it and the first result turned up this[0] (see lines 2-4/Exhibit A). Big jump from selling public domain images to seeking out payment for public domain images. [0] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3001353/Filed-Complaint-Exhibits.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3001353/Filed-Com...
  - markdown 6y ago
    > If you hate copyright and IP Are you responding to someone else? Wrong thread? Because I haven't expressed that sentiment here. > you inherently also have to believe Getty should be allowed to take public domain photos (or someone else's photos) and sell them. Are you responding to someone else? Wrong thread? Because I never said they shouldn't be allowed to profit off public domain photos. There is profit, and then there's just fucking people over. $1000 for a photo they didn't take and didn't pay for is just disgusting. All it does is restrict access to historical photos to 99% of the world, allowing only the very rich access to this window into our past.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    They have the right to sell them. I'm not sure it's ethical to do so for $1k/image. It's definitely not OK that they billed the photographer who took the public domain photos for using them on her own site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._Highsmith#Getty_Images/Alamy_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._Highsmith#Getty_Image...
    - de6u99er 6y ago
      I think people buy public domain images from Getty, because Getty will be liable in case that an unknown license of a public domain image suddenly pops up. Means they protect their customers from IP trolls. That being said, anything published on the web should be free. E.g. if some don't want their image to be used, they should not publish it publicly in the first place.
      - markdown 6y ago
- Proven 6y ago
  > Getty charges $1000 for public domain photos. Fuck 'em! Why is that a problem? You don't have to pay for their services, and you can get the same photos elsewhere.
- leonry 6y ago
  Maryam Jafri has had a small installation called "Getty vs. Ghana" (https://www.maryamjafri.net/gettyVsGhana.htm https://www.maryamjafri.net/gettyVsGhana.htm) that was once shown in the MAC/VAL.
Xelbair 6y ago
What's worse - instead of fixing their shit, they bloody sue google.
0df8dkdf 6y ago
This is the exact reason why I don't like these large corporations. Suing to take down content vs hiring competent IT personal to put images you don't want unauthorised person to download behind an authentication (there are plenty out there).
mackrevinack 6y ago
duckduckgo lets you view images no problem

syndacks 6y ago

We wouldn't have modern civilization without IP law. Curious how you make a living; if it's like anything like the vast majority of the people on this site, or society in general for that matter, it's rooted in laws protecting theft of intellectual property.

alacombe 6y ago
> We wouldn't have modern civilization without IP law. Disney focused copyright laws have nothing to do with the development of modern civilization. There is plenty of case where overly tight licensing has proven detrimental to a technology.
lolc 6y ago
The term "intellectual property" lumps together quite disparate concepts. It's not helpful to use it. And "theft" is a poor analogy. I'd say society wouldn't change much if copyright were abolished. Probably for the better. Claiming authorship should still be protected in my opinion, see next point. Trademark law gives some nice protections to consumers, so I'd vote for that one to stay. Patent law? Ahhahaha where do I begin? To think that we rely on that crutch to develop medication makes my head hurt.
- mminer237 6y ago
  Wouldn't programming, writing, music, and art as careers basically be gone overnight without copyright? Who is going to create a book, video game, or movie when they can't sell it? Programmers would be the best off of those I guess, but only because they would have the option to move all code server-side to stop piracy.
  - Fargren 6y ago
    Copyright law has existed for only a few centuries, and people created art and science before it, as careers, for the entirety of human history. These jobs would be a lot different without IP law. They might be payed less and be done less, or maybe not. If they are payed less, it's true probably they wouldn't be as prolific. But they would still exist, it's disingenuous to claim IP law is a requirement for creative endeavors. As a matter of fact, programming already works as if IP law didn't exist from the point of view of many programmers.I'm hired by a company to produce a product, in exchange for a salary. I don't know any IP that I might produce as a result of my work. I'm simply paid for my time. Could (as an example) novel writers be payed for the time spent writing a book rather than as a function of the sales of their books? I see not logistical reason why not. Maybe the market won't bear many writers under those conditions... But they would still exist, right? Note: I think Trademark law is really good. And patents have issues but they are mostly good. I'm only talking about copyright here. I'm not entirely against the concept of IP, but I do think copyright law is not nearly as critical as it's made out to be. Maybe the optimal solution is weak copyright rather than no copyright, but I think it's important to understand that no copyright is not as crazy as it sounds.