4 ms·

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

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
        If you're using my IP without my permission, saying your friend told you it was actually his IP isn't a valid defence. I mean, maybe you can sue your friend later on, but that's between you and him. All that matters to me is that you've used my IP without my permision.
  - LocalH 6y ago
    They shouldn't be able to threaten legal action for those who acquire public domain images elsewhere, just because they choose to fraudulently license them.
    - gkoberger 6y ago
      Agreed. It was a (shitty) mistake and they apologized immediately. This was not part of the court case, and Getty has never argued they should have been able to do this. I imagine they automate copyright takedown notices, and there was a bug somewhere. It's not great, but I don't believe it was malice.
- 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

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
      If you're using my IP without my permission, saying your friend told you it was actually his IP isn't a valid defence. I mean, maybe you can sue your friend later on, but that's between you and him. All that matters to me is that you've used my IP without my permision.
- LocalH 6y ago
  They shouldn't be able to threaten legal action for those who acquire public domain images elsewhere, just because they choose to fraudulently license them.
  - gkoberger 6y ago
    Agreed. It was a (shitty) mistake and they apologized immediately. This was not part of the court case, and Getty has never argued they should have been able to do this. I imagine they automate copyright takedown notices, and there was a bug somewhere. It's not great, but I don't believe it was malice.
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