4 ms·

Getty is known for "brazen infringement of public IP on a staggering scale" - https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whi

Getty is known for "brazen infringement of public IP on a staggering scale" - https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/ https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-laws... - https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/01/getty-images-sued-yet-again-trying-to-license-public-domain-images/ https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/01/getty-images-sued-yet-ag... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images#Copyright_enforcement_and_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images#Copyright_enforce...

aardvarkr 4y ago
Those links are interesting but just show that Getty is a slimy business that tries to repackage public domain images for sale, not that they infringe the IP of others. That’s a massively different issue.
- ronsor 4y ago
  They do sue others for use of those public domain images, which while not copyright infringement, is fraudulent and illegal.
- Groxx 4y ago
  To more accurately summarize the links: they've tried to sue people for using public domain images that Getty is also selling. Selling public domain things is entirely legal. Claiming they own those images and suing others for using them is not - they're public domain.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    You'd think that should fall under the perjury penalty of the DMCA, I thought that misrepresenting oneself as the copyright holder was what that was for. But maybe they didn't file any such DMCA notice, I dunno.
    - Scaevolus 4y ago
      Nobody has ever been prosecuted for perjury under DMCA. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-been-convicted-of-perjury-for-false-dmca-takedown-notices https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...
      - Natsu 4y ago
        Oh, I agree that it's a completely toothless provision in practice, but claiming the copyright on someone else's work and then trying to take down the person's own copyrighted work seems like exactly the sort of thing it was supposed to cover. The article you linked makes the point that at least one civil suit did give damages for dealing with a bogus DMCA takedown, but that it was unrelated to the perjury provision.
mmwako 4y ago
Just read the first article. Getty Images was sued by a photographer for using 18.000 her public domain images for profit by Getty. The ruling DISMISSED the allegation, which is crazy. It's comical that now it's exactly the same allegation, but with the sides inverted, now it's Getty trying to sue an AI company for using their public domain images. I think we can all guess what's going to happen xD
- rvz 4y ago
  > I think we can all guess what's going to happen xD The outcome will be, Stable Diffusion settling and licensing the images from Getty Images. If OpenAI was able to do it with Shutter-stock, so can Stable Diffusion.
  - 300bps 4y ago
    I don't think that outcome is assured. In a lot of ways, Stable Diffusion's business model creates an existential threat to Getty Images. I would expect alternative outcomes to be: 1. The requested licensing fee approaches infinity 2. Getty Images simply refuses to license images to anyone who will use AI to create derivative works
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    I don't think thats an acceptable outcome to getty, whose entire business model will be confounded by a tech that used its images against license to generate alternatives to getty's business.
- nucleardog 4y ago
  > Getty Images was sued by a photographer for using 18.000 her public domain images for profit by Getty. You can use public domain images for profit. It's not surprising this was thrown out. > It's comical that now it's exactly the same allegation, but with the sides inverted, now it's Getty trying to sue an AI company for using their public domain images. Where does it say they're suing over the public domain images in their collection? Their collection is not entirely public domain images. Their suit claims for the copyright works by staff photographers, third parties that have assigned copyright, and images licensed to them by contributing photographers. In addition, they're claiming for the titles and captions which they created and are themselves copyrighted. It's not the "exact same allegation", and there's really no relation between the facts of the cases here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

aardvarkr 4y ago

Those links are interesting but just show that Getty is a slimy business that tries to repackage public domain images for sale, not that they infringe the IP of others. That’s a massively different issue.

ronsor 4y ago
They do sue others for use of those public domain images, which while not copyright infringement, is fraudulent and illegal.
Groxx 4y ago
To more accurately summarize the links: they've tried to sue people for using public domain images that Getty is also selling. Selling public domain things is entirely legal. Claiming they own those images and suing others for using them is not - they're public domain.
- Natsu 4y ago
  You'd think that should fall under the perjury penalty of the DMCA, I thought that misrepresenting oneself as the copyright holder was what that was for. But maybe they didn't file any such DMCA notice, I dunno.
  - Scaevolus 4y ago
    Nobody has ever been prosecuted for perjury under DMCA. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-been-convicted-of-perjury-for-false-dmca-takedown-notices https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...
    - Natsu 4y ago
      Oh, I agree that it's a completely toothless provision in practice, but claiming the copyright on someone else's work and then trying to take down the person's own copyrighted work seems like exactly the sort of thing it was supposed to cover. The article you linked makes the point that at least one civil suit did give damages for dealing with a bogus DMCA takedown, but that it was unrelated to the perjury provision.

mmwako 4y ago

Just read the first article. Getty Images was sued by a photographer for using 18.000 her public domain images for profit by Getty. The ruling DISMISSED the allegation, which is crazy. It's comical that now it's exactly the same allegation, but with the sides inverted, now it's Getty trying to sue an AI company for using their public domain images. I think we can all guess what's going to happen xD

rvz 4y ago
> I think we can all guess what's going to happen xD The outcome will be, Stable Diffusion settling and licensing the images from Getty Images. If OpenAI was able to do it with Shutter-stock, so can Stable Diffusion.
- 300bps 4y ago
  I don't think that outcome is assured. In a lot of ways, Stable Diffusion's business model creates an existential threat to Getty Images. I would expect alternative outcomes to be: 1. The requested licensing fee approaches infinity 2. Getty Images simply refuses to license images to anyone who will use AI to create derivative works
- LegitShady 4y ago
  I don't think thats an acceptable outcome to getty, whose entire business model will be confounded by a tech that used its images against license to generate alternatives to getty's business.
nucleardog 4y ago
> Getty Images was sued by a photographer for using 18.000 her public domain images for profit by Getty. You can use public domain images for profit. It's not surprising this was thrown out. > It's comical that now it's exactly the same allegation, but with the sides inverted, now it's Getty trying to sue an AI company for using their public domain images. Where does it say they're suing over the public domain images in their collection? Their collection is not entirely public domain images. Their suit claims for the copyright works by staff photographers, third parties that have assigned copyright, and images licensed to them by contributing photographers. In addition, they're claiming for the titles and captions which they created and are themselves copyrighted. It's not the "exact same allegation", and there's really no relation between the facts of the cases here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]