3 ms·

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

• 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.