8 ms·

My new hobby: finding public domain images that Getty sells for $500

253 points by app4soft 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paxys 4y ago
As is always the case with such things, they are not selling the image but the convenience. The one linked in their example is on the first page of Getty search results for "old telephone sketch", along with dozens of other similar options. Being able to pick one I like in 3 clicks is easily worth the $500 when compared to having to go to the library (or Google Books or wherever else), digging up old books that may or may not match the subject, finding appropriate illustrations, hi-res scanning, editing in Gimp...
- Baljhin 4y ago
  So does this mean that Getty is essentially selling...NFTs?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  I enjoy the public service Cory is performing here. If more people want to spend time doing so and contributing back to the Wiki Commons, I think that’s an objectively good thing. A rising tide and all that. Might even be able to automate the workflow using TinEye (to fingerprint stock photos and then find the public domain source for optimization and upload). With regards to stock photos in general, it looks like Deep Learning like Stable Diffusion (and the resulting public domains images [1]) are the future. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206
- rezonant 4y ago
  Yeah, as long as they aren't threatening legal action for the image, I think this is fine. I'd like to think they wouldn't be so dumb as to try to bring litigation for an image like this, but then again, if they think they can get away with it... The most upstanding thing to do would be to put source information in the listing. They don't need to proclaim it public domain up front, but it would be ethical to provide that detail if one were interested in inquiring.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    > Yeah, as long as they aren't threatening legal action for the image… They would never do that… https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty...
    - tedunangst 4y ago
      Seven years later, what happened?
- irdc 4y ago
  > they are not selling the image but the convenience. Don't forget the peace of mind they're selling. By paying a relatively small amount (relative to the costs of doing the research yourself), you're (mostly) ensured of having the right to use the image.
josephcsible 4y ago
Isn't it fraud to sell copyright licenses for things that you don't own the copyright to? If so, then why isn't the CEO of Getty in prison? If not, why not?
- nl 4y ago
  These are public domain so out of copyright.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- PufPufPuf 4y ago
  They could argue that it's derivative work based on public domain resources. Getty cropped the picture from the public domain scans and cleaned it up a bit.
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    You don’t need to. They’re public domain.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Because public domain means you can sell it in any form you like, modified or original? Claiming it's an entirely original work would be lying. Not sure it would be a crime.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > would be lying. Not sure it would be a crime. Doesn't fraud basically mean lying for financial gain?
    - Thorentis 4y ago
      Yeah, but also that's not what Getty is doing. They aren't claiming to be the creators, they're just selling something from the public domain, which is legal.
hncommenter13 4y ago
I'm not defending all of Getty's business practices, obviously. But my understanding of what Getty is selling is both convenience and a degree of legal protection for media buyers. If you buy an image from them, they will, in writing, guarantee you that it is legally permissible to use, provided you follow the terms of the agreement. https://www.gettyimages.com.au/eula https://www.gettyimages.com.au/eula [Australian terms], Section 9 reads in part: Representations and Warranties. Getty Images makes the following representations and warranties: Warranty of Non-Infringement. For all licensed content (excluding content marked “access only”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not infringe on any copyrights or moral rights of the content owner/creator. Additional Warranties for Certain Content. RF: For licensed royalty-free content (excluding content marked “editorial” or “intended for editorial”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not infringe on any trademark or other intellectual property right, and will not violate any right of privacy or right of publicity. RM/RR: For licensed rights-managed and rights-ready content where Getty Images specifically notifies you that a model and/or property release has been obtained, Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not, where a property release has been obtained, infringe on any trademark or other intellectual property right and/or will not, where a model release has been obtained, violate any right of privacy or right of publicity.
- gcampos 4y ago
  I don't mind them selling something that is free for $500. The problem is when they sue people for using public domain images, claiming that they own the picture.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    it gets sticky when you sell your product of work based on a public domain image. maybe the original image that is available in the public domain is dirty, scratches, faded, or any other thing that happens with old images. if they paid to have it restored and are selling the restored image, then that image is not part of the public domain. it's a big bit of spin on this being a possible misunderstanding of what they are doing. however, with all of the other stories about the original photographer getting served notices of infringement when they have their image on their own site or socials and similar type of just unchecked automation, then yeah, it's hard to be able to give any benefit of the doubt
Havoc 4y ago
Not quite following what this achieves? Is the purpose that people find the wikimedia image instead thus denying getty the revenue?
- LanceH 4y ago
  Getty is very litigious about "their" images, even when they seemingly don't own them, or even have the rights to sell them.
- tyingq 4y ago
  Saving a fellow human from paying a substantial sum of money for something they can get for free seems reason enough.
- 0110101001 4y ago
  It's not about denying anyone revenue. The goal is to make easily accessible artwork that apparently has enough value to be sold commercially.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > Is the purpose that people find the wikimedia image instead thus denying getty the revenue? Yes.
holoduke 4y ago
With the rise of AI copyrighted image infringements will belong to the past since you can simply generate every single image and nobody will know for sure where it comes from. Getty like sites will vanish.
- Hasnep 4y ago
  By the way, you're missing a comma between "AI" and "copyrighted". It really confused me because I was expecting a comment about the rise of AI copyrighted image infringements
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  I hope you're right. For this to become reality, we need to be able to run AI models on our own computers with no restrictions.
- rchaud 4y ago
  A lot of AI's promises seem to be reliant on the "you can easily" bit. You can easily get the images you need from a Canva.com paid plan right now, as you can with Adobe Stock, iStockPhoto and many others. AI cannot generate a real picture of a historical figure or celebrity, which is what Getty derives its real value from.
tyingq 4y ago
Another example... $499 image from Getty: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/floyd-burroughs-sharecropper-by-walker-evans-news-photo/544162314 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/floyd-burrough... Free from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/00651772/ https://www.loc.gov/item/00651772/ (including the 50MB tiff that appears to be the highest resolution available)
- woodruffw 4y ago
  They're also reselling photos[1] from the EPA's DOCUMERICA[2] program, which is entirely available via the National Archives. [1]: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/close-up-of-young-couple-kissing-as-they-embrace-at-oak-news-photo/1460069877 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/close-up-of-yo... [2]: https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/spring/documerica.html https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/spring/d...
  - KomoD 4y ago
    Someone is selling girl with a pearl earring: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/also-known-as-girl-in-a-turban-circa-1665-located-in-news-photo/587831670 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/also-known-as-...
javman 4y ago
Reminds me of something that happened to me... I take nature photos for fun and post them on my website and various photo websites over the years. A biologist for a National Park asked if he could use one of my photos on the cover of an internal publication. I thought that was cool, and sent him a high res file to use. Years later, I was googling something related and surprisingly one of the first links I click on was using my photo. I emailed that company and politely asked them to remove my photo, as I never gave them permission. I do more googling / image search, and find that the National Park put this photo on their Flickr page in a photo collection that said "these are all public domain images and feel free to use them anywhere." Alamy (stock photo website) now shows my photo covered with their watermarks and has it for sale ($20 for personal use and $199 for marketing). Sent a message to the NPS asking them to remove my photo from their Flickr public domain page, and never got a response. Oh well.
- TylerE 4y ago
  It really is true - no good deed ever goes unpunished.
- Sophira 4y ago
  This would be a valid case for sending a DMCA takedown, if you wanted to pursue it!
  - unit_circle 4y ago
    This is the correct answer. (My org at least) routes these legal requests quite differently and they are all handled promptly
  - euroderf 4y ago
    Sue for back royalties ?
- bebna 4y ago
  I had a similar issue here in europa, where a travel agency used my photos from flickr in their catalogues. Killed my desire to take pictures for a while and also to post them. I got my desire to take pictures slowly back, but I still don't post anything worth while online or even share it with friends or family if I can avoid it, in fears that it somehow gets put on facebook or similiar and from there used for someone else to make money off.
sdwr 4y ago
The woman's face is much less flattering in the original, would say the touchup from getty was pretty dang good.
- beeb 4y ago
  The cleaning up on the Wikimedia Commons one is not that great either, and the contrast is worse than the one from getty. I would say neither is great.
fomine3 4y ago
So CC-BY
egberts1 4y ago
Thats why I always downscale the 16M photo and squirrel-away that larger original and release the "slightly grainer" and "slightly-cropped" photo because no one can then easily claim copyright with a lousier resolution. You then announce DMCA takedown and having failed that, mention you have the original, then having failed to secure back royalty, file a lawsuit. Only upon legal demand, you would release a even smaller cropped, slightly grainer of your original photo as digital evidence, but never your original 16M over the Internet. Of course, you would be able to release your pristine 16M photo only in court lest you lose your digital advantage.
- sireat 4y ago
  Problem these days is that someone can release ML upscaled and/or "less grainier" version of your photo. Case in point Samsung "moon" pictures that were making the rounds here a few weeks ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_sp...
  - egberts1 4y ago
    In defense against upscaling, your original will trounce on the grainy part due to offender's attempt at 2:2 or 3:3 matrix being the duller ones than the original.
Confiks 4y ago
There's at least one other person with the same hobby, because they made a short documentary about it, thereby 'liberating' the source material (in a really unpractical way): "A History of the World According to Getty Images" [1] [2] [3] [1] https://www.idfa.nl/en/film/f2e29b37-216a-4899-ae67-c4367b8b9a36/a-history-of-the-world-according-to-getty-images https://www.idfa.nl/en/film/f2e29b37-216a-4899-ae67-c4367b8b... [2] https://www.ahistoryoftheworldaccordingtogettyimages.com/ https://www.ahistoryoftheworldaccordingtogettyimages.com/ (which can't be downloaded) [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIinx95rFxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIinx95rFxg

253 points by app4soft 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

As is always the case with such things, they are not selling the image but the convenience. The one linked in their example is on the first page of Getty search results for "old telephone sketch", along with dozens of other similar options. Being able to pick one I like in 3 clicks is easily worth the $500 when compared to having to go to the library (or Google Books or wherever else), digging up old books that may or may not match the subject, finding appropriate illustrations, hi-res scanning, editing in Gimp...

Baljhin 4y ago
So does this mean that Getty is essentially selling...NFTs?
toomuchtodo 4y ago
I enjoy the public service Cory is performing here. If more people want to spend time doing so and contributing back to the Wiki Commons, I think that’s an objectively good thing. A rising tide and all that. Might even be able to automate the workflow using TinEye (to fingerprint stock photos and then find the public domain source for optimization and upload). With regards to stock photos in general, it looks like Deep Learning like Stable Diffusion (and the resulting public domains images [1]) are the future. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206
rezonant 4y ago
Yeah, as long as they aren't threatening legal action for the image, I think this is fine. I'd like to think they wouldn't be so dumb as to try to bring litigation for an image like this, but then again, if they think they can get away with it... The most upstanding thing to do would be to put source information in the listing. They don't need to proclaim it public domain up front, but it would be ethical to provide that detail if one were interested in inquiring.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > Yeah, as long as they aren't threatening legal action for the image… They would never do that… https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty...
  - tedunangst 4y ago
    Seven years later, what happened?
irdc 4y ago
> they are not selling the image but the convenience. Don't forget the peace of mind they're selling. By paying a relatively small amount (relative to the costs of doing the research yourself), you're (mostly) ensured of having the right to use the image.

josephcsible 4y ago

Isn't it fraud to sell copyright licenses for things that you don't own the copyright to? If so, then why isn't the CEO of Getty in prison? If not, why not?

nl 4y ago
These are public domain so out of copyright.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
PufPufPuf 4y ago
They could argue that it's derivative work based on public domain resources. Getty cropped the picture from the public domain scans and cleaned it up a bit.
- freeone3000 4y ago
  You don’t need to. They’re public domain.
paulryanrogers 4y ago
Because public domain means you can sell it in any form you like, modified or original? Claiming it's an entirely original work would be lying. Not sure it would be a crime.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > would be lying. Not sure it would be a crime. Doesn't fraud basically mean lying for financial gain?
  - Thorentis 4y ago
    Yeah, but also that's not what Getty is doing. They aren't claiming to be the creators, they're just selling something from the public domain, which is legal.

hncommenter13 4y ago

I'm not defending all of Getty's business practices, obviously. But my understanding of what Getty is selling is both convenience and a degree of legal protection for media buyers. If you buy an image from them, they will, in writing, guarantee you that it is legally permissible to use, provided you follow the terms of the agreement. https://www.gettyimages.com.au/eula https://www.gettyimages.com.au/eula [Australian terms], Section 9 reads in part: Representations and Warranties. Getty Images makes the following representations and warranties: Warranty of Non-Infringement. For all licensed content (excluding content marked “access only”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not infringe on any copyrights or moral rights of the content owner/creator. Additional Warranties for Certain Content. RF: For licensed royalty-free content (excluding content marked “editorial” or “intended for editorial”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not infringe on any trademark or other intellectual property right, and will not violate any right of privacy or right of publicity. RM/RR: For licensed rights-managed and rights-ready content where Getty Images specifically notifies you that a model and/or property release has been obtained, Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not, where a property release has been obtained, infringe on any trademark or other intellectual property right and/or will not, where a model release has been obtained, violate any right of privacy or right of publicity.

gcampos 4y ago
I don't mind them selling something that is free for $500. The problem is when they sue people for using public domain images, claiming that they own the picture.
- dylan604 4y ago
  it gets sticky when you sell your product of work based on a public domain image. maybe the original image that is available in the public domain is dirty, scratches, faded, or any other thing that happens with old images. if they paid to have it restored and are selling the restored image, then that image is not part of the public domain. it's a big bit of spin on this being a possible misunderstanding of what they are doing. however, with all of the other stories about the original photographer getting served notices of infringement when they have their image on their own site or socials and similar type of just unchecked automation, then yeah, it's hard to be able to give any benefit of the doubt

Havoc 4y ago

Not quite following what this achieves? Is the purpose that people find the wikimedia image instead thus denying getty the revenue?

LanceH 4y ago
Getty is very litigious about "their" images, even when they seemingly don't own them, or even have the rights to sell them.
tyingq 4y ago
Saving a fellow human from paying a substantial sum of money for something they can get for free seems reason enough.
0110101001 4y ago
It's not about denying anyone revenue. The goal is to make easily accessible artwork that apparently has enough value to be sold commercially.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> Is the purpose that people find the wikimedia image instead thus denying getty the revenue? Yes.

holoduke 4y ago

With the rise of AI copyrighted image infringements will belong to the past since you can simply generate every single image and nobody will know for sure where it comes from. Getty like sites will vanish.

Hasnep 4y ago
By the way, you're missing a comma between "AI" and "copyrighted". It really confused me because I was expecting a comment about the rise of AI copyrighted image infringements
matheusmoreira 4y ago
I hope you're right. For this to become reality, we need to be able to run AI models on our own computers with no restrictions.
rchaud 4y ago
A lot of AI's promises seem to be reliant on the "you can easily" bit. You can easily get the images you need from a Canva.com paid plan right now, as you can with Adobe Stock, iStockPhoto and many others. AI cannot generate a real picture of a historical figure or celebrity, which is what Getty derives its real value from.

tyingq 4y ago

Another example... $499 image from Getty: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/floyd-burroughs-sharecropper-by-walker-evans-news-photo/544162314 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/floyd-burrough... Free from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/00651772/ https://www.loc.gov/item/00651772/ (including the 50MB tiff that appears to be the highest resolution available)

woodruffw 4y ago
They're also reselling photos[1] from the EPA's DOCUMERICA[2] program, which is entirely available via the National Archives. [1]: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/close-up-of-young-couple-kissing-as-they-embrace-at-oak-news-photo/1460069877 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/close-up-of-yo... [2]: https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/spring/documerica.html https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/spring/d...
- KomoD 4y ago
  Someone is selling girl with a pearl earring: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/also-known-as-girl-in-a-turban-circa-1665-located-in-news-photo/587831670 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/also-known-as-...

javman 4y ago

Reminds me of something that happened to me... I take nature photos for fun and post them on my website and various photo websites over the years. A biologist for a National Park asked if he could use one of my photos on the cover of an internal publication. I thought that was cool, and sent him a high res file to use. Years later, I was googling something related and surprisingly one of the first links I click on was using my photo. I emailed that company and politely asked them to remove my photo, as I never gave them permission. I do more googling / image search, and find that the National Park put this photo on their Flickr page in a photo collection that said "these are all public domain images and feel free to use them anywhere." Alamy (stock photo website) now shows my photo covered with their watermarks and has it for sale ($20 for personal use and $199 for marketing). Sent a message to the NPS asking them to remove my photo from their Flickr public domain page, and never got a response. Oh well.

TylerE 4y ago
It really is true - no good deed ever goes unpunished.
Sophira 4y ago
This would be a valid case for sending a DMCA takedown, if you wanted to pursue it!
- unit_circle 4y ago
  This is the correct answer. (My org at least) routes these legal requests quite differently and they are all handled promptly
- euroderf 4y ago
  Sue for back royalties ?
bebna 4y ago
I had a similar issue here in europa, where a travel agency used my photos from flickr in their catalogues. Killed my desire to take pictures for a while and also to post them. I got my desire to take pictures slowly back, but I still don't post anything worth while online or even share it with friends or family if I can avoid it, in fears that it somehow gets put on facebook or similiar and from there used for someone else to make money off.

sdwr 4y ago

The woman's face is much less flattering in the original, would say the touchup from getty was pretty dang good.

beeb 4y ago
The cleaning up on the Wikimedia Commons one is not that great either, and the contrast is worse than the one from getty. I would say neither is great.

fomine3 4y ago

So CC-BY

egberts1 4y ago

Thats why I always downscale the 16M photo and squirrel-away that larger original and release the "slightly grainer" and "slightly-cropped" photo because no one can then easily claim copyright with a lousier resolution. You then announce DMCA takedown and having failed that, mention you have the original, then having failed to secure back royalty, file a lawsuit. Only upon legal demand, you would release a even smaller cropped, slightly grainer of your original photo as digital evidence, but never your original 16M over the Internet. Of course, you would be able to release your pristine 16M photo only in court lest you lose your digital advantage.

sireat 4y ago
Problem these days is that someone can release ML upscaled and/or "less grainier" version of your photo. Case in point Samsung "moon" pictures that were making the rounds here a few weeks ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_sp...
- egberts1 4y ago
  In defense against upscaling, your original will trounce on the grainy part due to offender's attempt at 2:2 or 3:3 matrix being the duller ones than the original.

Confiks 4y ago

There's at least one other person with the same hobby, because they made a short documentary about it, thereby 'liberating' the source material (in a really unpractical way): "A History of the World According to Getty Images" [1] [2] [3] [1] https://www.idfa.nl/en/film/f2e29b37-216a-4899-ae67-c4367b8b9a36/a-history-of-the-world-according-to-getty-images https://www.idfa.nl/en/film/f2e29b37-216a-4899-ae67-c4367b8b... [2] https://www.ahistoryoftheworldaccordingtogettyimages.com/ https://www.ahistoryoftheworldaccordingtogettyimages.com/ (which can't be downloaded) [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIinx95rFxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIinx95rFxg