4 ms·

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.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
qwery 4y ago
It might be fraud/criminal to sell a license to something that someone else holds the copyright to. > why isn't the CEO of Getty in prison? CEOs usually won't even be charged for their (what we would call) "crimes", it wouldn't be fair given the sacrifices they make. Of course, it's also part of the treaty between our kind and theirs. In exchange for them saving humanity and the planet, humanity looks the other way from time to time.
chrismorgan 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud has a pretty good overview of the situation. If they claim copyright falsely, that’s illegal in at least AU and US, but in general only the government can prosecute, and they never do, and the fines are pathetically trivial anyway. But that’s mostly not what Getty actually does. You’ll find Getty featuring in the article.
emiliobumachar 4y ago
As per the EULA as quoted by hncommenter13 above, they're not actually claiming they own copyright, just guaranteeing you can use it without violating copywright.

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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

qwery 4y ago

It might be fraud/criminal to sell a license to something that someone else holds the copyright to. > why isn't the CEO of Getty in prison? CEOs usually won't even be charged for their (what we would call) "crimes", it wouldn't be fair given the sacrifices they make. Of course, it's also part of the treaty between our kind and theirs. In exchange for them saving humanity and the planet, humanity looks the other way from time to time.

chrismorgan 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud has a pretty good overview of the situation. If they claim copyright falsely, that’s illegal in at least AU and US, but in general only the government can prosecute, and they never do, and the fines are pathetically trivial anyway. But that’s mostly not what Getty actually does. You’ll find Getty featuring in the article.

emiliobumachar 4y ago

As per the EULA as quoted by hncommenter13 above, they're not actually claiming they own copyright, just guaranteeing you can use it without violating copywright.