3 ms·

They also make money by chasing down people who use their images without paying a license (fair) by "extortion". Once my co-founder used an image downloaded fr

They also make money by chasing down people who use their images without paying a license (fair) by "extortion". Once my co-founder used an image downloaded from Google (bad!) for the company website, GettyImages noticed that and threatened our company to legal actions (C&D) unless we pay the price of the license for the stock image, which magically became "premium" (or whatever their top tier is) for the occasion. They're for sure right in making you pay in case you're illegitimately using their images without a license (totally fair IMHO), but the way they do it is very shady.

Gud 2y ago
Sorry I don’t understand, how are they the bad guy in your scenario? Presumably an online business should follow copyright law?
- blahyawnblah 2y ago
  They're not saying they're the bad guys
  - Gud 2y ago
    “shady”
    - crtasm 2y ago
      They seem to be claiming the image in this case got bumped up to the highest price tier only because there was a C&D notice.
      - denysvitali 2y ago
        Exactly - the price of that particular image switched to a higher tier just because they found a copyright infringement. This is the shady part. Back then I recall reading other threads about people in very similar situations. Unfortunately I'm not able to find those threads anymore, but I've found a Reddit post mentioning that Getty stopped with these shady practices when their CEO changed. Edit: found something similar to what I mean [1], [2] [1]: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/625-Dear-Getty-Images-Legal-Department.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/625-De... [2]: https://ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/ https://ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/
        dmurray 2y ago
        You could think of it as, it was bumped up to a higher tier because there is evidence that out of all their millions of stock photos, someone chose this one.
        denysvitali 2y ago
        That would make sense if this was done _after_ they estimate the infringement price that they present in the C&D - which AFAIK wasn't the case
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- denysvitali 2y ago
  Yes, they're not the bad guys for making people respect their copyright (there have also been cases where Getty re-licensed public domain images and threatened people in similar ways, but that's a different matter). Assuming they're the legitimate copyright holders, the shady part is increasing the price of the image on their website to make you pay more than what you should as soon as they notice the infringement - and threatening legal actions if you don't pay the image price
rad_gruchalski 2y ago
How are they suppose to do that without coming across shady?
- denysvitali 2y ago
  The shady part is the part where the price of the image magically increases (on their website) as soon as they detect a copyright infringement, so that they can get even more money from you. All in all, as stated in the original comment, I believe it's in their right to do so (because the copyright infringement happened), but they take advantage of this in a shady / scammy way
  - smugma 2y ago
    That doesn’t seem shady. If you park in a meter, it may cost $3/hr. If you forget to pay the meter, the ticket may be $100. It needs to be more or it never makes sense to feed the meter.
  - xp84 2y ago
    It should be easy enough to prove if the image price itself changed, using archive.org or something. But if what you’re describing is just a penalty for using it without permission, I tend to agree with the others who feel that’s fair game. If the penalty for shoplifting was always that you had to pay for the merchandise you shoved in your pants, well, I think you’d see a lot less visiting of the check stand on the way out if you know what I mean.
LiquidPolymer 2y ago
Hi. You are talking about me. I'm involved in multiple infringement settlements and lawsuits every year. Perhaps I should point out that I have spent thousands of my own dollars, and hundreds of hours photographing subjects that are rarely seen much less captured with a camera. My images are licensed hundreds of times every month. They are also frequently stolen. If you steal one of my images you are going to get a demand letter. The price will be far higher than any licensing fee. This is because my images are registered with the copyright office at the Library of Congress which entitles me to seek punitive damages. The writing has been on the wall for decades. Images are losing value because millions upon millions are created every hour of every day. However, some of those images are remarkable and unique. People can make a lot of money if you happen to be the copyright holder of these images. An example I like to give is the photographs Gary Rosenquist captured of Mt. St. Helens exploding and the side of the mountain sliding away. Nobody else captured this sequence. Not even close. These images make substantial licensing fees to this day. I've long been fascinated by the fact that a camera can capture subjects the human eye cannot properly perceive. It just so happens that this obsession has led me to create images that are hard to imitate. I feel no guilt in charging fees for my images. I feel no guilt about pursuing people who have stolen my images for their own projects. If you are photographing bald eagles with an American flag in the background or frosty fall leaves artfully arranged on the ground - I agree with the gist of this thread - these images are worth practically nothing. But this not universally true for all images.

Gud 2y ago

Sorry I don’t understand, how are they the bad guy in your scenario? Presumably an online business should follow copyright law?

blahyawnblah 2y ago
They're not saying they're the bad guys
- Gud 2y ago
  “shady”
  - crtasm 2y ago
    They seem to be claiming the image in this case got bumped up to the highest price tier only because there was a C&D notice.
    - denysvitali 2y ago
      Exactly - the price of that particular image switched to a higher tier just because they found a copyright infringement. This is the shady part. Back then I recall reading other threads about people in very similar situations. Unfortunately I'm not able to find those threads anymore, but I've found a Reddit post mentioning that Getty stopped with these shady practices when their CEO changed. Edit: found something similar to what I mean [1], [2] [1]: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/625-Dear-Getty-Images-Legal-Department.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/625-De... [2]: https://ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/ https://ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/
      - dmurray 2y ago
        You could think of it as, it was bumped up to a higher tier because there is evidence that out of all their millions of stock photos, someone chose this one.
        denysvitali 2y ago
        That would make sense if this was done _after_ they estimate the infringement price that they present in the C&D - which AFAIK wasn't the case
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
denysvitali 2y ago
Yes, they're not the bad guys for making people respect their copyright (there have also been cases where Getty re-licensed public domain images and threatened people in similar ways, but that's a different matter). Assuming they're the legitimate copyright holders, the shady part is increasing the price of the image on their website to make you pay more than what you should as soon as they notice the infringement - and threatening legal actions if you don't pay the image price

rad_gruchalski 2y ago

How are they suppose to do that without coming across shady?

denysvitali 2y ago
The shady part is the part where the price of the image magically increases (on their website) as soon as they detect a copyright infringement, so that they can get even more money from you. All in all, as stated in the original comment, I believe it's in their right to do so (because the copyright infringement happened), but they take advantage of this in a shady / scammy way
- smugma 2y ago
  That doesn’t seem shady. If you park in a meter, it may cost $3/hr. If you forget to pay the meter, the ticket may be $100. It needs to be more or it never makes sense to feed the meter.
- xp84 2y ago
  It should be easy enough to prove if the image price itself changed, using archive.org or something. But if what you’re describing is just a penalty for using it without permission, I tend to agree with the others who feel that’s fair game. If the penalty for shoplifting was always that you had to pay for the merchandise you shoved in your pants, well, I think you’d see a lot less visiting of the check stand on the way out if you know what I mean.

LiquidPolymer 2y ago

Hi. You are talking about me. I'm involved in multiple infringement settlements and lawsuits every year. Perhaps I should point out that I have spent thousands of my own dollars, and hundreds of hours photographing subjects that are rarely seen much less captured with a camera. My images are licensed hundreds of times every month. They are also frequently stolen. If you steal one of my images you are going to get a demand letter. The price will be far higher than any licensing fee. This is because my images are registered with the copyright office at the Library of Congress which entitles me to seek punitive damages. The writing has been on the wall for decades. Images are losing value because millions upon millions are created every hour of every day. However, some of those images are remarkable and unique. People can make a lot of money if you happen to be the copyright holder of these images. An example I like to give is the photographs Gary Rosenquist captured of Mt. St. Helens exploding and the side of the mountain sliding away. Nobody else captured this sequence. Not even close. These images make substantial licensing fees to this day. I've long been fascinated by the fact that a camera can capture subjects the human eye cannot properly perceive. It just so happens that this obsession has led me to create images that are hard to imitate. I feel no guilt in charging fees for my images. I feel no guilt about pursuing people who have stolen my images for their own projects. If you are photographing bald eagles with an American flag in the background or frosty fall leaves artfully arranged on the ground - I agree with the gist of this thread - these images are worth practically nothing. But this not universally true for all images.