# Photographer sues Getty Images for $1 billion after she's billed for her own pho



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 2, 2016)

Many of you may have been following this news about Getty, I am reluctant to pass judgement until I hear both sides, but after the lame comment by Getty, its pretty obvious that they have been caught red handed.

They have taken images they had no rights to and have been selling them, and the comment makes it sound intentional. They even threatened the Photographer and owner of the images with a lawsuit for using them.

This may put them in a deep hole. Getty is well known for lawsuits for using images that don't belong to them, which makes them liable for triple damages.

Their lame response basically is a admission that they took the images that they had no right to sell, charged for them, and even sued users who did not pay.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html

"Neither Getty nor Alamy has filed a formal answer to the lawsuit. In a public statement, however, Getty responded with bluster. The agency says the lawsuit is “based on a number of misconceptions” and plans to “defend [itself] vigorously.” It acknowledges that the images are in the public domain, but still maintains that it has the right to charge a fee for distributing the material. “Distributing and providing access to public domain content is different to asserting copyright ownership of it,” Getty says. That’s true as far as it goes, but skates over the question of who gave it permission to distribute the content on any terms."


----------



## NorbR (Aug 2, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Their lame response basically is a admission that they took the images that they had no right to sell, charged for them, and even sued users who did not pay.



I'm unclear on a lot of things regarding this story, so perhaps people would know copyright law better than me can enlighten me. 

Was it really illegal for Getty to charge for these images that are in the public domain? (and I mean specifically that, _charge_ their clients for the use of one of these images)

My impression was that you could do anything you want with images in the public domain, and that includes commercial use. The only condition of course would be that regardless of what you do, the image remains in the public domain, and I understand that's where Getty is apparently in the wrong (the part where they go after users who did not pay _them_). 

I've seen several times the analogy with literature and works that are in the public domains, and yet books are still sold. Of course it's a bit different when you sell a book because it's a physical object that has direct costs (printing etc). But one could argue that Getty does provide a value by indexing the images in their library, hosting them, cataloging them, keywording and frankly just by collecting them in one place. There are a lot of public domain images out there, and if I can find them all in one single place, I can see how I could be charged for that.

So all in all, I'm not too shocked by the notion that they were selling the images in the first place :-\ But maybe I misunderstand the laws, so I'll be happy if someone can correct me about this.

And for the record, my goal is not to defend Getty in this matter. It may or may not have been OK for them to sell the images in the first place, but it's definitely not OK to assert copyright on the images and go after other users. That part is indefensible, and the fact that they got caught by going after the original author makes it even more ridiculous. Makes you wonder how many times they got away with it before getting caught though ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 2, 2016)

I think it about time a big guy falls. Getty has been steamrolling photographers for many years. Sure image sales are a tough market, even though more images than ever are being sold (and used without permission (stolen is an inaccurate verb)) though often for less than previously.

But this widespread deliberate and cynical misuse by people who do know better, imagine if you had been trying the same thing with a Getty image, needs to be dealt with in a punitive manner to dissuade others from copying the 'business model' and , forcing others to realise there are serious consequences to such appropriations.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2016)

NorbR said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Their lame response basically is a admission that they took the images that they had no right to sell, charged for them, and even sued users who did not pay.
> ...





'In the public domain' is different to 'rights free'. Any work of art can be in the public domain but still subject to copyright. I think Getty is being canny - they talk about charging a distribution fee which, if the person got the image off the Getty website for example, they are entitled to charge. But in this case they have picked up a picture from a rights-free site, seen the image online and thrown out a legal letter on reflex. 
I am guessing this is no different to high-profile shops like Harrods sending letters to any trader whose shop is called 'Harrod's' after the owner. It is a clumsy (and to my mind counterproductive) way of asserting their rights even if they have no intention of following it up. 
But the kicker here is that Getty are making a false claim that the user has to buy a copyright licence to use the image. Given the kudos and legal status Getty has, I would say that is tantamount to fraud and obtaining money with menaces (under UK law).





> I've seen several times the analogy with literature and works that are in the public domains, and yet books are still sold.


It depends if it falls under 'second use'. You can resell a book you have bought because it is deemed that the copyright issue dies with the first purchase. This is where Apple are embroiled in lawsuits because (most high profile) Bruce Willis claimed 'second use' applied to his music collection but Apple ague that their T&C make it clear he is buying access to the Apple database, not buying the tracks in the same way as you buy a CD.


----------



## GuyF (Aug 2, 2016)

Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit.

I have zero sympathy for corporate weasels who abuse their position and have the resources to smother individuals with litigation.

On the other hand if they want to pay me big bucks for any of the stuff I've posted on CR, I accept. No point cutting your nose off to spite your face.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 2, 2016)

NorbR said:


> I'm unclear on a lot of things regarding this story, so perhaps people would know copyright law better than me can enlighten me.
> 
> Was it really illegal for Getty to charge for these images that are in the public domain? (and I mean specifically that, _charge_ their clients for the use of one of these images)
> 
> My impression was that you could do anything you want with images in the public domain, and that includes commercial use. The only condition of course would be that regardless of what you do, the image remains in the public domain, and I understand that's where Getty is apparently in the wrong (the part where they go after users who did not pay _them_).



The issue is that Getty claimed that they owned the copyright to the images and was threatening to sue her. Then, she discovered they had appropriated thousands of her images and were claiming they owned the copyright.

I expect the lawsuit to be settled out of court, the nonsense comment from Getty weakened their defense. 

You cannot appropriate public domain images and claim you hold the copyright, even suing those who have downloaded and used them.

They have apparently sold a huge number of images based on their false claim.

Its legal to sell prints or even downloads of the images, but you cannot claim copyright.

The images quickly disappeared from Getty's site after the suit was filed.


----------



## LDS (Aug 2, 2016)

NorbR said:


> Was it really illegal for Getty to charge for these images that are in the public domain? (and I mean specifically that, _charge_ their clients for the use of one of these images)



Maybe Getty can charge its clients for getting the images from Getty (omen nomen, it "gets" a lot from others, it looks) - as a "service fee" (search & download...), even if they are public domain - but it can't assert any right on them nor claim infringement of anything for the use of those images. People getting them from Getty are IMHO also free to redistribute them, because Getty doesn't own any copyright on them because they are in the public domain.

The Library of Congress rights page for Highsmith work: http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

Hope Getty gest more than a slap on the wrist...


----------



## lay85 (Aug 3, 2016)

My bad experience with Getty was 3 years ago, I was photographing the finish of a sporting event in a remote location and was quite excited to think of the money I would make as I was the only photographer there. Couldn't work out why the worlds newspapers/magaizines weren't contacting me then after 2 weeks or so did a google search of the event only to discover my photos in newspapers with the Getty copyright on them, I then searched the Getty website to find my photos there for sale.
I called Getty who said they were indeed selling my photos and I should receive funds at some time. The next day a Getty lawyer called me denying anything was said and saying they had permission to use the photos.
Never found out how they got the photos but they did remove them from their site the same day.


----------



## LDS (Aug 3, 2016)

lay85 said:


> Never found out how they got the photos but they did remove them from their site the same day.



IMHO they employ bots and crawler to gather images around the web - and also to look for where they are used.

Did you ever put them on some website? From my website logs, I see some web crawler fully ignoring both the robots.txt file, and any "noindex" tag in the html page. Unluckily, no law enforces them to abide to them (they are just, "suggestions"), and for foreign crawlers would be hard (and expensive) to enforce anyway. 

Moreover, if any image of yours is reachable only by a link published somewhere (i.e. a forum like this), it will be probably found, reached and "indexed" (and probably stolen....). The only way is to put them in an area requiring user authentication.

It's no surprise Getty deleted the images immediately - if someone decides to sue, keeping the images available could only add to the damages it could be forced to pay. Don't know, anyway, if it's also altering/destructing evidences...


----------



## monkey44 (Aug 3, 2016)

Quickest way to save that evidence is to screen shot it, or photograph is with your phone or camera ... at least you have some evidence it was up illegally.

I'm always of a mind that crooks spend more time making less money crooking things, than if they just got a job. Weird ...


----------



## lay85 (Aug 4, 2016)

[/quote]

Did you ever put them on some website? From my website logs, I see some web crawler fully ignoring both the robots.txt file, and any "noindex" tag in the html page. Unluckily, no law enforces them to abide to them (they are just, "suggestions"), and for foreign crawlers would be hard (and expensive) to enforce anyway. 

[/quote]

Yes, they were on websites but Getty had the full hi-res versions which I think they got from a newspaper we had sent them to.



monkey44 said:


> Quickest way to save that evidence is to screen shot it, or photograph is with your phone or camera ... at least you have some evidence it was up illegally.
> 
> I'm always of a mind that crooks spend more time making less money crooking things, than if they just got a job. Weird ...



Yes, got the screen shots but never recordered the phone conversation where they admitted they would send me the proceeds of sales.


----------



## LDS (Aug 4, 2016)

lay85 said:


> Yes, they were on websites but Getty had the full hi-res versions which I think they got from a newspaper we had sent them to.



The the issue is if it was a mistake (i.e. the newspaper stored them somewhere where Getty "found" them), or willful act - someone at the newspaper provided them to Getty. Anyway suing big companies may not be so easy.

Look at how much copyright infringing material is uploaded to YouTube, for example - Google makes money from it, and copyright owners have little choices - abide to Google terms for the use of their material, and be paid some crumbs, or go after each violation, trying to get past Google hurdles. 

Getty & C. are using the same approach, start with making money from someone else work, than deal with the issues if and when they arise - probably many won't go to far.

Hope this case will settle some precedent, but I'm afraid the outcome will be that Getty can "sell" images in the public domain, and only the LCS trolls will have issues (I would equate asking money for "usage rights infringement" for a public domain images to a fraud, but a court may disagree). It so, they company will be "closed" (more probably renamed) by its true owners, and then will continue to harass people.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 4, 2016)

This is the first i have heard of this case, but my 2 cents are that "Public domain" are reserved for images or other material that are free from copyright and or trademark. To be free of copyright or trademark, the photographer would have to express outwardly this intent, either by letting a copyright expire, which is around 65-70 years, or issue a creative commons license on this image. Either way it would be an explicit decision by the current owner. If getty found the image with a creative commons license and assumed it was free of copyright, it should have used due diligence to verify this as anyone can steal or otherwise post someone elses photograph and say its a creative commons thing... It doesn't make it right however getty should have verified everything before it tried an monetize anything.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 4, 2016)

awinphoto said:


> This is the first i have heard of this case, but my 2 cents are that "Public domain" are reserved for images or other material that are free from copyright and or trademark. To be free of copyright or trademark, the photographer would have to express outwardly this intent, either by letting a copyright expire, which is around 65-70 years, or issue a creative commons license on this image. Either way it would be an explicit decision by the current owner. If getty found the image with a creative commons license and assumed it was free of copyright, it should have used due diligence to verify this as anyone can steal or otherwise post someone elses photograph and say its a creative commons thing... It doesn't make it right however getty should have verified everything before it tried an monetize anything.



You missed the issue. Getty copied the image and then claimed they owned it. Its not disputed that the image is in the public domain, but how did Getty gain rights to own the image and sue others who were using it, and how many times have they done it with the some 18,000 images of hers that they copied?

They were deceiving users of the image by claiming they owned it and threatening to sue over use of a public domain image if the user did not pay. That's the issue, it sounds like they have been nabbed.


----------



## LDS (Aug 5, 2016)

> You missed the issue. Getty copied the image and then claimed they owned it.



Reading the filed papers, the main issue (for Getty) is effectively it didn't show the proper copyright owner in many images. There are others shown, and although I don't know DMCA so well, I may think this could be a gross violation. If this violation is also used to 'extort' money from people who believed they were acquiring usage rights, or were menaced for a supposed illegal use, it's even worse.

Hope this photographer, who doesn't look someone whose first aim is money, doesn't accept a settlement off court, but forces Getty into a full trial, and hope someone helps her in such endeavour. There are too many companies making money reaping some others contents.


----------



## lion rock (Aug 5, 2016)

Since the photographer has copyrighted the photos and properly documented the copyright, she has the might of the law behind her.
We had a case here in which a restaurant took a tattoo art for it's use. Unfortunately for the restaurant, the art was both copyrighted and was memorialized on a person for years, the court awarded the tattoo artist the case.
I would like to see the photographer her gets rewarded heftily! You've just having picked something on the ground doesn't mean you can claim its yours. There are laws governing ownership, even in this scenario.
-r


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 5, 2016)

I see a pattern here.

http://petapixel.com/2016/08/04/getty-images-sued-accused-misusing-47000-photos/


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I see a pattern here.
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2016/08/04/getty-images-sued-accused-misusing-47000-photos/



"Adequate review of photos is now difficult and improbable"

Have you seen the crap that is on Getty now ? People seem to be submitting their holiday snaps.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 6, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Have you seen the crap that is on Getty now ? People seem to be submitting their holiday snaps.



I thought exactly the same thing when I had a look on there yesterday. Most disappointing.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 16, 2016)

If the images are in the public domain then presumably Getty can sell them if they want to. They don't have ownership however, but that in itself is not actionable. In this instance the photographer would not have suffered any damages since she had given away rights to use for free anyway. She has not suffered any loss of sales due to the fact that she is not selling them in the first place.

As long as the appropriate credits are attached, there should not be a problem.

My guess is that Getty have automated systems for detecting use of images in their database, and they fire off cease and desist letters whenever they find one being used without a license. So basically an administrative error on their part, since that would not have been appropriate for these particular images.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 16, 2016)

Tugela said:


> They don't have ownership however, but that in itself is not actionable



My reading is that they were asserting copyright. And threatening action based on a legal right that they do not have. I would say that is either fraud or obtaining money with menaces. 
They deserve to be sued. 




Tugela said:


> So basically an administrative error on their part, since that would not have been appropriate for these particular images.



IMO, it goes beyond an 'administrative error' - it seems that this has happened repeatedly so if they have not learnt they should do so pretty quickly. They are doing it because they think they can.


----------

