$1 Billion lawsuit against Getty Images for copyright infringement

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by bargainguy, Jul 29, 2016.

  1. bargainguy

    bargainguy TalkEmount Regular

    Jun 29, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Bimjo

    Bimjo Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Oct 28, 2011
    Washington State
    Wow, one wonders how many people have paid Getty and Alamy for images that are actually in the public domain.

    I hope she wins her suit.
  3. unlo

    unlo Sony ******

    Jan 19, 2014
  4. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Good for her! Pretty sleazy....glad I decided to not get involved with them through flickr.
    But even $1 Billion is a drop in the bucket for Getty, with their oil revenue legacy. But I suspect she won't see any of that money, as it will be tied up in court delays as long as possible in hopes of the chance she might either give up due to exhausting her resources in legal fees or her expiring from old age.
  5. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Whaaaaat, crazy
  6. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    Forget it, Jake... it's Chinatown.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. bargainguy

    bargainguy TalkEmount Regular

    Jun 29, 2016
  8. WT21

    WT21 TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Aug 7, 2011
    The article at the bottom includes a Getty response, and Getty asserts that this is accepted practice -- for an agency to charge for helping someone find an appropriate image. Statement regarding Highsmith claim | Getty Images Press Room | Latest company news, media announcements and information

    The interesting thing is -- did they find the use of the image in question and SHOW it was sourced through Getty? If not, if they just found the image and dropped a copyright infringement claim, then it sure looks like they are claiming copyright and not some kind of renumeration for a search engine.

    On a side note -- if indeed someone could collect for the work of searching public domain images, that would be fine by me, but then they should be charging for the search effort -- like a fee for search or a monthly fee -- rather than attached to the image itself.

    Trying to think of anology -- let's say I am paid by someone to find a nice public park for them to picnic in. I suppose they could refuse to pay me unless they like the park, but I would think as the provider that I would want an hourly search rate. Then if I found the park, it would seem very wrong of me to slap anyone else who went into the park (through some other means then hiring me) with some sort of fee because I "found" it.
  9. WT21

    WT21 TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Aug 7, 2011
    Side note -- Disney does something similar to this. They take well-known public domain stories (Alladin, Little Mermaid), recreate them until for most of the public that's the only version/image they know, and then sue for copyright infringement if you step on their now-owned copyright ;)
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. bdbits

    bdbits TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 10, 2015
    Disney is notorious for strong-armed copyright enforcement. They are also considered largely responsible for the ridiculously long copyright protection, which can be up to 120 years from the date of creation (in the US). They keep lobbying to extend it so as to protect Mickey Mouse imagery from entering the public domain, which is pretty stupid in my opinion.
    • Agree Agree x 1