[interested_observer]

She says in her lawsuit that she learned of Getty’s use of her images when she received a letter from the agency in December 2015, charging her with copyright infringement for the display of one of her own images on her website. Getty demanded that she pay for the use. She subsequently discovered that Getty was sending such demand letters to other users of her images, according to her lawsuit.

• Photog Seeks $1 Billion from Getty for Copyright Infringement | PDNPulse

[bwDraco]

Deleted

[monochrome]

That third comma ought'a get their attention.

[Fat Albert]

Let's all recall Disney Corp's refreshingly forthright decision to allow Mickey Mouse into the public domain! That was cool, wasn't it?

[bigdavephoto]

This is precisely why we need copyright reform. I don't see why Getty should be liable for more than a few million dollars to at most a few tens of millions of dollars.

The penalties for copyright infringement do not reflect the advances in technology made in recent decades. 40 years ago, it may have been hard enough to make a substantial number of copies of any particular work that very large statutory damages would make sense. However, given that thousands of separately copyrighted works can be created in a matter of days by a professional photographer or even a serious amateur, and given how easy it is for someone to make perfect copies of works, these numbers no longer make any sense.

The real problem, however, are the lobbyists like the MPAA and RIAA who strong-arm legislators into passing laws that make the copyright system grossly unfavorable towards individual users and content creators, instead empowering Big Media to make hundreds of thousands or millions out of the smallest infringement cases.

The intellectual property system must work for everyone, not just greedy folks who seek to extract money from others through the justice system rather than legitimately and fairly licensing content.

Draco

Did you read the article? Getty has stolen 18,000 + images that the photographer has donated to the Library of Congress for public use as long as she is credited for the taking of the image. She has not abandoned her copyright of the photos. Getty does not have the right to the copyright. She will win the lawsuit but she will not get one billion. Chances are, she will receive between 250 million and 500 million.

[bwDraco]

Did you read the article? Getty has stolen 18,000 + images that the photographer has donated to the Library of Congress for public use as long as she is credited for the taking of the image. She has not abandoned her copyright of the photos. Getty does not have the right to the copyright. She will win the lawsuit but she will not get one billion. Chances are, she will receive between 250 million and 500 million.

Yes, I did. The problem is not the claim itself, she likely has a valid case. The problem is the damages amount.

Sure, Getty is probably in the wrong for claiming rights to images that aren't theirs. However, I don't see why Getty should be liable for such ludicrous amounts of money. My point is that the statutory damages specified in the legislation do not reflect today's technical reality.

Draco

[interested_observer]

Yes, I did. The problem is not the claim itself, she likely has a valid case. The problem is the damages amount.

Sure, Getty is probably in the wrong for claiming rights to images that aren't theirs. However, I don't see why Getty should be liable for such ludicrous amounts of money. My point is that the statutory damages specified in the legislation do not reflect today's technical reality.

Draco

This is not just not an ordinary run-of-the-mill garden variety infringement case. If the lawsuit is factually correct, this is a corporation who deals specifically with image copyright management, who has all the specific legal knowledge to know better - across the entire organization, as in every single employee, including the janitor. Plus, they apparently did this on a massive industrial scale. They got caught red-handed with both of their hands up to their elbows in the old cookie jar - actually it appears that they actually climbed into it. Also, in order to pull something like this off, corporate management must have known - or at least should have known something was going on.

Something like this - with Getty (recently sold for about $3.5 Billion), who knows better (copyright management is their principal business) and is owned by the Carlyle Group, should demand a corporate crippling penalty. This is not just a kid out stealing a car for a joy ride and wrecking the rest of his life. This is a company that appears to have gone to the dark side on an industrial scale. What are you going to do, just slap their hand, and send them to bed with out desert - no ice cream for you? Heck, 18,000 images at $150,000 is $2.7 Billion, and trebled damages is $8.1 Billion. So, they are already getting a deal.

The only way to penalize a corporation - at least civilly is through monetary damages, where it actually hurts the corporation. How do you hurt a $3.5 Billion company? With a billion dollar penalty. Plus - Getty is in a special situation: Getty has done this before, and lost. Getty is a repeat offender.

---

Last edited by interested_observer; 07-27-2016 at 11:23 PM.

[monochrome]

Clearly Getty will need to aggressively defend itself in court.

The proceedings will extend over several years. The Plaintiff cannot possibly have resources to fund this lawsuit. A large, wealthy Firm took the case on Contingency - thus the massive initial damages claim - that can eventually be negotiated down to $200,000,000 after appeals.

The Law Firm will receive 40% of that in cash. The Plaintiff will receive a Structured Settlement life annuity Present Value $92,000,000, which will prompt a Chapter 11 restructuring of Getty, leaving assets in place but discharging to 95% of obligations. Carlye Group will claim Capital Impairment tax credits against its other ventures. Distressed Debt Hedge Funds will gain control of Getty's digital assets.

In the interim Plaintiff will die. The Plaintiff's Estate will finally settle for $4.6 million cash in 2028.

Part of the motivation for the lawsuit is 'Lawfare' against Carlyle Group.

[bwDraco]

Okay, folks. I'm deeply sorry about having misread the article and drawing the wrong conclusions here. I was very tired when I wrote the last few posts and wasn't paying full attention. I had no idea Getty was acting in bad faith here.

I did some additional research and found out that Getty has a history of making copyright claims and sending demand letters on questionable grounds. Sending demand letters that go beyond just cease and desist, but bully people to pay for past use, even though nobody else does this, is a clear indication that Getty is using abusive copyright claims as a revenue source and not a means to get justice. It's just like sports leagues claiming rights over non-copyrightable factual information about each game that is shown on TV:

This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited.

Wow. Getty is making copyright claims on content that was released for free use by the general public. Just wow. What a stupid move. Given that the content was effectively donated to the public for the people's benefit, even the EFF might get involved here...

I wouldn't want to use an image I'm supposed to be able to freely use when someone else makes abusive copyright claims on it. Freaking copyright trolls...

(I'd want to guess that the Getty will pay up about $100M or so when the suit is resolved.)

Draco

---------- Post added 07-28-16 at 10:17 AM ----------

The real problem at this point is that lobbyists are preventing lawmakers from passing laws that curb abusive copyright claims.

[photoptimist]

Okay, folks. I'm deeply sorry about having misread the article and drawing the wrong conclusions here. I was very tired when I wrote the last few posts and wasn't paying full attention. I had no idea Getty was acting in bad faith here.

I did some additional research and found out that Getty has a history of making copyright claims and sending demand letters on questionable grounds. Sending demand letters that go beyond just cease and desist, but bully people to pay for past use, even though nobody else does this, is a clear indication that Getty is using abusive copyright claims as a revenue source and not a means to get justice. It's just like sports leagues claiming rights over non-copyrightable factual information about each game that is shown on TV:



Wow. Getty is making copyright claims on content that was released for free use by the general public. Just wow. What a stupid move. Given that the content was effectively donated to the public for the people's benefit, even the EFF might get involved here...

I wouldn't want to use an image I'm supposed to be able to freely use when someone else makes abusive copyright claims on it. Freaking copyright trolls...

(I'd want to guess that the Getty will pay up about $100M or so when the suit is resolved.)

Draco

---------- Post added 07-28-16 at 10:17 AM ----------

The real problem at this point is that lobbyists are preventing lawmakers from passing laws that curb abusive copyright claims.

Abusive copyright claims seems to be an unavoidable consequence of abusive copyright violations (euphemistically called "sharing").

You are right about technology. It has made the theft of intellectual property instantly easy and consumer expectations that if the cost of making a copy is $0.00, then the price of getting a copy should be $0.00 has legitimized rampant criminality. It's little wonder that larger copyright owners have tried to influence the law and use technology to detect and punish thieves albeit with unintended consequence of trollish behavior.

Unless DRM becomes an unpleasant-to-circumvent built-in feature of consumer products or consumers suddenly have a change of heart about paying for valuable content, this battle will continue with innocent casualties on both sides.

Personally, I hope that Getty loses big time on this one so that they and others like them become more careful about managing image rights.

[bwDraco]

I'm sorry if I'm giving the impression that I don't value my work. Sure, copyright may be the very lifeblood of our profession, and it's important that we respect others' rights. However, it also means that the punishment must fit the crime. Technology has made it easier to make illicit copies of content, and the casual copiers shouldn't be subject to disproportionate penalties; however, existing legal mechanisms are ill-suited to recovering small amounts of money due to infringement (hence "copyright small claims" tribunals are in the works). At the same time, we need to make sure that large-scale abuse of this sort is properly deterred.

However, it's also important for legitimate content consumers to know what they can and cannot do. Fair use is very important but it provides little legal certainty. Updating the legislation to make the bounds more clearly defined would make a big difference.

Draco

[SpecialK]

I'm sure lawyers will argue it was a simple clerical oversight.

[Rondec]

I can't imagine her getting 1 billion, regardless of prior misconduct on the part of Getty. That said, their behavior does seem pretty egregious and the idea that they would threaten a photographer over the display of her own work is pretty crazy. Even if they got the photographs, thinking they were public domain, I don't understand how they thought that they could then claim a sole right to publish and display these images.

[bwDraco]

The underlying issue I see here is that Getty is effectively taking away from the general public content which was supposed to be freely usable with little more than attribution. Now even Techdirt has reported on this: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160727/11243335088/photographer-sues-get...o-public.shtml

Getty already has a pretty bad reputation for abusing copyright, and this calls into serious question whether Getty can be trusted as a steward of their own contributors' works. I'm certain this will cause more photographers and licensors to boycott Getty. Even if the images are in the public domain, Highsmith can still sue for a moral rights violation on the grounds that the images are falsely attributed.

Demanding money from legitimate users of open content. Absolutely disgusting.

#BoycottGetty

Draco

[Na Horuk]

Its good to see that for a change it is the big boys that get hit by copyright. Usually, copyright is the tool that they use to bully individuals and smaller groups to pay up.
I doubt she will get a whole billion dollars, but I hope she gets enough that Getty feels it. I don't know what their revenues usually are, so a million might not even be a big issue for them.