Hacker News Reader

Comment by Smushman | Hacker News Reader

Using some examples from the comments of the article:

It's akin to Getty setting up a small tent inside of Central Park, and asking people that walk by to pay an entry fee.

But Getty goes 1 step further: They hire strongarm guys to go around the park and tell people (one-on-one) that they skipped out on their 5 dollar entry fee and they can 'settle' with them right now or be taken to court.

It's terrible.

I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws, other than scare the bejesus out of them. Which seems to be exactly what the photographer is doing.

View on HN

"I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws"

What?

Sounds more like they are in flagrant violation of existing copyright laws, and deserve to get their head handed to them in court.

I suppose the point is that the current laws are difficult to enforce and the process is ripe for abuse.

I think they wanted to avoid the situation rather than punish it after the fact.

Laws have denotative semantics—what they strictly allow, and what they strictly don't. But any given law will also create (or modify) an incentive structure. Copyright has a problem, in that IP rights get more profitable as you get closer and closer to being in violation of the law. The incentive that creates is for everyone to try to violate the spirit, but not the letter of copyright law.

A better law would fix the incentives: to make copyright "abuse" a sliding scale, one that starts long before the current point where something becomes a violation of the law, where the more profitably-abusive an act is, the bigger a fine you'll get for doing it. The cost-benefit should always work out in favor of not violating the spirit of copyright law.

>where the more profitably-abusive an act is, the bigger a fine you'll get for doing it

Hahahah... You should do stand-up for Goldman Sachs

Don't know why this needs an analogy at all.

Getty [allegedly] took images that didn't necessarily belong to them, charged for them, and also sent copyright notices after anyone that hadn't paid for them.

It's pretty simple. edit: allegedly

Well it's more likely that a photographer submitted a bunch of public domain images claiming he/she owned the copyright.

Then Getty images handled the situation poorly.

Look at another Getty case.

Haitian photographer Daniel Morel posted some photos to TwitPic. 'Lisandro Suaero' downloaded them and sold them to AFP / Getty. Then Getty tried to sue Morel. [1]

Morel was awarded 1.2 million [2]. Getty tried to use a weird argument that they had a deal with Twitter so they didn't owe him anything.

[1] http://blog.jeremynicholl.com/2010/05/03/afp-steal-photos-th...

[2] http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/1-2-million-lawsui...

The issue isn't really with Getty charging for those images. If they're in the public domain, then (as I understand it) the photographer has relinquished her copyright on the images. It's perfectly legal for other people to make money with them in that case, but that doesn't mean those other people own the copyright.

I think the issue comes into play when Getty tries to enforce a copyright they don't actually own by threatening people who use the images. That's where they've crossed a line, and I'm fairly confident that if Getty tried to sue anyone over it, the courts would decide in favor of the defendants. Of course, just defending oneself in court against someone like Getty could get expensive, so it's obviously better if the issue could be sorted out preemptively (as this photographer seems to be doing).

From other sources, she licensed them for free use with attribution, she didn't abandon the copyright.

If that's true, then either the Library of Congress didn't get the memo (they very clearly specify that it's in the public domain), or this is somehow a case where "public domain" means something different from the standard definition.

It's possible they mislabeled it, but one would think they were still on the hook if they sent any DMCA notices, as they should not have any reason to believe that they were the copyright holders or in any way authorized to sue for "infringement" of the works... particularly when sending notices to the actual copyright holder.

What I want to know is if they sent DMCA notices over these.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

(3) Elements of notification.— (A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

[...]

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

=====

I'm having trouble figuring out if there's any way they could have a good faith belief that they were the copyright holders here (I suspect not), though I do not know whether or not they ever sent DMCA notices containing all of the elements.

It's more nuanced, and more sinister.

Getty maintains the "exclusive right" to license an image on behalf of the copyright owner (typically a photographer). The photographer does not assign ownership, just the right to license.

They use automation to find cases of license violation--using the image without paying Getty a license fee. That triggers an automated message saying "You owe us $500."

Getty doesn't (as far as I can tell) verify that the photographer owns the rights to the image, and when a person asks for that proof, Getty's response is to "Check the website" and will only submit further proof upon subpoena.

> the photographer has relinquished her copyright

From the article:

"Highsmith says she never abandoned her photo copyrights"

The most entertaining part is they sent copyright notices to the original creator of the images. That is how she found out they were suing people over it.

> I can't imagine how to solve that without a total change of copyright laws

Wouldn't prosecution for fraud be enough?

I think its tough to say... It's like I know it smells (real) bad, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is that stinks so much.

I guess I would say it is one thing to 'sell' public domain pictures in your database along with privately held photos - using a subscription model, Getty could say it is just creating a one stop shop and charging for that service. I am sure their lawyers thought about that long ago, when they first brought on the Public Domain photos.

But to go to the level of actually shaking people down for money when they are using a photo that is Public Domain leans toward organized crime, with copyright laws behaving as accessories to enforcement. It's like charging 'protection money' when you should naturally have freedom from harassment.

How many uncounted people have paid that shakedown fee for their Public Domain pictures, not knowing any better...

Proves the old adage - Knowledge is Power.

Only if it's an effective and accessible protection.

Note that the victims of Getty's RICO tactics here don't have standing to sue for copyright violation. Only for the possible fraud elements. This reduces the number of parties with significant legal protections tremendously.

The case has to proceed quickly and effectively. Long delays or appeals will steal the thunder.

The sting's got to be harsh. I'm liking the billion-dollar amount, as that's enough to make virtually any company sit up and take notice.

But the real problem is that low-grade penny-ante DMCA takedown, C&D, or other strong-arming, on questionable bases, are likely to remain profitable for a long time.

I remember kids pulling this in primary school.

- Pay me and I'll make sure this guy won't beat you up

- But that's your brother ..

- So what do you say ?

Building slightly on that analogy:

Before setting up that tent, some random person tells getty "Hey I own this park," pointing to Central Park, "You can charge admission on my behalf."

Getty then setups up a tent without a second thought about verifying the veracity of the persons claim.

I'm not sure if Getty just sucked in all those public domain images and said "Is private now." or through their submission process, some individually claimed to own the copyright, and had Getty do the dirty work.

Couldn't be a more evil company to be sued.

Wish Thier would represent him and kick a hole in Getty!

> Wish Thier would represent him and kick a hole in Getty!

The photographer is a female, and the person you named spells his last name Thiel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com