Photographer Files $1bn Copyright Claim Against Getty Images
This is a discussion on Photographer Files $1bn Copyright Claim Against Getty Images within the P2P / File sharing forums, part of the General chat category; https://torrentfreak.com/photographe...images-160728/ When Getty Images sent photographer Carol Highsmith a $120 settlement demand for using one of 'their' images without permission, ...
- 28-07-16, 04:18 PM #1
Photographer Files $1bn Copyright Claim Against Getty Images
When Getty Images sent photographer Carol Highsmith a $120 settlement demand for using one of 'their' images without permission, things were about to get messy. The image in question was actually Highsmith's own work, displayed on her own website. Highsmith has now responded with a $1bn lawsuit.
Seattle-based Getty Images is an American agency controlling an archive of dozens of millions of stock images. After paying the company an appropriate fee, customers are given the right to use Getty’s images in their own publications. Like many copyright holders, Getty is extremely aggressive in protecting its rights. The company scans the web in search of instances where people have used its images without obtaining an appropriate license and pursues the alleged infringer for money.
What follows is a typical copyright-troll operation. Those supposedly using content without permission receive a scary letter from Getty agents warning that all kinds of terrible things might happen if Getty decides to take the case to court. All this can be avoided, however, if the supposed image pirate pays a cash settlement.
One such letter was received in December 2015 by the This is America! Foundation, a non-profit set up by Carol Highsmith, a long-established US-based photographer.
Penned by a company calling itself License Compliance Services (LCS) on behalf of Getty-affiliated Alamy, the letter got straight to the point.
“We have seen that an image or image(s) represented by Alamy has been used for online use by your company. According to Alamy’s records your company doesn’t have a valid license for use of the image(s),” the letter began.
The allegedly infringing image
“Although this infringement might have been unintentional, use of an image without a valid license is considered copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code. This copyright law entitles Alamy to seek compensation for any license infringement.”
The company demanded $120 to settle the dispute, which admittedly isn’t a huge amount. However, the case contained a series of devastating flaws, not least that the photograph in question was taken by Carol Highsmith herself. But it gets worse.
During a near half-hour telephone conversation with LCS, Highsmith began by explaining that she is the author of the image. However, she also revealed that she had donated this and thousands of other images to the Library of Congress and makes them available to the public to reproduce and display for free.
In the dying days of December 2015, Highsmith received confirmation from LCS that the case against her had been dropped. However, Getty and Alamy clearly hadn’t got the message. Amazingly, the companies were also making available more than 18,000 of Highsmith’s other photographs on their websites.
In a lawsuit filed July 25 in a New York District Court, Highsmith’s lawyers make their position clear.
“Nowhere on its website does Getty identify Ms. Highsmith as the sole author of the Highsmith Photos. Likewise, nowhere on its website does Getty identify Ms. Highsmith as the copyright owner of the work,” they write.
“Instead, Getty misrepresents the terms and conditions of using the Highsmith Photos by falsely claiming a user must buy a copyright license from Getty in order to have the right to use the Highsmith Photos.”
In some cases Getty was demanding $575 for use of just one of Highsmith’s images, despite the photographer making the content freely available to the public. Worse still, the company has also been sending out settlement demands to people who used the images legally on their websites.
“The Defendants have apparently misappropriated Ms. Highsmith’s generous gift to the American people,” the lawsuit reads.
“The Defendants are not only unlawfully charging licensing fees to people and organizations who were already authorized to reproduce and display the donated photographs for free, but are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner and threatening individuals and companies with copyright infringement lawsuits that the Defendants could not actually lawfully pursue.”
As a result, the tables are now turned, with Getty on the receiving end of a settlement demand. For using her images without permission, Highsmith says that Getty is liable for statutory damages of up to $468,875,000.
However, since Getty lost another copyright case (Morel v. Getty) within the last three years, Highsmith believes that the court has the power to treble the statutory damages. In this case up to a cool $1 billion.
Considering Getty’s holier-than-thou position when it comes to infringement, thousands will be cheering Highsmith on to victory. In the meantime, check out her work, it’s something really special.
- 01-08-16, 04:21 PM #2
Re: Photographer Files $1bn Copyright Claim Against Getty Images
Getty Images Bites Back in $1 Billion Copyright Dispute
Last week Carol Highsmith filed a copyright complaint against Getty Images after an agent threatened the photographer for using her own photograph without their permission. Now Getty is fighting back, warning that it will defend itself vigorously if the dispute can't be settled.
As reported last week, US-based photographer Carol Highsmith is locked in dispute with stock-imaging giant Getty Images. The dispute began last year when Highsmith’s This is America! Foundation received a threatening letter from a company calling itself License Compliance Services (LCS).
Sent on behalf of Getty-affiliated Alamy it warned that Highsmith’s use of her own photograph was a breach of the company’s licensing terms for the content. The matter could be settled for $120, the letter said.
While the cash demand was later dropped, Highsmith discovered that Getty and Alamy were offering more than 18,000 of her other photographs on their websites. Highsmith had previously donated her images to the Library of Congress for public use but noted that Getty was misrepresenting them by stating that users must buy a copyright license from the company to use them.
The resulting $1 billion dollar lawsuit against Getty made the headlines last week but unusually the imaging company has now chosen to make a public statement in advance of filing a response in court.
“We are reviewing the complaint. We believe it is based on a number of misconceptions, which we hope to rectify with the plaintiff as soon as possible. If that is not possible, we will defend ourselves vigorously,” the company says.
While this suggests that Getty might be prepared to come to an arrangement with Highsmith, the wording makes it clear the company is also prepared for a fight. According to Getty, it has done nothing wrong, and the fact that Highsmith placed her content in the public domain supports that position.
“The content in question has been part of the public domain for many years. It is standard practice for image libraries to distribute and provide access to public domain content, and it is important to note that distributing and providing access to public domain content is different to asserting copyright ownership of it,” the company adds.
Highsmith’s complaint, which was filed last Monday in a New York District Court, begs to differ.
“The Defendants are not only unlawfully charging licensing fees to people and organizations who were already authorized to reproduce and display the donated photographs for free, but are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner and threatening individuals and companies with copyright infringement lawsuits that the Defendants could not actually lawfully pursue,” the complaint reads.
Getty doesn’t directly address the copyright-trolling aspect of the dispute, other than to shift the responsibility of that to Alamy and LCS, the companies that sent the original $120 claim to Highsmith.
“LCS works on behalf of content creators and distributors to protect them against the unauthorized use of their work. In this instance, LCS pursued an
infringement on behalf of its customer, Alamy. Any enquiries regarding that matter should be directed to Alamy,” Getty notes.
“However, as soon as the plaintiff contacted LCS, LCS acted swiftly to cease its pursuit with respect to the image provided by Alamy and notified Alamy it would not pursue this content.”
That anyone, anywhere, has a business model which involves sending out threatening letters to people using public domain images is worrying and clearly what inspired Highsmith’s lawsuit.
However, both Getty and Alamy are more than capable of putting up an extremely spirited defense, especially when a billion dollars is on the table.
This article has been updated to clarify that Carol Highsmith donated the images to the Library of Congress
Sky Fibre Unlimited Pro: Connected at 80,000 kbps / 20,000 kbps
Previous ADSL2+ Speed 19999 kbps 1153 kbps, Line Attenuation 17.5 db 6.9 db, Noise Margin 7.5 dB 8.7 dB
Speedtest: 17.15MB/s 0.97Mb/s Ping 31 ms