Fuck Getty Images

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 17 Responses
  • autoflavour

    Fuck em for 1 Billion dollars worth..

    LOL.. all this over a $120 copyright infringement..

    greedy assholes.. i hope they go down in flames

    http://hyperallergic.com/314079/…

  • set5

    $1bn - lol

    Well yea, fuck em'. Good luck to her.

  • kingkong1

    wow

  • mekk0

    1. Sue Company over 1bn with a 1000:1 chance of winning
    2. get silenced with 1m
    3. repeat

    • nah, what Fadein says below - the'll settle for $50M or somesuch still ridiculous figure.detritus
  • fadein110

    will settle out of court for a few million I imagine - WIN.

  • formed0

    Wow, good for her. Getty is ridiculous, their pricing is insane and here they are stealing images? Someone was pretty stupid over there.

    She's gonna get a nice paycheck! It'll be way more than 1million. They'll make an example of this, 18k+ images is't just an accident, that's blatant abuse.

    • Not just stealing images, but also trying to slap the author of images they stole for a copyright violation on her own image! Fucking cunts.Continuity
  • monoboy-2

    Sad.

    My first job out of college was at Getty. Loved it.

    In the days when agencies paid £20K to use a single image in a press advert. You can get a re-brand for that now.

    • My old agency, about a decade ago, used to charge a grand to set you up with a twitter and facebook account hahaset
  • BH260

    Definitely a company/family that is a 100% selfish and will step on anyone's head. Wait till you guys find out they used to sell oil to the Nazis in WWII.

  • deathboy-8

    Hopefully a court tosses it out. She had 0 damages yet wants to reap a huge reward for being inconvenienced with an email asking to be paid for a image in the public domain. I think someone just accidentally activated piracy software on a set of photos they shouldn't have. If she ignored it or replied it probably would have been fixed, and since it doesn't say anything about prior communication with getty over it i'd assume there was none. Just a person looking for a pay day for inconveniences with reality. With that said Getty should simply refund any money from said photos and do the apology and dance routine.

    As far as selling images in the public domain I've seen it before. Many companies do this and there is nothing wrong with it. Look at book publishers, keep calm carry on, etc... I had to buy some historical images from corbis a couple years ago. Some i used corbis to search for than found them in the public domain and didn't purchase other I couldn't find and purchased. Corbis would get paid for the search/host service if people didn't know better.

    Gettys piracy software does a service not only for company but for contributors. "The following file(s) were recently licensed to an iStock customer in a transaction that did not occur through the website: XXXXX We have made an adjustment to your account and added your royalty from the license(s), which totals $0.72." Helps me stack mad doe YO!

    • lol @ "Many companies do this and there is nothing wrong with it."imbecile
    • its public domain... legally you can sell things in public domain. no copywrite. which is why a software error which should be remedied...deathboy
    • ahem... *lol*imbecile
    • it would considered more on the fraud side. misrepresentation and also cp right prob if you violate authors policy?yurimon
    • Donating to public domain I believe takes any rights away... however Getty can't claim rights to them. Can sell distribute, but cant claim cw.deathboy
    • Screams wrong set of photos stuck in software queue to me. Human error that should be fixed.deathboy
    • deathboy must must be on Getty's payroll, what asinine statement! He clearly did not read and or comprehend the merits of the lawsuit.utopian
    • i read a typical david vs goliath suer with dr evil amount for big headlines oneside PR article. trying to be a rational voice instead of calling for pitchforksdeathboy
    • and yes i am on the payroll if you read my postdeathboy
    • I doubt she is looking for a payday at 70 years old when she spent her life taking and donating photos. She is looking to make a point.ETM
    • Getty is threatening/punishin... people for content they don't own. And in her case, she was threatened for using her own photo she didn't dl from Getty.ETM
    • And Getty does shit like this all day long. But you know that...ETM
  • set3

    This is a case of little cunt vs big cunt. They're both cunts but I hope the little cunt wins.

    After all, everyone prefers a little cunt... certainly over a big sloppy gaping giant cunt.

    • cunt cunt!imbecile
    • but to the tune of how much? and do we want a justice system that panders to trolls like this? pay her a thousand bucks and fuck the lawyers who didnt turn awaydeathboy
    • refund + little cunt gets paid + lawyers lose money on fronting costs going after huge company for out of court settlement fees. win win windeathboy
    • deathboy, you are not going to garner any sympathy for Getty here.ETM
  • sureshot-1

    wait? is this the company of an old newstoday/qbn member? sean getti or something..

  • Gnash2

    Getty does this with all sorts of Public Domain images -- from places like the Library of Congress or even NASA.

    @Deathboy, this is not an over site, nor a mistake. It is a business vector that they pursue aggressively.

    • well ill be curious to learn more. id sure love to see the calculation for the billion. probably funnier than cop drug bust mathdeathboy
    • $25k statutory damages per infringement times ~20k images = $500M. But Getty was convicted of similar less than 3 yrs ago. So statutory damages triple.monNom
    • The math and reason for the 1billion was in the article.... that I guess deathboy didn't actually read.ETM
  • _niko0

    lol yeah fuck'em

  • nb1

    @deathboy, I'm not sure about this particular case, but I do know of at least one other photographer who donated to the Library of Congress for public use and the license stated that the photos are open to anyone to use as long as they weren't making any money from the images or using the images on commercial products.

    This might be a standard LoC rights agreement, I'm not sure.

  • deathboy-4

    well looks like they gone and messed up by this. looks like single use copies for any purpose with credit even though it says give all right to the public...

    https://www.documentcloud.org/do…

    of course now I wonder if the library of congress has any part in this matter since they seemed to be the gatekeeper of said library.

    and by this looks like they're protected anyways. a billion dollars is ridiculous, im starting to smell PR stunt for vanity/money.
    ///////
    According to the suit, Getty and its affiliates have not only sold unauthorized licenses of Highsmith’s photos, but they have sent threatening letters to people that they believe have infringed the copyright.

    One of those recipients was Highsmith’s own non-profit group, the This is America! Foundation. The copyright enforcement entity, License Compliance Services, demanded $120 in payment. LCS is believed to be connected to Getty Images, which has developed a reputation for aggressively pursuing claimed license fees over alleged afoul publication.

    Highsmith then had a 27-minute phone call with LCS, where she explained that she was the author and that she found it baffling that she had to pay a license fee for a photograph that she not only took, but donated to the public.

    Two days later, she got an e-mail from LCS, saying that it considered the matter “closed.” However, according to the suit, the photo in question remained on sale by LCS and Getty.

    Sarah Lochting, Getty Images vice president for communications, sent Ars a statement which said that the lawsuit was "the first time Getty Images was made aware of the matter. We are currently looking into these allegations with the aim of addressing these concerns as soon as possible."

    Lochting also underscored that LCS and Getty Images are "separate entities and have no operational relationship."

  • utopian3

    FUCK YOU GETTY!

  • zaq1

  • canoe0

    I know istockphoto is owned by Getty, but I'm surprised to see identical images on both sites with a $300 difference in price tag.

    • license differences?imbecile
    • yeah insane_niko
    • it's the insurance model, if you hav ethe means or work at a big agency for big clients that don't give a shit they'll ding you.
      if out of pocket get istock for
      _niko
    • a fraction of the price. same image, same licence._niko
    • Shutterstock is the same way - if you have a business or agency account everything has a $300 mark-up.evilpeacock
    • ...and the licenses are different. Usually the higher cost means more users can use, more usage options and more "insurance" against claims.evilpeacock
    • What gets me is that a lot of Getty's offerings from all their bought up companies like iStock are mediocre quality — you can get better elsewhere.evilpeacock
    • Its called capitalism, ask deathtrollutopian