Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos  (Read 4394 times)

MattBurt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3912
  • Looking for that other shot
    • Matt Burt Photography
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2016, 12:32:38 pm »

So shady! I hope this costs them.
Logged
-MattB

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2016, 07:50:45 am »

So shady! I hope this costs them.

Shady and... well, hilarious. These guys shot themselves in the foot by trying to charge her, the photographer whose images they were selling w/o authorization let alone payment!

Quote
Highsmith discovered the issue having herself received a letter in December 2015 after using the images in website material for her own non-profit organisation This is America! Foundation. The communication, sent by the License Compliance Services, associated with Getty, charged her with copyright infringement and demanded a $120 payment

Hope she wins.
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2016, 01:45:03 pm »

I'm a cynic. This is modern day america, I bet the corporation doesn't lose a thing and may in fact bury the plaintiffs in years of legal squabbles that they cannot afford to participate in. Remember when we believed in competition, now we believe in private monopolies, but we're surprised when they behave that way.
Logged
--
Robert

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2016, 11:35:34 pm »

This case is a poster child for the unutterable sleaziness of corporate business practices in this day and age.  My only wish is (a) that the photographer gets her entire judgment against these sleazeballs and (b) that everyone who has "licensed" one of her images from Getty joins in a fraud class action against said sleazeballs.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2016, 03:53:01 am »

This case is a poster child for the unutterable sleaziness of corporate business practices in this day and age.  My only wish is (a) that the photographer gets her entire judgment against these sleazeballs and (b) that everyone who has "licensed" one of her images from Getty joins in a fraud class action against said sleazeballs.


Why would clients do that? Pix have never been cheaper. Nobody's going to rock the boat from the user perspective.

Rob C

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2016, 06:53:56 am »

I should have added in my comment above that I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Logged
--
Robert

MattBurt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3912
  • Looking for that other shot
    • Matt Burt Photography
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2016, 12:31:24 pm »


Why would clients do that? Pix have never been cheaper. Nobody's going to rock the boat from the user perspective.

Rob C

That might if they realize the photos would have otherwise been free of charge.
Logged
-MattB

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2016, 08:25:28 pm »

I'm a cynic.

You know, I consider myself a bit of a cynic myself, but the more I read about this case, the lower my jaw drops... LA Times just published an article with bits of Getty Images' response, and it (the article) ends with this:

Quote
Lange’s 1936 photograph of migrant mother Florence Owens Thompson of Nipomo, Cal., for instance, is a historical icon that belongs to the nation. If you wish to reproduce it, you can download it from Getty Images, for a fee that might exceed $5,000. Or, like Highsmith’s photos, you can download it for free from the Library of Congress, with no restrictions. The choice is yours.

Really? Really?!  :o

Ponzi scheme looks like a joke compared to this.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2016, 04:28:31 am »

That might if they realize the photos would have otherwise been free of charge.


Indeed, but I'm suggesting that in the general run of things, fees are so low that it hardly matters anymore. And overall, once established as a 'client' of a particular agency, would you want to mess with future cheap usage of their images? Perhaps some might. I suppose it all depends on the fee for the otherwise 'free' image.

Rob

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2016, 06:00:08 am »

Indeed, but I'm suggesting that in the general run of things, fees are so low that it hardly matters anymore.

Like, say, $5+k for Migrant Mother that's been free for ages?..
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2016, 04:23:31 pm »

once established as a 'client' of a particular agency, would you want to mess with future cheap usage of their images?

I suspect that's right. I suspect her choice of amount is simply to grab some headlines and embarrass them as much as possible, without any expectation of winning.
Someone who has given away her rights is unlikely to be highly motivated to get the $billion...

Logged

DennisWilliams

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2016, 11:10:37 pm »

Actually she asked for  far less, however  there is a significant punitive amount added to that.
Having been found guilty  before,  if Getty is found guilty this time  it is seen as ongoing  activity.
I believe it is triple damages.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2016, 05:13:24 am »

Like, say, $5+k for Migrant Mother that's been free for ages?..

No, like in, say, what you or I would today get for simple usage of our images. I used to be (for many years) with Tony Stone, who became Getty's first huge UK purchase. My sales varied between about £ 40 up to £ 1700 or so tops. That represented the 50% that I got, so you could call the sales worth double that.

Today, with photographer percentages reduced to an insult, payments tuned to microstock levels, why even go to the trouble of shooting, unless you just have a huge ego and a desire to undermine those still trying to live by the camera?

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2016, 04:36:36 pm »

Guess what, another lawsuit within days. This time by Zuma Press, claiming Getty Images were "falsifying/removing proper copyright management information".

And overall, once established as a 'client' of a particular agency, would you want to mess with future cheap usage of their images?

If I were their client, I'd run from them like hell, since Getty claiming ownership of something doesn't seem to mean... much, to say the least.
Logged

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1733
    • Ink+images
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2016, 01:39:19 am »

You know, I consider myself a bit of a cynic myself, but the more I read about this case, the lower my jaw drops... LA Times just published an article with bits of Getty Images' response, and it (the article) ends with this:

Really? Really?!  :o

Ponzi scheme looks like a joke compared to this.
It's not just Getty. I was looking for some images to accompany an article I had prepared on Ford's early days in Cork with this year being the centenary of their presence there. The original Ford Company in Ireland still exists and has the photos, but will it release them for use in a tractor enthusiasts magazine despite them being used before in books and mags for free? Nope, I now have to go to 'The Henry Ford' which appears to be a centre for Ford's historical records in the US who wanted exorbitant money for the use of images that were well out of copyright but of which they have the original negs and digital scans. Sorry Ford, the world doesn't work like that anymore, not outside of the US anyway. Mags haven't the budget neither do websites so where you think you are going to sell these images is beyond me.
Logged

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1733
    • Ink+images
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2016, 01:54:15 am »

No, like in, say, what you or I would today get for simple usage of our images. I used to be (for many years) with Tony Stone, who became Getty's first huge UK purchase. My sales varied between about £ 40 up to £ 1700 or so tops. That represented the 50% that I got, so you could call the sales worth double that.

Today, with photographer percentages reduced to an insult, payments tuned to microstock levels, why even go to the trouble of shooting, unless you just have a huge ego and a desire to undermine those still trying to live by the camera?

No doubt Rob you can recollect the days from another time and place where pro's were leaping up and down in excitement at the prospect of digital reducing their costs and so making them them super rich overnight. It didn't quite work out like that for digital also reduced the demand for professional photography. Oh the naivety of us  all back then as the industry was soon reduced to a frenzied state of undercutting by many, if not most, of those trying to make a living by the camera.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 02:32:48 am by Justinr »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2016, 05:06:58 am »

Ah, digital and the professional photographer!

As I remember the introduction of digital, it was greeted with suspicion and not a little scepticism. Most pros I know hate change, and for very good reason: it isn't a rapid path to finding what works for you. Film was not a single product, and neither were processing chemicals. Both offered endless combinations and they were most certainly not all producing identical results.

So, why on Earth would anyone suddenly choose to leap upon another train, especially before it's come to a halt at the platform, and before one even knows where its next stop ¡s going to be?

Much is made about film and processing costs; these had never been of interest to the pro because they were passed on down the line in exactly the same way as are model fees etc. etc. The only people that digital's initial lie about freedom from costs after purchase could posibly attract would be the cash-concerned amateur seeing no return on his 'investment'. Photography has never been an 'investment' when undertaken for love, any more than has sailing or driving sports cars. It's just something, that can be very expensive, undertaken because you like it enough to spend what it takes. So no, it's unlikely all pros thought digital was going to solve problems, but that it was going to be much more likely to introduce a fresh new set of learning curves in all possible directions, the last thing anyone needed.

And the reality turned out to be even worse. Whereas transparencies would simply be handed over to the client and billed, the new way decreed that the poor old snapper would now have to start retouching, spending hours more time than before on the same job and, if busy, having to take in less work just to create time to push through the pipes the work he already had. And no, being a retoucher isn't the same skill set as being a snapper. So what to do? Employ more people? Really? And where do you get the increased work and money with which to pay them and your various legal obligations stemming from employing them? You can't charge more - "no processing costs, right?" - your client will tell you (especially if he owns a digital P&S) as he looks for reduced charges from you.

So apart from the increased costs for photographers shooting to commission, those shooting stock found themselves faced with different but nonetheless damaging changes in circumstances. Where they had once been able to afford to finance trips and models for lifestyle work, they now discovered that their own agencies were starting to reduce the percentages they would offer them, and that they were being faced with a new wave of competition from the amateur with often no interest in money, simply in the imaginary glory of getting into print. This new competition wasn't happening in lifestyle so much as in travel, and travel-atmospherics where the absence of film and processing costs did indeed have an effect! Computer time was part of the buzz for the amateur, not an added waste of money.

As a result, stock agencies had more material than they could handle, they themselves suffered more competition, and they had the muscle to cut the suppliers' return even further back. Until we reached where we are today.

As I see it, the future belongs to those very bright photographers who are multi-skilled, work high enough up the food chain to pay for all that digital entails, the upgrades to computers, cameras and all the rest of it, without forgetting the requirements in knowledge and equipment to become producers of motion footage.

For the small, individual photographer of yore, I think it's over, whichever choice of photographic medium he makes.

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1733
    • Ink+images
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2016, 06:22:49 am »

Ah, digital and the professional photographer!

As I remember the introduction of digital, it was greeted with suspicion and not a little scepticism. Most pros I know hate change, and for very good reason: it isn't a rapid path to finding what works for you. Film was not a single product, and neither were processing chemicals. Both offered endless combinations and they were most certainly not all producing identical results.

So, why on Earth would anyone suddenly choose to leap upon another train, especially before it's come to a halt at the platform, and before one even knows where its next stop ¡s going to be?

Much is made about film and processing costs; these had never been of interest to the pro because they were passed on down the line in exactly the same way as are model fees etc. etc. The only people that digital's initial lie about freedom from costs after purchase could posibly attract would be the cash-concerned amateur seeing no return on his 'investment'. Photography has never been an 'investment' when undertaken for love, any more than has sailing or driving sports cars. It's just something, that can be very expensive, undertaken because you like it enough to spend what it takes. So no, it's unlikely all pros thought digital was going to solve problems, but that it was going to be much more likely to introduce a fresh new set of learning curves in all possible directions, the last thing anyone needed.

And the reality turned out to be even worse. Whereas transparencies would simply be handed over to the client and billed, the new way decreed that the poor old snapper would now have to start retouching, spending hours more time than before on the same job and, if busy, having to take in less work just to create time to push through the pipes the work he already had. And no, being a retoucher isn't the same skill set as being a snapper. So what to do? Employ more people? Really? And where do you get the increased work and money with which to pay them and your various legal obligations stemming from employing them? You can't charge more - "no processing costs, right?" - your client will tell you (especially if he owns a digital P&S) as he looks for reduced charges from you.

So apart from the increased costs for photographers shooting to commission, those shooting stock found themselves faced with different but nonetheless damaging changes in circumstances. Where they had once been able to afford to finance trips and models for lifestyle work, they now discovered that their own agencies were starting to reduce the percentages they would offer them, and that they were being faced with a new wave of competition from the amateur with often no interest in money, simply in the imaginary glory of getting into print. This new competition wasn't happening in lifestyle so much as in travel, and travel-atmospherics where the absence of film and processing costs did indeed have an effect! Computer time was part of the buzz for the amateur, not an added waste of money.

As a result, stock agencies had more material than they could handle, they themselves suffered more competition, and they had the muscle to cut the suppliers' return even further back. Until we reached where we are today.

As I see it, the future belongs to those very bright photographers who are multi-skilled, work high enough up the food chain to pay for all that digital entails, the upgrades to computers, cameras and all the rest of it, without forgetting the requirements in knowledge and equipment to become producers of motion footage.

For the small, individual photographer of yore, I think it's over, whichever choice of photographic medium he makes.

Not all professional photographers were working in a elevated world where costs were simply passed on. Those on the high street chugging away at weddings, portraits, schools, events etc etc still had to meet the processing costs and I distinctly remember many of these, and others, actually being delighted with the prospect of being in control of the finished product as well as not having to pay the development labs and retouchers. That joy may not have lasted long but the sentiment was strongly expressed before it all turned sour.

As for the pro/am argument it's been done to death and personally I have come to the conclusion that those who deride the amateur may not have confidence enough in their own work and should look to what they are offering before knocking others. Anyway, why should photography be different from any other industry and not suffer competition from those outside of their own niche? Come to that was it not part of Thatcher's great crusade to end demarcation in the workplace and didn't she reserve a special distaste for the closed shop? (I'm not a fan myself TBH) The beloved business model of many photographers is simply at odds with both the technology and politics of modern times and cussing those bloody amateurs is not going to bring back that golden age you allude to, if it ever really existed at all.

If professionals (however you define them) want to be respected and paid for their efforts then they need to demonstrate that they are worth both, it is possible and I think that their may be a change in the wind as it is realised that mobiles and tablets are not the same as cameras, but it's up to photographers to sell the advantages of doing the job properly rather than sneering at those who they believe don't know how to.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 06:26:52 am by Justinr »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Getty sued for $1 billion for selling publicly donated photos
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2016, 09:35:40 am »

Sneer? Who where and when?

Some amateurs are amazingly gifted and some suck; some pros suck, some are good and some wonderful. Some have a head as well as a heart and thrive (on the High Street, as in the Georgian terrace, the industrial estate, the old refurbished factory or even the converted stable down the mews), whereas others do not, and soon go to the wall or, worse, drag out a life of penury. Some pros make a success of it and others spend their career look through the garbage bins of life for the stuff nobody else ever wanted.

Christ how I tire of my Pavlovian dog. If only it could get its facts right, rid it's head of 70s/80s class obsessions instead of relapsing into atavistic political cant. The kiss of conversational death; over and over again like Groundhog day.

Hasta la vista.

Rob C
Pages: [1]   Go Up