KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
A photographer has targeted Getty Images with a business ending $1 billion (£760 million) lawsuit, after it mistakenly attempted to extort compensation from her for using one of her own images. Getty initially demanded she pay up $120 for illegal use of the image, despite the fact that the original copyright resides with her.
Getty Images has, like many image libraries, had a lot of difficulties in the online world with copyright infringement. To combat that, in recent years it's grown far more aggressive in its attempts to legally challenge those who would use its images without a license. As we've seen with movie copyright letter sending though, being over zealous can lead to false positives.
That's exactly what happened in the case of photographer Carol Highsmith, who found herself the recipient of a copyright infringement notice by Getty images, via its legal representative, License Compliance Services (LCS). It accused her non-profit organisation, This is America! Foundation, of using the image without permission.
Getty's proxy went even further though and threatened to take Highsmith to court unless she paid it $120 within a set time frame. Eventually LCS dropped the case when Highsmith pointed out the error and that her images had also been shared publicly so that anyone could use them if they wanted.
The supposedly copyright infringing image
Unfortunately for Getty though, Highsmith later discovered that close to 18,000 of her pictures were being sold on Getty's website, so now she's taking the organisation to court, demanding as much as $1 billion for her trouble.
“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,” the lawsuit claims (via Torrentfreak).
“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.”
Many of those images are freely available, so for Getty to charge hundreds of dollars for the use of individual images seems rather underhanded.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: Clearly Highsmith doesn't deserve a billion dollars, but it does highlight how ridiculous it is for Getty to demand settlements for copyright infringement, when it is committing the same crime but on a much larger scale.
$1billion seems waaaaay over the mark of what she should be demanding for a false copyright claim, especially as it’s not even a class action suit.
She’ll probably win the case but only with a few thousand at most
$1billion, It does creates a good starting point for negotiation. I can understand from her point of view, I myself have also been subject to letters from Getty, they are not nice. Shot themselves in the foot as I stopped buying from them. If they approached me and asked how I obtained the image first then I would not mind but their approach straight away was “you have broken the law and now you have to pay up or else”.
this:
“Unfortunately for Getty though, Highsmith later discovered that close to 18,000 of her pictures were being sold on Getty’s website, so now she’s taking the organisation to court, demanding as much as $1 billion for her trouble.”
$1 billion not for the false copyright claim.
its America , so shell get a lot of it , + costs . might make Getty financially embarrassed at least
Well, they were selling 18,000 of her images, at $100+ a pop, so potentially they could have made $1 billion from it, it’s highly unlikely that many were sold but the real figures won’t be known until they get to court anyway. And that just covers the fraudulent earnings, not the IP damage/etc.
But does this work cumulative in practice? I know there are cases where people were fined tens of thousands of dollars for a few songs, but there’s got to be a limit to it right? I never understood copyright law in this sense: if I rob your house and steal a hundred items, I can be convicted for one burglary, but if I listen to a hundred songs, I can be fined for one hundred cases of copyright infringement.
It seems to favor the corporations big time.
The $1 Billion is to set the ceiling so Getty can’t lowball her in a negotiation…
Another example of why automated legal action should be illegal, just like automated cold calling is.
the $1 billion is not the amount because that’s what she thinks she deserves, the amount reflects more of a desire to punish Getty
Nothing wrong with financially bankrupting a company that is clearly morally bankrupt…
$1 Billion seems fine.
I profit close to 6.000-8.000 bucks a month with an online job. Those who are prepared to work simple at home work for 2h-5h every day from your living room and make good payment in the same time… Try this job SELF99.COM
fewfwe
getty got rekt