Getty Images sued for $1 billion over alleged copyright violations

Shorty, one detail : it's not the alleged willful violation that allows the court to award treble damages if the court considers it just (that might help the courts decision as to whether it would be "just"). It's the fact that it's a repeat violation of 17 USC 1201-1202 within 3 years after final judgement was entered against the person for another such violation. Hence, the reference in her complaint to the Morel photographer case which I presume satisfies the time period.

The relevant statute for treble damages rule is 17 USC 1204

If you think that Mr. Trump will be less in favor of the next copyright extension you are very naive.

Giving her pictures to the Library of Congress for free public use, doesn't mean abandoning her Copyrights, or permission to to anyone to start selling them.

There is a difference between 'free' and giving away marketing rights.

White collar crime pays will and there's little criminal repercussion. Get caught with a gram or 3 of cocaine and be black? You're in a world of trouble and branded for life.

These photos are high quality, not misrepresented, and not labeled "rare". That's how this differs from selling something on eBay.

There are many off the cuff kind of posts here. It is a DMCA copyright claim.

Yes the case is complicated and I can't say that I am qualified to understand it or give an opinion... other than to say that many posts on this thread don't add to my knowledge.

My understanding is there have not been many DMCA claims so we have to see how this one goes.

"Her intent is clearly to make the photos publicly available without copyright restriction. Me thinks Getty will prevail here."

How can that possibly make sense? Getty are applying a copyright restriction to material they do not own or have not licensed through the Library of Congress or the photographer. Getty will only prevail if they show evidence of such. The fact that all her images suddenly disappeared from the Getty website suggests otherwise.

I do not think you have a proper sense of irony and sarcasm ;)

Yes, I took it as sarcasm, but who is the target for the sarcasm. Getty or the posters here? And, if it is against the posters here, what is the message? So, sorry, I do not get the message. Maybe (s)he just tried to be funny?

That's not how copyright damages work. There are three measures you can use:

* Statutory (cost per infringement)
* Actual damages (loss of business to photographer)
* Actual gains (how much money infringer makes)

She sued for statutory. The court has discretion to reduce this (and will do so), but not below $36 million. Damages in cases like this are punitive, and given a pattern of repeated violation, the court is likely to award such damages at a level which hurts Getty.

As I said; your legal system is broken. Sorry guys, but that is a fact.

That Getty gets a fine on $36M is almost reasonable, but why should the photographer get that amount of money?

As I said, zero is the best approximation of the monetary damage she have got. Actually, that we, and lots others are writing about it, probably makes it a plus already. And a big one.

You can never convince me that this is sane.

Regarding: "You can never convince me that this is sane."

Have you considered how much harm comes from deciding one cannot be persuaded by any evidence or logic, prior to hearing evidence or logic? Our legal system is broken, but private enforcement of laws isn't one of the ways in which it is broken. That part works pretty well.

Of course it is broken. In this case, the photographer may get anything between 36M and 1B. Lets say that a very good yearly income, after tax, is $100K. Then, the amount of money she might get represents approx. 360-10,000 very good yearly incomes. That is 10-300 times more than most people earn during their lifetime.

Actually, as there always are scumbags like Getty, it might even be a good idea monetary to give your images free to to the state and then sue all scumbags that use them. It sure looks like this is much more easy made money than selling them yourself.

So no, broken it is. At least if cases like this are won.

Personally I think a $10M fine for Getty and $1M to the photographer seems like a fair result. Maybe also some months in jail for the responsible one at Getty.

Let me repeat what I said: You've made an argument, and said you were not open to any contradicting arguments. That's not a way to get to healthy policy or reasoned thought. It's a good way to get to groupthink, and have people talk across each other.

There are no perfect systems, at least organizationally, of human beings. All have paradoxical outcomes sometimes. Pointing to a specific imperfection doesn't make a system broken.

For enforcing this type of issue, we have set up incentives, and let free market economics do the rest. That seems to work better than government enforcement, as happens in much of Europe (except Britain). The threat of a 36M-1B judgement deters illegal behavior, and the upside rewards private enforcement.

Coincidentally, 1M for the photographer would be grossly unfair and undervaluing her work. You might not be aware of how much famous artworks are worth. $10M would be a small operational cost, not an effective deterrent for a $4 billion organization.

@howard In the case of something intentional, damages are intentionally higher than a simple sale. It is intended as a deterrent, and to make prosecution worth the time. Anything less than tens of millions would not be a deterrent to Getty. It's also reasonable to Defendant, given the value of her images and her time. She's not a run-of-the-mill photographer.

But yes, in most instances, copyright damages do tend to be unreasonable. We see similar damages where it's not a $1 billion organization and a world-famous photographer. That's the lobbying of the MPAA and RIAA. Here's a case:

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/27/160091839/illegal-dowloads-follow-teen-into-adulthood-court

$675,000 in damages for downloading 31 songs as a teenager (thousands alleged) -- market value of $31 on iTunes. Puts the kid into bankruptcy (actually, adult, given how long such cases drag on). Many such cases also yield years in prison -- often more than rape or arson. That is wildly unreasonable.

I'll say what everyone is thinking...why is she shooting with that honking huge Phase One, when she could get herself a Hasselblad mirrorless X1D!!!!

That's not true for copyright. It automatically applied to anything you write/draw/photograph and it doesn't go away unless you specifically sign it over.

Go read the article. Let us say good_guy_me gives a photograph to some_body_them for free. Scum_guy_you goes to some_body_them and says, hey, I own the rights to that, pay me.

You may borrow a book from a library, but that gives you no right to sell it. Also, is it your contention that Getty Images represents the Library of Congress and the people of the United States? Were they in any way acting as an arm of the library? If so, where's our cut?

Highsmith gave it to the Library of Congress for free, not Getty Images. "So you give someone else something for free, I'll take it, claim it's mine and I'll write you a nasty letter threatening legal action if you ever try to borrow it from me again later."

software is copy right-able. Automobile software is copy right-able. Check the licensing terms on your new automobile (as has been mentioned in previous posts)

That's a fair point Eric and I agree with OvinceZ. However, I was trying to point out that no wrong-doer (that I know of) ever changed their ways because the other side won a "moral" victory. It will require an actual legal victory that hurts Getty, and even then they may continue operating as they have in the past.
(edited 3x...stupid spelling errors!)

I can't argue with that HB. I'm frequently guilty of being overly cryptic, myself ;)

Well my responses do seem to fall into two catagories...exceedingly brief to the point of being cryptic (as you say), and lengthy enough to rival "War and Peace" :D

BTW -I 'win' all the time...against those who game the system, bullies, folks in it for themselves; and half the time no one notices but me. I try to carry a bubble of civilization around me, and hope I can touch a person (like overworked and harried shop-keepers) every day with it -if only to see them smile...