TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Getty Images Sued Again for Trying to License Public Domain Images

292 点作者 ccnafr大约 6 年前

17 条评论

praestigiare大约 6 年前
In the first listed incident, Getty sent a takedown notice over a public domain image. This is fraud, just as clearly as the scammers who call elderly people and tell them they need to pay some fake fee or bill they didn&#x27;t know about.<p>People in this thread keep claiming that because it is public domain, they can do whatever they want with it including license it, which is not true. They can certainly sell it, but a license is a legal instrument that grants usage rights, and Getty cannot grant such rights. To claim to do so is fraud.
评论 #19552914 未加载
评论 #19552926 未加载
评论 #19553119 未加载
评论 #19553272 未加载
评论 #19552729 未加载
warent大约 6 年前
&gt; &quot;CixxFive argues that it has standing to sue because it licensed some of these public domain images. But ... it&#x27;s not clear how that&#x27;s Getty&#x27;s fault.&quot;<p>Surely intentionally misrepresenting the images as being wholly owned and copyrighted by Getty makes it their fault. They&#x27;re deceiving the customer outright even if they&#x27;re trying to be subtle about it. Behaving as if Getty is totally free of responsibility from this is just playing make-believe where we all pretend that nothing ethically reprehensible is happening.
评论 #19551697 未加载
anonlapwarmer大约 6 年前
EEVblog and CodysLab come to mind on an unrelated but annoying scam that YouTube hasn&#x27;t addressed sufficiently. Shouldn&#x27;t there be a class-action against YouTube for the scammy gambit of allowing random people to claim content ID of works they don&#x27;t own and then attack the original creators? This scam alone threatens to kick thousands of legitimate content creators off while enriching shady corporations and outright criminals. It seems like the only way to get YT to get their act together regarding measurably improving &quot;who owns what.&quot;
评论 #19551744 未加载
评论 #19551382 未加载
评论 #19551269 未加载
btown大约 6 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lw.com&#x2F;thoughtleadership&#x2F;using-public-domain-content-in-new-media" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lw.com&#x2F;thoughtleadership&#x2F;using-public-domain-con...</a> mentions an interesting and potentially applicable precedent:<p>&gt; Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation24 greatly restricted the trademark claim of “reverse passing off”—when a person represents someone else’s work as his or her own—regarding works in the public domain, although a claim of false advertising may still be viable. Dastar took a set of video programs in the public domain, based on General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s book chronicling his European campaign in World War II, and edited them slightly, including replacing the original credits and removing references to Eisenhower’s still-copyrighted book. The owners of the film rights to the book and the expired copyright on the original video programs sued Dastar for, among other things, reverse passing off by presenting the video programs as a Dastar production.25 The Supreme Court held that Dastar’s actions did not constitute reverse passing off under federal trademark law because the video programs were in the public domain and therefore could be freely exploited by anyone. To hold otherwise would be to “create[] a species of perpetual patent and copyright, which Congress may not do.”26 The Court did, however, leave open the possibility that Dastar might be liable under other provisions of federal trademark law that prohibit false advertising, such as misrepresenting the nature or qualities of the advertised work.27 In light of the Dastar holding and the continued viability of some trademark claims, those seeking to use a public domain work should consider the prospect of liability for trademark infringement or related state unfair competition claims.<p>(IANAL but I love this kind of stuff.)
paultopia大约 6 年前
Count me as another &quot;stop being so dismissive of these lawsuits, there&#x27;s a plausible claim here&quot; voice. Claiming some kind of ownership right in public domain images, and hence implicitly or explicitly representing to people that if they use those images without paying they can get sued, seems like straightforward fraud.<p>It&#x27;s no different than if I set up a toll booth on a public sidewalk, with a big official-looking sign saying &quot;I own this sidewalk, and you have to pay me a dollar to walk down it.&quot; People who reasonably believe my misrepresentations as to my ownership of the sidewalk and give me money have at least pretty plausible good old-fashioned fraud claims.<p>The argument of the linked article, transposed to the sidewalk toll booth context, seems to roughly be &quot;Getty didn&#x27;t put up a sign saying they OWNED the sidewalk, they put up a sign saying &#x27;License for sale to this sidewalk which we have the rights to sell licenses to&#x27; and the silly plaintiffs shouldn&#x27;t have read it like a normal person to be a claim of ownership; instead they&#x27;d should have read it in the unnatural way that Getty wanted to trick them into not reading it as.&quot; Or, in tort lawyer language, as the claim that their reliance on Getty&#x27;s claim of ownership wasn&#x27;t justified. Well, this sounds like a jury question to me.
TimTheTinker大约 6 年前
This is really a job for the legislature, not the courts. We all have an intuitive sense that <i>something</i> about Getty&#x27;s behavior is morally wrong. But <i>what</i> is wrong about it isn&#x27;t very well-defined. Creating those legal definitions is a big part of the legislature&#x27;s job.
评论 #19551653 未加载
评论 #19551621 未加载
评论 #19550397 未加载
rjmunro大约 6 年前
As far as I can tell, if they took a public domain image, modified it in some way, and sold that on their site, it would be copyright them. They could sue you for using it or whatever they wanted.<p>What would count as modified, I don&#x27;t know. E.g. Maybe they put real man hours in on Photoshop to remove some artifact and to correct the color. I don&#x27;t think anyone would argue they shouldn&#x27;t deserve to be paid. But if all they did was crop it, resize it or even just compressing it as a JPEG they might be fine in legal terms.
eugeniub大约 6 年前
If the law is on Getty&#x27;s side, the law should be changed. Selling public domain content should be illegal if it&#x27;s a digital work, as opposed to a printed book. At the very least, it should be required that it&#x27;s clearly labeled as public domain.
评论 #19554116 未加载
smadge大约 6 年前
The problem seems to be that while it is deceptive and probably illegal to imply you have a copyright over a public domain image, the company who is suing doesn&#x27;t have the &quot;standing&quot; to sue. Instead that is the responsibility of the FTC or an Attorney General. Although it seems unfortunate because those institutions have limited resources and&#x2F;or might be captured and not willing to pursue such cases.
评论 #19555497 未加载
jrochkind1大约 6 年前
See also:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.journals.uchicago.edu&#x2F;doi&#x2F;abs&#x2F;10.1086&#x2F;694241?journalCode=adx" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.journals.uchicago.edu&#x2F;doi&#x2F;abs&#x2F;10.1086&#x2F;694241?jou...</a><p>Understanding Copyfraud: Public Domain Images and False Claims of Copyright by Chris Needham<p>Copyright fraud or copyfraud—when museums misrepresent or restrict rights in ways that go against public domain copyright law—continues to be a widespread practice even in the years following the 1999 Bridgeman Art Library, LTD. v. Corel Corp. court case. To help clarify this situation, the author first reviews the relevant copyright issues, then considers some of the problems that copyfraud creates in universities, publishing houses, and museums. In conclusion, he explores the ways museums, supported by their librarians and visual resources managers, have recently changed their approach to copyright and copyfraud, and the ways in which this is transforming scholarship and allowing scholars and librarians to better serve the public.<p>[However that article IS copyrighted and paywalled at that URL. doi: 10.1086&#x2F;694241 ]
imhelpingu大约 6 年前
I had to stop releasing music under creative commons because I noticed copyright trolls were trying to claim it was there&#x27;s when some tried to use it as music in their youtube videos. The whole point of releasing under creative commons is so the exact opposite thing happens.
egfx大约 6 年前
Well, at least they didn&#x27;t license gif&#x27;s and left our precious memes alone. Oh wait... GIF.com
jordache大约 6 年前
I hate these guys so much. Give me back full functionality in Google image search.
visarga大约 6 年前
Isn&#x27;t it required to accompany public domain images with their original license?
评论 #19551619 未加载
评论 #19551468 未加载
ck2大约 6 年前
considering banks during the financial-crisis got away without even a penalty, forget prison time, for automating foreclosures on people&#x27;s homes that the bank didn&#x27;t actually own or weren&#x27;t behind on the mortgage, I suspect this crime-via-automation will also not be punished
massysett大约 6 年前
This is sleazy how? Getty has done the work of looking at images and screening them and putting them in a catalog. No more sleazy than Red Hat or Canonical selling support for software it didn’t write. If people want free public domain images, they can search for them. Only problem is, that’s work! Getty did it for you.
评论 #19552682 未加载
评论 #19554262 未加载
评论 #19552265 未加载
评论 #19552283 未加载
评论 #19554826 未加载
评论 #19554733 未加载
评论 #19552359 未加载
caprese大约 6 年前
Getty has a model of convincing people to buy images available for free.<p>There&#x27;s no crime, or damages, in ripping people off.<p>If Getty sues you for thinking you didn&#x27;t have their license for an image in public domain, that&#x27;ll be funny. But thats not currently what they are doing, and when their processes gets to that part of the funnel on occasion, their human lawyer looks at it and decides not to do anything.
评论 #19550755 未加载