Highsmith v. Getty (Blown to Smithereens)

[Thlayle]

I learned of this case through a post here at CIC:

http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-bi...-bang-whimper/

There was a settlement award, but it had nothing to do with the copyright laws.

[chauncey]

Aah...you make your images public domain...but only sometimes...don't understand.

[billtils]

The decision that the creator of the work had given away the right of ownership by placing the the original into the public domain seems reasonable enough. What does not seem at all reasonable is that Getty is then charging people for using that same public domain work. Either it's in the public domain, in which case nobody has any right to claim ownership, or it isn't, in which case copyright belongs to the originator of the work.

[Tringa]

The decision that the creator of the work had given away the right of ownership by placing the the original into the public domain seems reasonable enough. What does not seem at all reasonable is that Getty is then charging people for using that same public domain work. Either it's in the public domain, in which case nobody has any right to claim ownership, or it isn't, in which case copyright belongs to the originator of the work.

This is what baffled me too, Bill. It baffled me so much that I googled 'Highsmith v Getty'. There are lots of hits but this one, if it is accurate, gives an explanation.

Dave

[Tringa]

Just realised the link in my post above is not there. This is the one I meant to include -

http://artlawjournal.com/1-billion-getty-lawsuit/

To me there seems to be something wrong with the law around Public Domain images.

If the person responsible for an image says, "OK this is in the public domain now and anyone can use it", the effect should be just that - anyone can use it for free, not anyone is able to charge multiple times for an image to which they had no input at all.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

If the person responsible for an image says, "OK this is in the public domain now and anyone can use it", the effect should be just that - anyone can use it for free, not anyone is able to charge multiple times for an image to which they had no input at all.

A lot of people wouldn't know about the images or have reasonable access to them if it were not for the sellers who are promoting them. If the buyers want to refuse to pay because they can get the image for free, they have that right. And if the makers of the images don't want anyone other than themselves to profit from their image for whatever ideology they subscribe to, they don't have to make it available in the public domain. That seems to me to be an ideal system because it probably addresses almost everybody's needs, recognizing that no public policy will ever meet absolutely everyone's needs.

As an example, all the music of the famous classical music composers that died centuries ago are in the public domain. If a publisher or recording company wasn't able to make a profit selling the printed and recorded music, society would have far more limited access than exists today to that music in all the forms it is regularly distributed.

[Thlayle]

Mike,

That makes perfect sense to me, but maybe I'm even more confused now. How is it that Getty was even demanding payment from her in the first place? There was an out of court settlement over the use of 'deceptive business practices'. Apparently, the details of that settlement were not made public. So: was Getty trying to collect from a person who did in fact publish their own free copy that wasn't obtained from them? If so, have they been doing this before?

Some fellow photographer I am acquainted with told me that Getty has a pretty bad reputations for sketchy practices like this.

I don't know but it seems like the story here is that Getty was out to intimidate anyone trying to do just what IS allowed in the public domain when they (Getty) happened to hold a license for their copies.

[Mike Buckley]

How is it that Getty was even demanding payment from her in the first place?

Getty apparently acknowledged that that was inappropriate but an honest accident.

[chauncey]

What we fail to mention is that, in the USA...anyone can sue anybody for anything.
Could be because we have an excess of lawyers.

[Thlayle]

What we fail to mention is that, in the USA...anyone can sue anybody for anything.
Could be because we have an excess of lawyers.

True enough and maybe this is a good example why that is a good thing. And Mike, I still question how honest this "accident" was.

[Mike Buckley]

I still question how honest this "accident" was.

A healthy sense of skepticism is, well, healthy.

[tao2]

The Gettys? A byword for immoral and unethical behaviour...

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Getty-...Owners-1157377

http://www.zyra.info/getstu.htm

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/image...ranco-de-bonis


https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/02/13/death-by-ethics-john-paul-getty-iii/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/arts/design/an-odyssey-in-antiquities-ends-in-questions-at-the-getty-museum.html?_r=0

JPaul Getty was famous for saying "You can only be in love if you fail in business"...5 ex-wives...

Or this from a coupla years ago....may put an end tae these practices...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26463886