Interesting Article from a Pissed Getty Contributor

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I've been running the same scenario around in my head that Stinger mentions.. I'm a google drive user, and also creates docs within google.... I could easily see the following happen..


I "create" a doc in google doc, and insert one of these images, which says I can do for "commercial purposes" I then save my google doc as a pdf and throw it up on my site.. I'd be willing to bet Getty or the artist will come knocking..As far as I'm concerend I'm in the clear, the pdf came from a document that was created using google docs and google drive..just a matter of time before this becomes an issue, unless Getty backtracks and removes these images and pulls out of this "contract" with Google...

[SoylentGreen]

Yes, I concur that Stinger and Buddhapi.

However, I doubt that Getty/Google have set out to "seed" images in order to induce infringements.

I'm sure that the average person may assume that the images are akin to "free clipart", and use them for other purposes.
Getty trolls the Web 24/7 looking for "copyright infringements", so it's logical to assume that the images in question could become part of the problem.

According to Getty, these images are royalty-free.  Traditionally, Getty hasn't pursued infringements for its royalty-free collections.
But, let's keep an eye on it...

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Yes, I concur that Stinger and Buddhapi.

However, I doubt that Getty/Google have set out to "seed" images in order to induce infringements.

I'm sure that the average person may assume that the images are akin to "free clipart", and use them for other purposes.
Getty trolls the Web 24/7 looking for "copyright infringements", so it's logical to assume that the images in question could become part of the problem.

According to Getty, these images are royalty-free.  Traditionally, Getty hasn't pursued infringements for its royalty-free collections.
But, let's keep an eye on it...

S.G.

yes "royalty Free" containing models, and contributor family members without model releases.. Getty really screwed up with this little project... They pay Joe photog a whopping 12 bucks, I come along and use that image that just happens to have Joe photogs aunt Linda in it.... Aunt Linda now becomes my spokes model for a the latest and greatest anti troll butt cream... sorry photog getty paid you, Aunt Linda should be proud!

[SoylentGreen]

Just curious... is it in law that there must be a model release for an image to be considered "royalty free"?

Another concern of mine is that Getty can move images from RF to RM without notice.
Even if this is done will no ill intent, people could be getting Getty extortion letters in regard to these images two, three, or five years from now.
If one can't prove that the images were RF "back in the day", it's a huge hassle for the alleged infringer.
The alleged infringer just gets a raft of letters demanding money if he/she doesn't have a license.

Hell, who even knows if Getty's people remember what the status of any given image was even a few years ago?

S.G.

[stinger]

Soylent, I am not certain where you get the facts to back up this statement. 

Traditionally, Getty hasn't pursued infringements for its royalty-free collections.

I am in possession of a McCormack legal letter that is about nothing but Getty Royalty Free Images.  In fact, the images are all still on the Getty Royalty Free page.  And their asking price is quite high.

[SoylentGreen]

Then, I stand corrected, Stinger.

I'm curious.  In your case, do they claim that these images are RM (in their letters to you)?

S.G.

[stinger]

They only claim that they are images represented by Getty Images.  They do not claim that they are rights managed.

[SoylentGreen]

Ok.  Thanks.
Well, it doesn't sound like they have "exclusivity", then.

What a bunch of a-holes.

S.G.

[SoylentGreen]

Mr Stinger, it seems that Mr. McCormack of McCormack law disagrees with you.
From his faq:

Q: I found the images on the Internet or the Getty Images website; aren’t these free or “Royalty-Free” images?
 
A: Although we understand you may have believed the images were available for free use, all images represented by Getty Images require an appropriate license for their use. “Royalty-free” does not mean that the images are free; it is an industry phrase that refers to a licensing model where the user pays once and has the continuing right to use the image without additional royalty payments. In any event, the images referenced in our settlement demand are not available from Getty Images under a royalty-free licensing model.

http://www.mccormacklegal.com/blog/getty-images-demand-frequently-asked-questions

McCormack must be lying again.

S.G.

[stinger]

Thanks S.G.,

I am just going to take a stab at what happened here.  Perhaps someone actually sent that question in, in response to a troll letter.  Maybe in their case, royalty free images were not involved.  Then, when someone put up McCormack's FAQ page from questions and answers they had lying around, they took the specific response and generalized it.

Having been on this forum as long as you have, you know that you can't take much of anything McCormack says to heart.  There is not much quality control in their content, or their grammar for that matter.  In any case, I do not expect that just because that statement exists on their web site, it can be used as a defense in court.

This is likely just another case of their using language (improperly) to try and make them look better than they are.