Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

[John Walmsley]

On June 19th, Oscar gave us his legal view.  On June 20th, I posted saying I thought he had answered a different question to the one we were discussing.  On July 1st, I asked if Oscar would respond to my post as the issue is important to many cases.

If Oscar has responded, I’ve missed it, so would ask again for him to have another look at the specific issues, please.  That is, where a single copyright holder has contracted with two libraries for each to market the photo and for each to be able to pursue infringements on his behalf.
Thanks,  John Walmsley

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Oscar rarely pokes his head in anymore these days, I actually sent him an email requesting he address your initial question, which he did,  I know he's busy with other matters, if I communicate with him in the near future, I'll ask him to return if he has a few moments.

[John Walmsley]

Robert, that's very kind, thank you.
John Walmsley

[Engel Nyst]

That is, where a single copyright holder has contracted with two libraries for each to market the photo and for each to be able to pursue infringements on his behalf

In the meantime, I suggest to google "Righthaven" and/or "bare right to sue".

The core issue is simple: one can be an enforcement agent, but this agent can't enforce copyright in court.
Unless the agent has exclusive rights. Any division of the copyright rights (reproduction, distribution, etc) would work, but that means that the agent *is* a (c) holder.

An entity w/o some exclusive rights under (c) doesn't have standing.

[John Walmsley]

You may all be aware of this already.  I wasn’t.  A photographer is suing Getty for 1 billion USD for charging for photos of hers when they were in the public domain and she had no relationship with Getty.

She is a very generous photographer and had put her life’s work in the public domain, specifically so they could be used for no fee, by donating them to the Library of Congress while, at the same time, retaining the copyright (I didn’t know you could do that).  It seems Getty ingested 18,000 of them into its system and then, when it found one in use, sent a ‘Getty letter’.  The photographer found out only when she received a ‘Getty letter’ for using her own photo on her own website.

http://www.geek.com/news/getty-images-sued-for-1-billion-by-one-very-generous-photographer-1663844/


The brief:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2249&context=historical

Interestingly, in sections 12 and 13, it is claimed Getty was fined 1 million usd within the previous 3 years in the same court for 17 U.S.C #1202 violations.

Looks likely that Getty was doing no or insufficient due diligence before sending out the letters.

John Walmsley

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

"Looks likely that Getty was doing no or insufficient due diligence before sending out the letters. "


Getty has been doing this for years, why do you think we started this forum? There are too many cases to count where Getty was in the wrong, thus making them the largest copy-right troll in history, right next to Righthaven, and Prenda. I hope Carol sticks to her guns and takes them down, and puts them out of business!

[stinger]

Perhaps that judgement is why Getty is now playing the multiple name game.  They may say Alemy was never fined for this transgression.  My hope is that the court will see through all this corporate BS and exact a proper outcome.

[John Walmsley]

And another big claim against Getty just reported on PDN:
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/08/getty-images-sued-yet-copyright-violations.html

John Walmsley

[Engel Nyst]

She is a very generous photographer and had put her life’s work in the public domain, specifically so they could be used for no fee, by donating them to the Library of Congress while, at the same time, retaining the copyright (I didn’t know you could do that).

Sure you can. Millions of creative works, including photography, are licensed with non-exclusive licenses to the public, to reproduce, display, etc, under certain conditions set by the copyright holder, such as attribution or for non-commercial use only. If the user wants to use the work commercially, they can contact the author for a commercial license - which will likely be for payment of course.

Copyright gives authors a bundle of rights - to reproduce in copies, to distribute, to display or perform publicly - which means they're entitled to exclude everyone else from doing these things, or to authorize one or more people, or all people, to do these things, in exchange for something. It's the very basis for which you can license people to display, in exchange for money.

Creative Commons licenses are well known legal instruments designed for creative authors to share their work while retaining copyright, and requiring conditions for the uses:
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/

This is an example of well known photographer licensing their work with CC-by-NC:
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/02/13/why-photographers-should-stop-complaining-about-copyright-and-embrace-pinterest/

Another post on his choice to not use watermarks too, and why: http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2013/06/25/why-i-dont-use-watermarks/

Another example of photographer deciding to use Creative Commons licenses:
https://medium.com/@samuelzeller/giving-my-images-for-free-8db40f96f292#.hmzg5o6eq

Unfortunately, when Carol Highsmith gave her photos to the Library of Congress, Creative Commons didn't exist yet. It exists only from 2001, and she started in the 1980s IIRC. She uses a different legal instrument:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2250&context=historical

It's much more confusing, as you can see for yourself. It says she granted copyrights to the Library, then that she dedicated them to the public, then she makes restrictions on the uses, with credit, and statements on when the library can reproduce. The judge will need to interpret this document. And most of current lawsuit depends on that interpretation.