Getty asks photographer to pay for her own photo, photographer responds with $1 billion lawsuit

Jul 28, 2016

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Getty asks photographer to pay for her own photo, photographer responds with $1 billion lawsuit

Jul 28, 2016

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

getty_money

Getty can be pretty quick to send out infringement letters, as well they should. In the case of a real infringement, they absolutely must be protecting the rights of their contributors. But what happens when Getty screws up and sends an infringement notice to the creator of the photograph?

What then happens if Getty also try to sell almost 19,000 of the same photographer’s images without permission? Well, that’s what happened to photographer Carol M. Highsmith and she’s suing Getty for the maximum available under the law.

Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, photograph by Carol M. Highsmith
The Library of Congress, Carol M. Highsmith Archive

Inspired by one of her photographic idols, Frances Benjamin Johnston, who donated her life’s work to the Library of Congress in the 1930s, Highsmith wanted to do the same. She began donating her work “to the public, including copyrights throughout the world”, from as early as 1988.

carol_m_highsmith_gift

So, you can imagine Carol was probably somewhat surprised to receive a letter from Getty billing her for the use of her own image. An image she’d donated to the public. Highsmith’s photographs are listed on the Library of Congress website as “Public Domain“. She filed suit on July 25th in federal court in New York.

Her lawsuit says that after receiving the letter in December 2015, she discovered that Getty was also sending similar demand letters to other users of her images.

Highsmith states that she has never abandoned her copyrights to the image. She also says that the Library of Congress had agreed to notify users that she is the author and that they must credit her.

carol_m_highsmith_credit

Highsmith alleges that Getty has not only distributed her images without her permission, but that it has also failed to give her proper credit. In her suit she alleges “gross misuse” of 18,755 of her photographs, and is seeking $1 billion in damages. This seems extraordinarily high, and it is.

She claims that Getty is liable for $468,875,000 ($25K per image) in statutory damages. However, a previous infringement judgement against Getty enables the court to triple the damages. That previous judgment was the result of Morel v Getty, which awarded Morel with a $1.2 million settlement.

Whatever happens, this is going to be an interesting one to follow. When one sues for Copyright infringement, one generally wants to go for the maximum allowed by law. This means there’s room for negotiation while still giving the author what they deserve.

Wherever the final figure ends up, I sure hope the court finds in her favour. On the face of the information so far, this just seems like blatant theft.

Does “Public Domain” mean anybody can do what they want? If so, is Getty right to try and sell copies? Tell us what you think in the comments.

[via PDN]

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

John Aldred

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 responses to “Getty asks photographer to pay for her own photo, photographer responds with $1 billion lawsuit”

  1. Tyler Robert Leno Avatar
    Tyler Robert Leno

    Screw those asshats. Getty is garbage. Note to photographers. Don’t let them take all your damn money!! Sell your work on your own.

  2. Harry Cal Avatar
    Harry Cal

    Kick their butt as hard as possible

  3. Michael Ciurleo Avatar
    Michael Ciurleo

    Stock sites completely ruined the business

    1. Frank Nazario Avatar
      Frank Nazario

      completely agree, but many many photographers made a fortune supplying them ( Chase Jarvis comes to mind as one of them)

  4. Arcmor Avatar
    Arcmor

    I think the people who paid for the images for their use should ask Getty for their money back as obviously they did not need to pay for something that is in public domain.

  5. Hugh Mobley Avatar
    Hugh Mobley

    GOOD ENOUGH!!!

  6. Veselin Lazovic Avatar
    Veselin Lazovic

    can someone explain to me how come corporation can monopolize “public domain”? what is the point of public domain then?