Great post, scraggy! That's the most subtle definition of copyright trolling I've read to date. The quotes around "business model" seem somewhat snarky, yet it's a very polite description of how "certain corporations and individual actors" have picked up on this
modus operandi.
It's also quite generous by stating that they wait until the work goes "viral". Of course there is no evidence to suggest unclean hands yet, so the analysis is quite measured and fair, as one would expect from distinguished law professors.
I find it very intriguing how they describe that the works attain the "viral" status "due to the fact that initially they are distributed freely, often under permission from the original creators."
This speaks to my suspicions about how Vincent Khoury Tylor's images could possibly be found in hundreds if not thousands of websites being offered as free wallpaper. The one person I have spoken to who posted a derivative work on her website based on one of his images told me she got the image from a royalty-free stock photography CD she purchased at a retail store some 10 years ago. She offered the derivative work as a free background image for years, unknowingly "seeding" for VKT.
Assuming this is true, the image could not have been included in a CD without VKT's blessing, and he probably got paid for it at that time. It may be that half his portfolio was included in the CD, which would explain why so many of his photos are so incredibly ubiquitous in the free wallpaper market. Most of the VKT images that are so commonly disseminated are at least 10 years old.
This line in particular fits Hawaiian Art Network LLC like a glove:
At this point, profit driven actors, typically corporations, acquire the rights to the works and launch an aggressive enforcement attack against unsuspecting internet users.
The same paper also makes this statement, which is pretty much the way I see it:
Although copyright law is supposed to balance the interests of copyright holders against those of users, numerous scholars have noted that the design of copyright law is slanted in favor of copyright holders.
On another note, S.G.'s comment is right on the money, so to speak. The price being asked for Getty is definitely high, which is why Bain Capital LLC is not showing interest. Private equity firms make money by buying troubled companies at low prices, then making them viable by cutting costs (usually firing half the staff), taking advantage of whatever support they can get from public sources, and then selling high. Bain Capital did not get so rich buying high from their competitors.
The price structure for Getty's stock photography approximates the costs of hiring top-shelf photographers to shoot custom work for a project. Why anyone would pay Getty instead of hiring a skilled photographer can only be explained by deadline pressure, a common ailment of the communications industry. When you need the shot at lightning speed in the age of instant communications, a service like Getty's would seem like a lifesaving resource, albeit one that will cost dearly.
Enter the competition pushing prices way down in the form of microstock companies. Getty refused to lower their price structures and instead tried to position themselves as a high-quality source. However, the demand for that level of photography dropped way below the level of commercial viability and they had to troll for money in order to monetize the company and get it ready for the selling block before it became obvious they can't survive in the flooded stock photography market we have today.
As S.G. mentions, they probably haven't made enough money trolling, and their model weakens with every failure. The time came to sell the ship before potential buyers realize it's taking water. At this point, the Getty brand is all about its glorious past. I doubt anyone will fork over 3.5-to-4 billion bucks for that portfolio. It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, would bite, and how low Hellman & Friedman LLC are willing to go.
I'd like to add that the timing is precious due to the class action in Israel, which could have a chilling effect on future trolling operations by Getty and the rest of the "corporations and individual actors" who have adopted their "business model."
Topic: Getty For sale (Read 17573 times)