Getty For sale

[Moe Hacken]

The image is indeed in the Lindon Baynes Johnson Library website. This is the page with the information, download links at different sizes, and the copyright clearly defined as being in the public domain:

http://www.lbjlibrary.org/collections/photo-archive/photolab-detail.html?id=14

This is the copyright information as stated on the lbjlibrary.org photo archive page:

Public Domain: This image is in the public domain and may be used free of charge without permissions or fees

Now here is the version that is on the Getty Images website as rights-managed, which is the same identical image:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-the-aftermath-of-the-assasination-of-us-president-john-f-news-photo/113493550

On the Getty Images website, the photographer is listed as Universal Images Group. A Google Search reveals them to be "the universal business unit for premium content of the Virtual Picture Desk founded by George Sinclair in 2002. UIG sources, edits and aggregates photographs, prints, lithographs, paintings, engravings, illustrations, footage, video clips and other multimedia content."

http://universalimagesgroup.com/

As Star Trek's Mr. Spock would say: "Illogical."

I suspect it can't be both an image in the public domain and an image that can have a legal copyright owner. So who's wrong? The LBJ Library or "business unit" Universal Images Group — AND Getty Images, their distributor for this image?

The plot thickens ... more to come.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

According to tineye over 100 sites are using that image. This includes this one (near the bottom):
https://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/OFA/gGMKnl

I wonder how many of these sites have received a Getty demand letter.

Although I guess it is technically legal to collect a bunch of images together and offer them for sale, I do not think it is legal to claim that you possess the copyright on these images. This may be another piece of information prospective Getty purchasers may not be aware of. After all, how valuable is your "rights managed" library if a portion of the images are in the public domain?

Owwww.... too. much. salt.

[SoylentGreen]

Getty's been selling public domain images as its own for ages.
We started talking it about here years ago.

Here's a more recent posting by Buddhapi:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-claiming-copyright-to-national-archives-images-and-selling-them/msg3671/#msg3671

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

The company claiming to be the "photographer", Universal Images Group, registered the domain as some company in Great Britain and host their website in Australia:

http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/universalimagesgroup.com

The plot thickens more yet. At this point Mr. Spock would say "Highly illogical."

I tried to search for the image on THEIR website, but they require registration. I tried to register as a "Forum Regular" for the purpose of research. The registration software returned a page saying they will revise my information for "approval" and get back to me by email.

Approval? I'm not asking for credit! Why would they turn down my request to search through their image archive?

This gets weirder with every turn. So, is it legal to sell a work that's in the public domain?

Here's what Wikipedia reports:

The public domain is generally defined (e.g. by the U.S. Copyright Office) as the sum of works that are not copyrighted, i.e.

• that were not eligible for copyright in the first place, or
• whose copyright has expired, or
• that were released into the public domain by the copyright holder.

[/li][/list]
However, there is no such thing as the public domain on the Internet. International treaties, like the Berne Convention, are not self-executing and do not supersede local law. There is no globally valid "International Copyright Law" that would take precedence over local laws. Instead, signatory countries of the Berne Convention have adapted their laws to comply with the minimum standards set forth by the treaty, often with stronger provisions than required. Whether or not something is copyright-free in some country depends on the laws of individual countries.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain

I think both Getty Images and Universal Images Group are skating on thin ice on this one. I don't think the WSJ paid for this editorial use, and I do know that Getty "comps" some big organizations, or maybe has "bulk use" agreements. Maybe the WSJ is one of them. The credit line from a big newspaper certainly has about as much value as an ad in the paper.

[Moe Hacken]

SoylentGreen, if that's the case, could it be that Getty has had the audacity to troll people for using one of the images they scan and appropriate? Why would anyone pay Getty for an image that Jerry says you can find in hundreds or thousands of sites and is officially listed as being in the public domain in the LBJ Library Website? Is Getty just hosing people because they rank higher in Google images than the LBJ Library?

This smells like a rat drowned in shit and no one has ever called them on it? How about we troll Getty for such a fraudulent practice? Why was Buddhapi keeping it a secret? 

By the way, Wikimedia Commons has a HUGE wallpaper size version of this image, and this is the information it provides for the copyright status:

This image is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon_B._Johnson_taking_the_oath_of_office,_November_1963.jpg

As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating."

Maybe we SHOULD troll Getty for this fraudulent and grotesque practice! That would pay for the class action against PicScout!

[SoylentGreen]

Well, it's apparent that Getty's moral compass is rather twisted.

I think that their rationale would be that:
1) the image is public domain, but Getty provides a value-added "service" by "enhancing the image", cataloging and retailing it.
2) because they believe that they have suffered a "loss", they're within their rights to ask for compensation
3) it's not "illegal" for a copyright extortion victim to agree with the above, pay willingly and sign a confidentiality agreement.

That company is twisted, but that's how they think.  I feel sorry for anyone that paid under those conditions.

I don't think that it's illegal to sell public domain images to suckers.
However, if they are operating a formal program that has misled people for years in this regard (that they've infringed on images that are in fact public domain), there's always the spectre that people could unite and litigate over it.

There's been several threads in the past about this, they're worth revisiting.
But, people didn't fight.  So it was merely discussion.

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

You're absolutely right, SoylentGreen. On all counts. The best explanation for why Getty is, er, gettying away with this is that no one has challenged this practice, which has been coined as "Copyfraud" by Jason Mazzone, Associate Professor at Brooklyn Law School:

Mazzone argues that copyfraud is usually successful because there are few and weak laws criminalizing false statements about copyrights and lax enforcement of such laws and because few people are competent enough to give legal advice on the copyright status of commandeered material.[1]:1029-30

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

The state of Copyright Law is weaker than we think! There's plenty of room for improvement as it stands. Like S.G. says, people don't fight and so the trolls are winning by default.

By the way, I searched Google for "is it fraud to sell public domain images?" and Getty images was mentioned all over the first page results. Wow.

[Couch_Potato]

Looking at their editorial policy they do state they access images from the public domain and their charge would be for the service provided of putting them in one place.

They don't offer the images for use in anything but editorial.

However, if they have collected any settlements for the use of public domain photos they couldn't prove were taken from their website they'd be open to a lawsuit.

I imagine they probably are a little more careful with editorial images as I've never come across anyone being asked for a settlement demand for their use.

[Moe Hacken]

You're right, Couch_Potato, it hasn't happened as far as anyone knows — or is able to tell.

If anyone has indeed been trolled for any of the archive images and they settled (like fools!), they were probably forced to sign nondisclosure agreements.

Even if they realized they got hosed, they probably would be too chicken to take on the big bad corporate wolf that is Getty, which is the main reason why they would roll over and pay them in the first place.

[Couch_Potato]

Doing a little research into this issue I've read, but have not confirmed, that some companies will order negatives of the pictures for a fee and then scan them in at a much higher resolution which is why they charge for use.

However, I also read they can't claim copyright on that photo because it's a public domain image and the copyright is held either by a Government or some other organisation.

Probably why we've never heard of an infringement for editorial pictures. Surely they'd have to prove the image was taken directly from the Getty site to make any kind of claim that their copyright was infringed.

Editorial use also seems cheaper than their other licences so I imagine it's not worth them chasing.

[SoylentGreen]

Technically speaking, film has always been orders of magnitude higher in resolution than scans.  But, I guess that's not really the point.

Whether the image is public domain, or owned by an artist/photog, Getty has no right to collect based on the accusation of "infringement" unless Getty owns the image.
To me, there's really no distinction.  Practically everyone that paid Getty was a sucker.

S.G.

[Oscar Michelen]

I'm with SG on this , although I would never use as harsh a word as "sucker," I would say they were "misinformed."

[Matthew Chan]

Ok, I will forego the "sucker" term.

How's this?  I would say many people are also too lazy to do the reading/research, too cheap to get good help, too spineless to stand up for themselves, too stupid to sort this out, or too ignorant of legal matters and concepts.

For me, "misinformed" falls largely into an "ignorant" category. Even when you "point blank" tell people how it is, they still don't get it.  It has nothing to do with being misinformed. It has to do with having a spine and the ability to accept and digest information outside of your normal scope of reference.

[Moe Hacken]

Update: Universal Images Group did get back to me with an answer to my request for an explanation of the attribution of public domain images to their outfit in the Getty editorial catalog. Here's what they wrote:

HI Moe,
Universal Images Group is a supplier of images to Getty.  We aggregate content from museums and private collections and bring them to the marketplace.  So, you’ll likely see a lot of fine art and historical images from UIG on Getty (and other sites).  We also represent individual photographers and contemporary, traditional stock content.
 
There is likely some public domain content within the historical and museum collections we represent. There are also many photographers and stock agencies that will obtain images from government entities, for example NASA, and repurpose them for stock.  The government entity usually just requests that credit be given for each image used )for example “NASA”, “NOAA” etc…).  I think in general many of these public domain images (especially a lot of historic content) would not be available digitally if not for the work of the supplier.  In many cases, the public domain images existed only in transparency or print format before an organization invested time and resources to digitize and keyword the images, and thus they then offer them for licensing in order to justify the investment they made.  I know this is the case with some of the museums and historical collections we represent.  In all honesty, without their investment, a lot of the PD images available through Getty and others would still be sitting in shoeboxes or file cabinets!!
 
I have experience in this industry, but I don’t consider myself an expert.  If you are looking for expert, professional advice for your project I suggest you contact Jim Pickerell (www.jimpickerell.com).  Jim edits an industry newsletter and is widely sought out for expert advice on all things related to stock photography.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he has already published articles on the licensing of public domain images.
 
Good luck,
Dan

Sounds innocent enough, and I agree that people should get paid for their efforts in making these images available in digital form. Someone had to scan the negatives, and hopefully using professional quality equipment.

However, I'm not sure the way to seek compensation for their effort is to sell a license to the public domain image. That's a little too grabby in the intellectual property sense. I think it would be fair to collect a "conversion and distribution fee", something akin to the shipping and handling charges we are used to paying when we order stuff to be delivered to us.

I certainly don't care for the incorrect attribution of the image to anyone except the original photographer. That's just bogus.

[Couch_Potato]

I appreciate that there is a cost in bringing some of these images to market and since I haven't heard of any copyright infringement claims in relation to these images I suppose it doesn't really matter.

I guess if you used the photo without permission they couldn't claim copyright infringement but perhaps they could claim damages in relation to lost income. However with the cost of the use of the images fairly modest in relation to some of Getty's creative works it might not even be worth the effort.