ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Couch_Potato on July 06, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
-
Apparently.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-getty-images-idUSBRE8621CZ20120704
Perhaps we could have a whip round and make a cheeky bid.
-
Wise move!
They are selling before the shit hits the fan! Their "business model" cannot continue unhindered for much longer. The new owners may have to clean up a lot of mess.
"Strategic abuse of intellectual property rights" has even been noticed by law professors in the USA . See , for example, the following quote from page 31 of the recent article ( THE RELATIONAL CONTINGENCY OF RIGHTS ) , that mentions Getty by name!
The authors are Gideon Parchomovsky ( Jr. Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School & Professor of Law, Bar Ilan University School of Law, Israel) and Alex Stein ( Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University )
https://bspace.berkeley.edu/access/content/group/e675b947-6067-425e-adbf-10e8922547b9/03.%20Jan%2030_Alex%20Stein%20-%20The%20Relational%20Contingency%20of%20Rights/RCR_1_18_12.pdf
Importantly, the cost advantage enjoyed by owners of large copyright portfolios
has a profound effect on their primary behavior. First, it induces owners to create
and acquire large portfolios of copyrighted works. For instance, Getty Images
Inc. recently acquired Flickr’s entire collection of images. Following this
acquisition, Getty established an international network of enforcement agencies
and started asserting its rights against users of digital photos all over the world.87
This strategic move is consistent with our analysis, but it is not necessary
disconcerting. Second and much more troubling, certain corporations and
individual actors reportedly adopted a “business model” under which they wait
for certain works to become “viral,” or in ordinary parlance, enjoy wide
distribution over the internet. Works typically attain this status due to the fact that
initially they are distributed freely, often under permission from the original
creators. At this point, profit driven actors, typically corporations, acquire the
rights to the works and launch an aggressive enforcement attack against
unsuspecting internet users.88 The companies’ cost advantage in litigation secures
the attack’s success in virtually every case.89
-
Interesting. Sounds like Getty's a bit overvalued, though.
99 percent of the market demand will be for microstock products very soon.
Getty won't be able to sell much of its rights managed content at high prices.
In addition, Getty hasn't been successful in its court forays.
So, it's difficult for them to extort large ransoms under the phony guise of "infringement".
S.G.
-
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."
-
I remember reading an article back in May about the possibility of Getty going public and being sold but I haven't really heard any more about it so thanks for the post and the update.
After reading the new article I think I'm going to expand my letter writing campaign to include the companies listed in the article as potential buyers. I'm going to let them know that they should look into Getty's current business model of demand letters, look into complaints filed with the Atty. Gen.'s office as well as stop by Eli or just do a simple Google search about the company that they are interested in buying and take a look at what pops up on the first page. Remind them as I'm sure that they know Getty already has a class-action lawsuit against them in Israel and that there's a movement growing in the states for the same thing. So unless they're looking to purchase this company to clean house they might want to consider abandoning ship because Getty should be renamed the Titanic and at this stage in the game the captain has just ordered more speed and they're heading blindly into the ice fields. If Getty wishes to continue pursuing their current business model I don't think it will be too long until they hit the iceberg.
-
If I am the highest bidder and might officially acquire Getty Images as the new owner, I have one thing to do:
I'll call Undertaker from his coffin and bury this troll alive!
Soon enough, R.I.P. Getty Images!!!
-
Greg:
Great idea publicizing Getty's business model to potential buyers. Here are two offshoot ideas for consideration:
- Let's publicize the contact names and addresses of those potential buyers on ELI so we each can write letters talking not only about Getty's business model, but also our personal experience with the firm, what we think of it, etc. Letting potential buyers know the myriad of dastardly things Getty has done to firm up it's position in the Troll business, and how we all feel about that.
- Send a group settlement offer to Getty and their attorneys. Something like, "If you offer to settle and hold harmless the below named individuals and companies from all all actions currently on the table including any alleged copyright violations, the individual group will refrain from publicizing your business practices with potential buyers of Getty Images. We can include some of the write-ups we are contemplating for point 1 above. I know that sounds somewhat extortion like, but it is certainly no worse than what they do.
What do you all think?
-
The potential buyers are private equity firms. They would have already done sufficient research into Getty's activities and most private equity firms only care about profit, not ethics.
The one avenue I thought might be worth a look is checking their accounts with companies house and seeing if it listed how much of it's income was through settlements.
Only problem there is if they are approaching settlements as retrospective licences they may just list that as normal income which would include income from genuine sales.
It may be the case that a potential buyer may not be aware of how much of the income on Getty's accounts is through "retrospective licences" which is an unsustainable business model and open to legal challenge.
If you want to approach potential buyers in private equity approach it from the angle of their bottom line, not their ethical approach.
-
Stinger, I am actually running an experiment I came up with based on this idea but do not wish to discuss it just at this time as I have given Getty a deadline to respond to me. I will know one way or the by the 18th of this month and will make public my experiment as well as the results.
I am also currently compiling such a list of names and addresses in addition to the ones I already have to be used in such a letter writing campaign. Keep your fingers crossed and wish me luck and I'll let everyone know on the 18th.
Greg:
Great idea publicizing Getty's business model to potential buyers. Here are two offshoot ideas for consideration:
- Let's publicize the contact names and addresses of those potential buyers on ELI so we each can write letters talking not only about Getty's business model, but also our personal experience with the firm, what we think of it, etc. Letting potential buyers know the myriad of dastardly things Getty has done to firm up it's position in the Troll business, and how we all feel about that.
- Send a group settlement offer to Getty and their attorneys. Something like, "If you offer to settle and hold harmless the below named individuals and companies from all all actions currently on the table including any alleged copyright violations, the individual group will refrain from publicizing your business practices with potential buyers of Getty Images. We can include some of the write-ups we are contemplating for point 1 above. I know that sounds somewhat extortion like, but it is certainly no worse than what they do.
What do you all think?
-
Couch_potato, while I agree with you that the private equity firms are driven by profit and I'm sure have reviewed Getty's financials I still think that they would have to stop and take notice if they started receiving an influx of angry letters in regards to company they are thinking of acquiring. They are going to be looking to invest their money in companies that can show the a return on their investment and a recently filed $12 million class-action lawsuit in Israel, articles about the possibility of a similar suit in the states, as much negative information about the company showing up on search engine results as other information and then combined with a flood of letters may actually see some results. I have read articles that say Getty is overvalued and with all of these things hitting it once these equity firms wish to continue with the purchase may end up reducing the offer hurting Getty even more.
The letter writing campaign may end up being nothing more than a little salt but a little salt in an open wound hurts like hell. And I'm going to continue to be that irritant to Getty until they back off.
The potential buyers are private equity firms. They would have already done sufficient research into Getty's activities and most private equity firms only care about profit, not ethics.
The one avenue I thought might be worth a look is checking their accounts with companies house and seeing if it listed how much of it's income was through settlements.
Only problem there is if they are approaching settlements as retrospective licences they may just list that as normal income which would include income from genuine sales.
It may be the case that a potential buyer may not be aware of how much of the income on Getty's accounts is through "retrospective licences" which is an unsustainable business model and open to legal challenge.
If you want to approach potential buyers in private equity approach it from the angle of their bottom line, not their ethical approach.
-
Greg, nothing wrong with being the fly in Getty's ointment. I totally agree that any private equity firm is going to look at the purchase of Getty through an economic microscope inside a perfect ethical vacuum. That's what they do.
Their only concern is risk. Their only goal is profit.
Heightening the perception of risk at this delicate time is a very valid way to apply butthurt to the basterds who pioneered the "strategic litigation" and "extortion letter" business model. They're trying to dump the ship before it takes too much water. Their model must be failing or they wouldn't be looking to bail out. The present owners are also a private equity firm and no one could be more aware of the risk involved with Getty's current "value" than they are.
I think your letters could make a difference. Make a strong point and be specific when you tell potential buyers that Getty is a dinosaur at the shore of a massive tar pit. They're top heavy, fat, slow and stupid. They're about to become a fossil, and it's just not worth that much money for a stock photography portfolio that's worth pennies on the dollar due to vicious competition and a legal liability portfolio that grows with every class action likely to be filed against them.
Don't forget to mention PicScout could be challenged on constitutional grounds and lose virtually all of its productive value in the US market. They can figure out what the risk is. That's what they do.
-
Greg, I like your salt in an open wound analogy. To get the maximum effect, I always recommend rubbing the salt into the open wound with some extremely coarse sandpaper.
Safe to say, my fingers and toes are crossed.
Let's do this!
-
Something I'm curious about that perhaps someone here could help with.
I've been searching for more information about Getty's potential sale and came across this website
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304708604577504923941988382.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Nothing much of interest but out of slight boredom I read through the comments. The last comment mentioned that the picture in the article which is accredited to Getty Images is actually a public domain image and provide a link to http://www.lbjlibrary.org/collections/photo-archive.html
If you run a search there for Lyndon Johnson you'll find the image in question. Click it and it confirms the image is public domain and can be used free of charge.
Is it possible that Getty can own the commercial rights to the image but non commercial use is public domain?
-
Excellent catch, Couch_Potato! However, a couple of things need to be checked out.
First, whether or not it's really in the Getty catalog. It could be an editorial error by the WSJ. Those things happen during deadline crunch time.
Another is whether or not Getty Images is offering licensing for the image as a rights-managed image, or just a "legal guarantee" for a public domain image in case a copyright owner shows up and sends an extortion letter.
I can't check on it at this time, but if someone else wants to follow up on it, it could be an interesting case study.
-
I found it on the Getty site under the editorial images rather than creative images which means you can use them in editorials but not for advertisements.
Not sure about licensing but they do charge for the images use if you run it through their quote engine but not sure if that's just the legal guarantee. Leaving work now so can't check it myself until tomorrow, perhaps somebody else could.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :P
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm with SG on this , although I would never use as harsh a word as "sucker," I would say they were "misinformed."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.