Interesting Getty Case....

It's ridiculous. I doubt that Getty has $1 billion, so she has no chance of getting that, even if it was awarded to her.

It would make more sense to claim an amount closer to what she would have lost in sales. There is no way she has lost anywhere near this amount or even 1/1000 of it.


Steve.
 
It's not about what she lost, but rather the potential given the amount of images Getty are licensing. I think she's making a point rather than after money. After all, she donated all her work free to the Library of Congress. Does that sound like someone after making money to you?
 
After reading the link, Getty tried to charge her for publishing one of her photo's on her website, you couldn't make it up! ...They deserve to be heavily penalized and know better, after sending demanding letters/bills to her.


"However, Highsmith says she never abandoned her photo copyrights, and says she found out about Getty Images charging for her photos when she was sent a letter from Getty that demanded she pay for her own photo that was being displayed on her own website."
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's about the money, after all she donated the images to the library of Congress. It's more about the fact they have done what they did. Principles.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's ridiculous. I doubt that Getty has $1 billion, so she has no chance of getting that, even if it was awarded to her.

It would make more sense to claim an amount closer to what she would have lost in sales. There is no way she has lost anywhere near this amount or even 1/1000 of it.


Steve.
Click to expand...
I would expect Getty have insurance, they don't need to have a billion in the bank.

If you look at precedent there and the number of photos and infringements alledged, it works out at a lot more than one billion.
 
Wow, this is going to be an interesting case. Interesting to see Getty on the kind of 'other side of the legal coin'.
 
$1bn is a negotiating position - they'll probably settle it out of court for several million ... Last time this happened was in 2013 with Getty vs Daniel Morrel when they were found to have used his images of the haiti earthquake from his twitter account without permission they were ordered to pay $1.2M

That said Getty probably do have $1bn - their parent company Carlyle venture capital , paid $3.3bn for them in 2012 , and according to the bloomberg company report they (Getty) did the best part of $200M in business in the last quarter of 2015
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
BBR said:
Maybe maybe not, but the top4 insurance companies have assets greater than 500 bn, the top 50 have assets greater than 20 bn. They are used to this level of claim in U.S, I suspect.
Click to expand...

No insurance company is going to pay this much out. There is no way on earth that her losses are even a small fraction of this amount.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
No insurance company is going to pay this much out. There is no way on earth that her losses are even a small fraction of this amount.


Steve.
Click to expand...


Who cares about losses? The case is being heard in the USA.

Why do you always try to lowball everyone?
 
Steve Smith said:
No insurance company is going to pay this much out. There is no way on earth that her losses are even a small fraction of this amount.


Steve.
Click to expand...

The amount claimed is based on the morell case against Getty for a single photo, and then multiplied by the number of images, which comes to just under a billion. We're talking a substantial number of images, a life's work.
 
Interesting case. What a cheek. Surely they can work out what Getty have made charging for her images over the years? She's not lost in sales as she wasn't selling them but they've ripped off a load of people given her donation...
 
Surely if she donated the images, she handed over copyright?

(If not, she merely gave LoC a license to use them, and the word donated shouldn't be used)
 
Weren't they donated to LoC so that anyone could use them without paying for copyright? So how does that translate into Getty owning the copyright? Surely she's not saying Getty can't use them but that they can't sell them and legally threaten others for using them.
 
Getty are not about images, they're about litigation, enforcement and lawsuits.
Unfortunately, they messed up, which when you behave like they do, was bound to happen sooner or later.
Its probably too late anyway, Getty are too big and too powerful to just disappear down the plughole after one big lawsuit, their legal team will take this in and out of court on technicalities and interpretation for a hundred years, because that's their real business.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top