I don't understand your point. If you hate copyright and IP, then you inherently also have to believe Getty should be allowed to take public domain photos (or someone else's photos) and sell them.

They have the right to sell them. I'm not sure it's ethical to do so for $1k/image.

It's definitely not OK that they billed the photographer who took the public domain photos for using them on her own site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._Highsmith#Getty_Image...

I think people buy public domain images from Getty, because Getty will be liable in case that an unknown license of a public domain image suddenly pops up. Means they protect their customers from IP trolls.

That being said, anything published on the web should be free. E.g. if some don't want their image to be used, they should not publish it publicly in the first place.

If you're using my IP without my permission, saying your friend told you it was actually his IP isn't a valid defence.

I mean, maybe you can sue your friend later on, but that's between you and him.

All that matters to me is that you've used my IP without my permision.

I'd never heard of this before so I searched it and the first result turned up this[0] (see lines 2-4/Exhibit A). Big jump from selling public domain images to seeking out payment for public domain images.

[0] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3001353/Filed-Com...

They shouldn't be able to threaten legal action for those who acquire public domain images elsewhere, just because they choose to fraudulently license them.

Agreed. It was a (shitty) mistake and they apologized immediately. This was not part of the court case, and Getty has never argued they should have been able to do this.

I imagine they automate copyright takedown notices, and there was a bug somewhere. It's not great, but I don't believe it was malice.

> If you hate copyright and IP

Are you responding to someone else? Wrong thread? Because I haven't expressed that sentiment here.

> you inherently also have to believe Getty should be allowed to take public domain photos (or someone else's photos) and sell them.

Are you responding to someone else? Wrong thread? Because I never said they shouldn't be allowed to profit off public domain photos.

There is profit, and then there's just fucking people over. $1000 for a photo they didn't take and didn't pay for is just disgusting. All it does is restrict access to historical photos to 99% of the world, allowing only the very rich access to this window into our past.

Maryam Jafri has had a small installation called "Getty vs. Ghana" (https://www.maryamjafri.net/gettyVsGhana.htm) that was once shown in the MAC/VAL.