|
|
|
|
|
by mmwako
1225 days ago
|
|
Just read the first article. Getty Images was sued by a photographer for using 18.000 her public domain images for profit by Getty. The ruling DISMISSED the allegation, which is crazy. It's comical that now it's exactly the same allegation, but with the sides inverted, now it's Getty trying to sue an AI company for using their public domain images. I think we can all guess what's going to happen xD |
|
You can use public domain images for profit. It's not surprising this was thrown out.
> It's comical that now it's exactly the same allegation, but with the sides inverted, now it's Getty trying to sue an AI company for using their public domain images.
Where does it say they're suing over the public domain images in their collection? Their collection is not entirely public domain images. Their suit claims for the copyright works by staff photographers, third parties that have assigned copyright, and images licensed to them by contributing photographers. In addition, they're claiming for the titles and captions which they created and are themselves copyrighted.
It's not the "exact same allegation", and there's really no relation between the facts of the cases here.