[hncommenter13]

I'm not defending all of Getty's business practices, obviously. But my understanding of what Getty is selling is both convenience and a degree of legal protection for media buyers. If you buy an image from them, they will, in writing, guarantee you that it is legally permissible to use, provided you follow the terms of the agreement.

https://www.gettyimages.com.au/eula [Australian terms], Section 9 reads in part:

Representations and Warranties. Getty Images makes the following representations and warranties:

Warranty of Non-Infringement. For all licensed content (excluding content marked “access only”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not infringe on any copyrights or moral rights of the content owner/creator. Additional Warranties for Certain Content.

RF: For licensed royalty-free content (excluding content marked “editorial” or “intended for editorial”), Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not infringe on any trademark or other intellectual property right, and will not violate any right of privacy or right of publicity.

RM/RR: For licensed rights-managed and rights-ready content where Getty Images specifically notifies you that a model and/or property release has been obtained, Getty Images warrants that your use of such content in accordance with this agreement and in the form delivered by Getty Images (that is, excluding any modifications, overlays or refocusing done by you) will not, where a property release has been obtained, infringe on any trademark or other intellectual property right and/or will not, where a model release has been obtained, violate any right of privacy or right of publicity.

[gcampos]

I don't mind them selling something that is free for $500.

The problem is when they sue people for using public domain images, claiming that they own the picture.

[dylan604]

it gets sticky when you sell your product of work based on a public domain image. maybe the original image that is available in the public domain is dirty, scratches, faded, or any other thing that happens with old images. if they paid to have it restored and are selling the restored image, then that image is not part of the public domain. it's a big bit of spin on this being a possible misunderstanding of what they are doing.

however, with all of the other stories about the original photographer getting served notices of infringement when they have their image on their own site or socials and similar type of just unchecked automation, then yeah, it's hard to be able to give any benefit of the doubt

[radlad]

I don't think that this is accurate, in general. If it is true, it certainly varies by jurisdiction. Here's an interesting read: https://jcms-journal.com/articles/10.5334/jcms.1021217

[trogdor]

Restorations are not eligible for copyright protection.

[dylan604]

then something else can be done to it that does grant them copyright on the work product. similar to modifying the mouse to extend/grant new copyrights

[Name_Chawps]

Link two such lawsuits.

[alexpotato]

> But my understanding of what Getty is selling is both convenience and a degree of legal protection for media buyers.

I don't know if this is still the case (given Spotify/Amazon Music etc) but with regards to convenience:

I remember reading a few years ago that it was almost impossible to find the holder of music copyright for a large portion of the existing catalogue of published music.

This was due to a combination of:

- no central database of ownership

- a LOT of music is produced by small labels

- music copyright ownership tends to change hands for various reasons

I can see how in this domain (and therefore similar domains), having a quick and easy way to say "I need X and I need to know no one is going to sue me for using it" has got to be a service that large corporations are willing to pay for.

[TylerE]

I seriously doubt this is true. Solving this problem is basically why BMI and ASCAP exist.

Where it gets tricky is that with a piece of music, there are at least 3 or 4 different elements that are separately copy written.

You have the basic tune, the specific arrangement, the physical layout and content of the sheet music, the basic copyright of a particular recording, and finally (and most relevant to your example), what are called the synch rights, which are the rights to use a song as a synchronized part of a larger work, like a movie or commercial.

[fencepost]

It's probably both - finding the holders for a lot of music is impossible, but by using BMI or ASCAP you may be able to shift the responsibility to do so to them in their role as PROs.

Not an area I keep up on, but this is interesting regarding how things worked in 2016 and possible recommended changes. https://www.copyright.gov/policy/pro-licensing.pdf Note that it's about Performing Rights Organizations not about Professionals. Of particular interest is the discussion of 100% licensing vs fractional licensing.

[TheHappyOddish]

These both appear to be American businesses serving American users. 95% of the worlds population don't live there. Both copyright laws and rights holders vary significantly around the world. This is far from a solved issue.

[throwawaymaths]

The idea that getty is some sort of RPX is total nonsense.