[Prowler]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Sites like say Bharat Rakshak or Getty Pictures (just using them as an example)paste their watermarks over each photo on their site. But those photos don't belong to Bharat Rakshak - many belong to the Indian Armed Forces or individuals who served in them and several are in books of earlier years long before internet.

Taking images from Getty Images is the easiest way for litigation as they employ highly paid attorneys who lie in wait and pounce on the publications/ websites and extract their pound of flesh. There are dozens of sites who offer high quality images at reasonable prices. The license usually allows you to publish the images or their derivative works.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Prowler

Taking images from Getty Images is the easiest way for litigation as they employ highly paid attorneys who lie in wait and pounce on the publications/ websites and extract their pound of flesh. There are dozens of sites who offer high quality images at reasonable prices. The license usually allows you to publish the images or their derivative works.

Prowler, Thank you for your information.

Experts,
The photos on the Indian Navy and IAF that show up on Getty Images possibly could not belong to them. Many are from the 1940s and 50s and 60s. Some of them I know were originally shot by our armed forces or individuals therein and yet Getty Images puts it on their content with their own water mark. I would be grateful if you could through light on this. Thanks in advance.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The photos on the Indian Navy and IAF that show up on Getty Images possibly could not belong to them. Many are from the 1940s and 50s and 60s. Some of them I know were originally shot by our armed forces or individuals therein and yet Getty Images puts it on their content with their own water mark.

Getty will have some kind of audit trail to prove they bought it from the rightful owner. It is their bread-n-butter business model. They will even know the photographer from whom they bought it.

About 10 years ago, Getty sent a legal notice to my company because our corporate website had a Getty image. The firm that designed our web site had simply borrowed the image from Internet. We had to pay $1000 fine, or contest in court. As anyone can imagine, we paid the $1000 than spend 10 times that on a law suit.

[am1m]

Ah the infamous Getty extortion letters. I used to work in Web design and we were pretty careful about using images off the Web. Getty was pretty infamous back then itself. Looks like they're still at it, vultures!

And going by this article, they probably didn't even need to buy the images, if they were put up online in the public domain: https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-b...-bang-whimper/

On one hand you can say, it's their business, they have the legal right to make money like this. And it is true that here in our country we're still pretty lax about copyright, especially online. But Getty's tactics are basically a big corporation flexing their legal and money muscle. Surprised to hear that they sent you, an Indian company, a notice 10 years ago, was it through an Indian law firm?

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by am1m

Surprised to hear that they sent you, an Indian company, a notice 10 years ago, was it through an Indian law firm?

No, it was to the US office address.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Getty will have some kind of audit trail to prove they bought it from the rightful owner. It is their bread-n-butter business model. They will even know the photographer from whom they bought it.

About 10 years ago, Getty sent a legal notice to my company because our corporate website had a Getty image. The firm that designed our web site had simply borrowed the image from Internet. We had to pay $1000 fine, or contest in court. As anyone can imagine, we paid the $1000 than spend 10 times that on a law suit.

Thank you Samurai. Useful.

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The photos on the Indian Navy and IAF that show up on Getty Images possibly could not belong to them. Many are from the 1940s and 50s and 60s. Some of them I know were originally shot by our armed forces or individuals therein and yet Getty Images puts it on their content with their own water mark.

According to this article, the US courts agree with Getty's argument that:

public domain works are regularly commercialized, and the original author holds no power to stop this.

So if the original owner of those Navy/IAF photos has released them into the public domain, it could be a similar case that has led to Getty watermarking them.

I do not agree with and cannot understand the court's ruling - in my eyes, if something is in the public domain, it is for the benefit or all, and not the profit of one.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

So if the original owner of those Navy/IAF photos has released them into the public domain, it could be a similar case that has led to Getty watermarking them.

I do not agree with and cannot understand the court's ruling - in my eyes, if something is in the public domain, it is for the benefit or all, and not the profit of one.

Well, if you use the image without the Getty watermark, then you are good. But if you use the watermarked image, that means Getty is your source. I think that is how they play it.

BTW, they have hidden watermarks that can't be seen unless you know how to look for it.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Samurai

But if you use the watermarked image, that means Getty is your source.

You mean like like this? - https://twitter.com/blrcitytraffic/s...49789053329409

This should be interesting.

[Samurai]

I doubt the Getty lawyers will go after a police department in a developing country. Besides, it is not a commercial usage.

[Prowler]

Getty Attorneys are no body's fools. They would only target entities which make money or easy targets. I have seen many Indian Newspapers using Getty's images without any issues. Probably they didn't come under Getty's radars yet.