I don't know much about copyright law but presumably these were technically public domain already, even if they weren't generally available.
I wonder whether they are still of use to scientists.
It looks like they all are compressed with a quality of only 75. Are they available somewhere with better quality? Also is there some metadata available?
I think this is a common misunderstanding. The images are in the public domain. Nothing stops Getty (or you, or anyone) from selling them, even though you can just use them for free.
The value-add service that Getty offers is legal indemnification, i.e. they cover the legal costs if the image turns out to be copyrighted after all. To offer this service they spend some time and money upfront to research images' copyright status.
Whether you think that's good value for money is up to you.
> they spend some time and money upfront to research images' copyright status.
From the discussion a few days ago, that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to be more like they just gamble on not getting caught most of the time.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22340547
If they really do indemnify you, it's actually a pretty huge benefit. It's pretty easy to use content that is 'royalty free' but then get sued later on when you find out it actually wasn't.
I don't misunderstand it at all. I am aware its legal. I just think that getty should be completely transparent about the copyright status, instead of granting a restricted license to use something they don't own the rights to grant in the first place.
The other issue brought up recently is when they try to enforce their licencing of public domain images, which is a lot more shady. Selling you a licence, sure, why not. Complaining you’re using a public domain image without getty’s licence? Threatening legal action over the same?
There may be a lot of value to a lot of their portfolio. But there’s some warty rough edges too.
there was a recent thread on HN about how immoral Getty's business model is, sending veiled treats to people regarding the use of content they don't even own at first place.
28 comments
[ 222 ms ] story [ 197 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3CBOpT2-NRvoc2ecFMDCsA
The value-add service that Getty offers is legal indemnification, i.e. they cover the legal costs if the image turns out to be copyrighted after all. To offer this service they spend some time and money upfront to research images' copyright status.
Whether you think that's good value for money is up to you.
From the discussion a few days ago, that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to be more like they just gamble on not getting caught most of the time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22340547
There may be a lot of value to a lot of their portfolio. But there’s some warty rough edges too.
there was a recent thread on HN about how immoral Getty's business model is, sending veiled treats to people regarding the use of content they don't even own at first place.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22340178
https://www.cunicode.com/works/confusing-coleopterists
Side note: is there something that already exists to modernize old English?
https://www.gbif.org/
https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/gallery?taxon_key=6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Biodiversity_Informatio...