5 ms·

If they are public domain you can do with it whatever you want. Also republish them, charge money for it or limit usage. That's the point of it. So everything i

If they are public domain you can do with it whatever you want. Also republish them, charge money for it or limit usage. That's the point of it. So everything is fine. BUT, if someone prints the images and ignores any usage limits and then gets sued you might just get a jail free card because you can claim that's anyway public domain.

diffeomorphism 7y ago
> Also republish them, charge money for it or limit usage Of your copy or derivative work, not of the public domain one you copied. The fact that they tried to force their limits on other people using the public domain works is what is the issue here and is not fine. > you might just get a jail free card because you can claim That seems entirely the wrong way around. Getty knows it is public domain because that is where they got it from. The fact that they sue for damages despite this should put them in contempt of court and not me in a position where I have to defend myself.
- smaryjerry 7y ago
  You are dead right but I wonder if the article is badly representing the story or her lawyers were bad because Getty won the lawsuit anyways. Perhaps she did download the photo from Google images or something and it did have Getty watermark in it when she used it. Otherwise I see this as a slam dunk against Getty.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    What lawsuit did Getty win? The article says they haven't responded formally to her suit yet, and it doesn't mention them suing her.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      The article is from 2016. Links to the outcome of the lawsuit are further up the thread.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    From the representation of her story in the article, it hardly seems like Getty has caused her a billion dollars in damages. It's a slam dunk that Getty did something wrong, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily owe her any money.
daveFNbuck 7y ago
You may be able to limit usage of your own derivative works, but you can't just declare that everyone using a public domain image owes you royalties.
Hamuko 7y ago
Like blackmail people into paying a licensing fee with the threat of legal action?

diffeomorphism 7y ago

> Also republish them, charge money for it or limit usage Of your copy or derivative work, not of the public domain one you copied. The fact that they tried to force their limits on other people using the public domain works is what is the issue here and is not fine. > you might just get a jail free card because you can claim That seems entirely the wrong way around. Getty knows it is public domain because that is where they got it from. The fact that they sue for damages despite this should put them in contempt of court and not me in a position where I have to defend myself.

smaryjerry 7y ago
You are dead right but I wonder if the article is badly representing the story or her lawyers were bad because Getty won the lawsuit anyways. Perhaps she did download the photo from Google images or something and it did have Getty watermark in it when she used it. Otherwise I see this as a slam dunk against Getty.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  What lawsuit did Getty win? The article says they haven't responded formally to her suit yet, and it doesn't mention them suing her.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    The article is from 2016. Links to the outcome of the lawsuit are further up the thread.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  From the representation of her story in the article, it hardly seems like Getty has caused her a billion dollars in damages. It's a slam dunk that Getty did something wrong, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily owe her any money.

daveFNbuck 7y ago

You may be able to limit usage of your own derivative works, but you can't just declare that everyone using a public domain image owes you royalties.

Hamuko 7y ago

Like blackmail people into paying a licensing fee with the threat of legal action?