Talk:Getty Images/Archive 1

history
does anyone know if Getty Images is in any way related to the Getty family? (which includes J. Paul Getty, Balthazar Getty).

[I work for Getty Images - It was set up by Jonathan Klein and Mark Getty over a decade ago - which included money from the Getty family but as an investment (which has paid them handsomely!). When the company was recently taken private again they kept that stake. Mark Getty is still on the Board).

The article Getty Images seems suspiciously commercial. Is this actually legitimate? Dori 05:06, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything objectionably 'commercial' about it. It's just a single sentence describing the company.  'One of the world's best known' MAY show a little bias, but it also might be objectively true -- I don't know enough about photo stock agencies.

Check here if you want to see an unbiased view of how large Getty Images is compared to its competitors: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_(GYI)


 * --Morven 07:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I just saw that small blurb with a prominent link to the site and figured someone may have sneaked it in as advertisement for the company. Dori 14:04, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * Googling returns 474,000 hits, and they're on the NYSE. Axlrosen 15:19, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, it was a very small stub originally (see history), only when I wikified it and added the external link that one became a bit too prominent. Maybe someone should try to enlarge the text now, then it will not look like an advertisement anymore. andy 12:03, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The intro seems way too commercial to me. The phrases that really stick out are "leading supplier of stock images" (uncited), "continues to capitalize on the Internet", and the last sentence in the intro.76.22.99.226 (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Amended.--SidiLemine 09:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Their images aren't free to put into Wikipedia
In case any future editors are wondering, the images on the Getty Images website are very restricted legally, have not been licensed under the GFDL or released into the public domain, and cannot be copied and pasted over to Wikipedia to illustrate articles. This came up yesterday. Tempshill 23:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Notability
Is a Wikipedia editor seriously questioning an entry on the world's largest photography company when Wiki is famous for spurious entries about people who merely blog?


 * About it's notability? No - but I am concerned that notability isnt asserted in the article with reliable sources. MidgleyDJ 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright enforcement / Picscout.com
I am currently a Getty Images employee and would like to let you know that this statement -- "Their corporate counsel for copyright enforcement is Laura Malone, who used to work in the entertainment industry as an actress." -- is inaccurate. Laura Malone left Getty Images and joined AP in June 2007. .

I'd like to provide information about the company Getty images uses to enforce their copyrights, Picscout.com. The research is recent and primary from computer professionals' blogs. I'd like to talk about it, and see what information, if any, can be added to the wiki.

Picscout's web crawling robots don't properly identify themselves to webservers, which is not a crime, but rude and shady. discussion: http://incredibill.blogspot.com/2006/11/hunting-picscout-copyright-crawler.html and confirmation of IP address here http://www.a-daily-rant.com/2007/02/06/one-htaccess-file/ and discussion of changing user agents, more ip confirmation here http://www.webmasterworld.com/search_engine_spiders/3151673.htm

I'd like to expand the section about their copyright enforcement, because its a hot topic on the web. The wiki said no lawsuits have been brought against offenders, and part of the reason is because the method by which they pursue supposed violators is with bullying and threat tactics of questionable legality.

This may sound like it's not neutral point of view, but there is proof--the problem is no original research. The method by which they contact supposed infringers is by sending a letter. This letter fails to establish copyright ownership, but demands money be paid for the use of the image.

- The statement above is an interesting point of view and I'm curious as to who posted it? As a Getty Images employee, I am fully aware of these letters to infringers and how they may be received by the recipient. It is important to understand that these letters are also meant to educate the user of their copyright infringement, in addition to recouping the fees owed back to the photographer. In many instances, users don't realize that they needed to license the content for commercial purposes. However, these letters also state that if our reporting is an error, it is recommended that they provide a copy of the sales order, invoice number or other licensing information to refute the claim. We have published various sources of information on this topic, including the links someone had posted below (whoever you are - thank you for sharing!). I do question the inclusion of the link to the "Getty Extortion Letter" as I understood Wikipedia to be informational, not promotional. When clicking through to the website, they advertise they are a source within the Getty Images page on Wikipedia, and collection Donations to support their cause against the infringement letters. I would like to ask if this a fair promotion given the guidelines within Wikipedia? If yes, are we free to insert links to new products that we formally launch? Mmcwhinnie (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)mmcwhinnie 9/16/10 - 19:00 PST


 * I'd like to bring to your attention two sites that have updated information about copyright infringement:

1. The Picture Archive Council of America (PACA), a North American trade association representing the interests of the image licensing industry, has prepared a power point presentation that it will make available to the public that educates users of images as well as visual artists on the basics of copyright. 

2. Getty Images has also prepared a copyright and content licensing informational guide: . This guide is publicly available under "Resources" on Getty Images' Community Involvement page: .

PAY IT FORWARD IN THE UK HAS CLOSED. one image which was less than an inch in size and given by a third party and used on the pay it forward website was later claimed to be owned by getty images. Getty images sent letters demanding payment of over £2,000 for this image. Pay it forward had been running for about 4 OR 5 years as a non profit organisation and has no income for itself although it did raise thousands of pounds for charities by organising music and other charity events. As there was no money to give Getty images then Pay it Forward had to close.There are no plans for this voluntary group to reform as all the members fear they may be sued personally by getty images. They have already hired a UK company who have threatened to name and shame pay it forward on there hall of shame website.


 * Treat it like a C&D. Take down the image and keep your site up. Ignore all their correspondence. You'll never pay a dime. Corey Salzano 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright claimed for PD images?
I have a recently-published book which covers the early years of aviation. All of the images used are said to come from Getty Images. It claims "Photographs (c) 1997 Getty Images". Since some of the early images, e.g. in the first decades of the 20th century, were taken in the USA and Europe by unknown photographers over 70 years ago, these would presumably be otherwise considered as being in the public domain. Is the Getty Images claim legally enforceable? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

filmmagic.com
I would like to download some images from the filmmagic.com website. How do I go about this? The site does not respond to email communications. Drutt (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

pixellating images?
Is it just me or is pixellating the photos that appear in the images of the Getty websites cautious to the point of pathological paranoia? The photos are the entire point of the website, they are an integral part of the website, and including them in a screenshot seems to be unabiguous fair use. Pixellating them renders the screenshots inaccurate. Even useless. It's like including a picture of an album cover in a wikipedia article, but pixellating everything except the band name and title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.116.132 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright enforcement
This section seems to contain contradictory statements, i.e. Which is correct? Was the defendant perhaps not "an individual"? --TraceyR (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "Getty has yet to take any individual to court."
 * 2) "In 2008, Getty Images lost a lawsuit in Germany[16]. Getty claimed unauthorized usage, but the defendant could prove authorized usage as he had bought a retroactive license directly from the photographer."
 * The source claims it was a grad student involved in the lawsuit. I have removed the reference.  Throwaway85 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)