"Because someone had to fight for photographers"
November 25, 2013 6:39 AM Subscribe
Haitian photographer Daniel Morel has been awarded $1.22 million on a copyright claim against Agence France-Presse and Getty Images (previously)
A Manhattan jury found that Agence France-Presse and its American distributor Getty Images willfully infringed upon Mr. Morel’s copyright of eight pictures he took of the 2010 Haiti earthquake and awarded him $1.22 million. NYT.
Timeline of events:
1. Morel uploads photos from the 2010 Haitian earthquake via Twitpic.
2. Twitter user Lisandro Suero retweeted the photos, claiming they were his.
3. AFP took the photos and distributed them to clients for $45.
4. Getty Images distributed the photos in the US.
5. The photos were used on NYT.com, the Washington Post, ABC, and others. (They settled out of court.)
6. Morel sues.
7. AFP sues Morel, claiming he's interfering with their business practices.
8. "...the agency argued that Twitter’s terms of service allowed them to use the images once they were posted. In January 2011, a Federal District Court judge ruled against the agency and said that it needed Mr. Morel’s permission to publish his photographs."
9. A jury decides that the agencies willfully violated his copyright and award Morel over $1 million in damages.
More details from the case.
A Manhattan jury found that Agence France-Presse and its American distributor Getty Images willfully infringed upon Mr. Morel’s copyright of eight pictures he took of the 2010 Haiti earthquake and awarded him $1.22 million. NYT.
Timeline of events:
1. Morel uploads photos from the 2010 Haitian earthquake via Twitpic.
2. Twitter user Lisandro Suero retweeted the photos, claiming they were his.
3. AFP took the photos and distributed them to clients for $45.
4. Getty Images distributed the photos in the US.
5. The photos were used on NYT.com, the Washington Post, ABC, and others. (They settled out of court.)
6. Morel sues.
7. AFP sues Morel, claiming he's interfering with their business practices.
8. "...the agency argued that Twitter’s terms of service allowed them to use the images once they were posted. In January 2011, a Federal District Court judge ruled against the agency and said that it needed Mr. Morel’s permission to publish his photographs."
9. A jury decides that the agencies willfully violated his copyright and award Morel over $1 million in damages.
More details from the case.
Sucks to be Getty, I guess. Still, shows the importance of getting releases and making sure people are who they say they are and not just pulling stuff off the Internet and assuming all is good.
posted by Artw at 6:52 AM on November 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 6:52 AM on November 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
7. AFP sues Morel, claiming he's interfering with their business practices.
Yeah, that's the part where the went from somebody whose argument I was, at least, willing to listen to 'yeah, fuck off.'
Doesn't a news agency like this who runs and SELLS photographs of which they basically have no idea of the provenience really run the risk of running faked photography? Or am I just hopefully naive to think they might care?
posted by MCMikeNamara at 6:53 AM on November 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Yeah, that's the part where the went from somebody whose argument I was, at least, willing to listen to 'yeah, fuck off.'
Doesn't a news agency like this who runs and SELLS photographs of which they basically have no idea of the provenience really run the risk of running faked photography? Or am I just hopefully naive to think they might care?
posted by MCMikeNamara at 6:53 AM on November 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Not that AFP == France and Morel == Haiti, but I'm loving the idea of France having to pay Haiti reparations. The AFP countersuit seems somehow apt too.
(Now, where's the other $17 billion or so, France?)
posted by kmz at 6:55 AM on November 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
(Now, where's the other $17 billion or so, France?)
posted by kmz at 6:55 AM on November 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Good for him. On the other hand, I've over a half dozen questions on the green from people who want to starts blogs, Tumblrs, FB pages for various reasons and seem to think it's okay to wander around Twitpics and Google Images, plucking as they go.
posted by Ideefixe at 6:59 AM on November 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 6:59 AM on November 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Or am I just hopefully naive to think they might care?
Something this newsworthy, they're often more concerned with getting it first than getting it right.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:02 AM on November 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Something this newsworthy, they're often more concerned with getting it first than getting it right.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:02 AM on November 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, I've over a half dozen questions on the green from people who want to starts blogs, Tumblrs, FB pages for various reasons and seem to think it's okay to wander around Twitpics and Google Images, plucking as they go.
One of the largest new services in the world and one of the largest photo agencies in the world appropriating content is slightly different from a random Tumblr.
posted by kmz at 7:05 AM on November 25, 2013 [12 favorites]
One of the largest new services in the world and one of the largest photo agencies in the world appropriating content is slightly different from a random Tumblr.
posted by kmz at 7:05 AM on November 25, 2013 [12 favorites]
Still, shows the importance of getting releases and making sure people are who they say they are and not just pulling stuff off the Internet and assuming all is good.
While this verdict is exactly as it should be, the above is why I find #5 troubling. My understanding is that the New York Times, Washington Post etc. licensed the photos from Getty. Surely the financial exposure should be Getty's.
posted by DarlingBri at 7:07 AM on November 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
While this verdict is exactly as it should be, the above is why I find #5 troubling. My understanding is that the New York Times, Washington Post etc. licensed the photos from Getty. Surely the financial exposure should be Getty's.
posted by DarlingBri at 7:07 AM on November 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, I've over a half dozen questions on the green from people who want to starts blogs, Tumblrs, FB pages for various reasons and seem to think it's okay to wander around Twitpics and Google Images, plucking as they go.
I know of at least one semi-big blog that asks its staff to credit only social media sites; I don't think they license anything, since a lot of their photos are just taken from Pinterest. I hope that cases like this will cause media outfits of all kinds to reconsider their policies. (And frankly, I hope that future digital images will have better kinds of embedded info, like a coded watermark, for copyright and permalinks or something like that.)
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:19 AM on November 25, 2013
I know of at least one semi-big blog that asks its staff to credit only social media sites; I don't think they license anything, since a lot of their photos are just taken from Pinterest. I hope that cases like this will cause media outfits of all kinds to reconsider their policies. (And frankly, I hope that future digital images will have better kinds of embedded info, like a coded watermark, for copyright and permalinks or something like that.)
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:19 AM on November 25, 2013
Not that AFP == France and Morel == Haiti, but I'm loving the idea of France having to pay Haiti reparations.
"AFP is a government-chartered public corporation operating under a 1957 law, but is officially a commercial business independent of the French government."
Haiti's independence and the ransom charged by France were and are indeed a travesty, one decried in France. Roughly comparable to how Thanksgiving is decried as a celebration of tragedies wrought upon North Americans.
posted by fraula at 7:19 AM on November 25, 2013
"AFP is a government-chartered public corporation operating under a 1957 law, but is officially a commercial business independent of the French government."
Haiti's independence and the ransom charged by France were and are indeed a travesty, one decried in France. Roughly comparable to how Thanksgiving is decried as a celebration of tragedies wrought upon North Americans.
posted by fraula at 7:19 AM on November 25, 2013
While this verdict is exactly as it should be, the above is why I find #5 troubling. My understanding is that the New York Times, Washington Post etc. licensed the photos from Getty. Surely the financial exposure should be Getty's.
Well we don't have the settlement agreement for those parties, who settled out of court, right? So it's very possible that they didn't suffer much financial liability, that it was a token settlement. We don't really know.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:39 AM on November 25, 2013
Well we don't have the settlement agreement for those parties, who settled out of court, right? So it's very possible that they didn't suffer much financial liability, that it was a token settlement. We don't really know.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:39 AM on November 25, 2013
They should have copied the photos then anonymously uploaded them to WikiMedia with a creative-commons license, then used them and denied knowing anything about it.
Sometimes these large corporations are really dumb.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:40 AM on November 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Sometimes these large corporations are really dumb.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:40 AM on November 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm amazed Getty and AFP were willing to distribute the photos without a signed license in hand. This is their entire business model. They have swarms of lawyers to prosecute other people for using their images without a proper license, how did they get the idea they'd be able to get away with it themselves?
posted by echo target at 9:25 AM on November 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by echo target at 9:25 AM on November 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
how did they get the idea they'd be able to get away with it themselves?
Those swarms of lawyers they have - the same ones who suggested the counter suit.
posted by tommyD at 9:29 AM on November 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Those swarms of lawyers they have - the same ones who suggested the counter suit.
posted by tommyD at 9:29 AM on November 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
A shocking amount of their business runs on muddling through and taking things on trust. Apparently it's standard practice to bill magazine publishers by buying their magazines, having someone go through all the pages for anything that looks like its one of the agencies images, then sending a bill.
posted by Artw at 9:30 AM on November 25, 2013
posted by Artw at 9:30 AM on November 25, 2013
amazed Getty and AFP were willing to distribute the photos without a signed license in hand. This is their entire business model.
But they didn't. Getty, at least, had licenses from AFP. Its just that AFP had no rights to grant those licenses. Getty had no way of knowing that, nor did the newspapers and websites that in turn licenced from Getty. They were basically defrauded by AFP.
posted by DarlingBri at 10:37 AM on November 25, 2013
But they didn't. Getty, at least, had licenses from AFP. Its just that AFP had no rights to grant those licenses. Getty had no way of knowing that, nor did the newspapers and websites that in turn licenced from Getty. They were basically defrauded by AFP.
posted by DarlingBri at 10:37 AM on November 25, 2013
Meanwhile did they have a deal with this Lisandro Suero?
Twitters like Deviant Art or Tumblr though - assume everyone is lying about attribution at all times.
posted by Artw at 11:03 AM on November 25, 2013
Twitters like Deviant Art or Tumblr though - assume everyone is lying about attribution at all times.
posted by Artw at 11:03 AM on November 25, 2013
From a certain level of personal experience with Getty--I am not an employee of Getty, and this is my own opinion--on the whole I have to defend them. In general, I have seen them act honorably and with concern for people.
They work very hard to make sure that licensing is in place and is documented. And they are dependent on partners to honor their agreements, especially when the timeliness of editorial images is crucial. If AFP provided Daniel Morel's images to Getty under the circumstances described, the images may have been snapped up by Getty customers before Getty had an opportunity to learn that AFP did not secure the proper licensing.
Yes, Getty is a big corporation. However it is not a publicly traded corporation. The management at Getty therefore has the freedom to do their best to do right thing and that is what I have observed.
And I do agree that Mr. Morel is entitled to proper compensation for his images. I am not qualified to comment on the amount awarded.
posted by Altomentis at 11:41 AM on November 25, 2013
They work very hard to make sure that licensing is in place and is documented. And they are dependent on partners to honor their agreements, especially when the timeliness of editorial images is crucial. If AFP provided Daniel Morel's images to Getty under the circumstances described, the images may have been snapped up by Getty customers before Getty had an opportunity to learn that AFP did not secure the proper licensing.
Yes, Getty is a big corporation. However it is not a publicly traded corporation. The management at Getty therefore has the freedom to do their best to do right thing and that is what I have observed.
And I do agree that Mr. Morel is entitled to proper compensation for his images. I am not qualified to comment on the amount awarded.
posted by Altomentis at 11:41 AM on November 25, 2013
Well, it's several orders of magnitude more than would be expected under normal circumstances, so someone clearly felt that Getty needed to be heavily dinged for this, for what reason I could not say. It does seem a little disproportionate.
posted by Artw at 1:17 PM on November 25, 2013
posted by Artw at 1:17 PM on November 25, 2013
I would assume that given the length of the case and the amount of documentation (just the detailed timeline from the Morel lawyers was 237 pages, apparently), that he'll probably be lucky if it even covers his lawyer bills. Unfortunately.
posted by tavella at 1:22 PM on November 25, 2013
posted by tavella at 1:22 PM on November 25, 2013
The coverage from the NYTimes and that sketchy Russian site sucks. More extensive coverage is circulating around the blogs of Photo District News.
After Closing Arguments, Verdict Expected Soon in Morel v. AFP and Getty Images
Contains links to extensive analysis of the case, including details of the case from Rangefinder and shows several of the copyrighted photos.
PDN: Jury Awards Daniel Morel $1.2 Million in Damages from AFP, Getty Images
Rangefinder: Jury Awards Daniel Morel Full Extent of Law; Finds AFP, Getty Willful in Copyright Violation
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:10 PM on November 25, 2013
After Closing Arguments, Verdict Expected Soon in Morel v. AFP and Getty Images
Contains links to extensive analysis of the case, including details of the case from Rangefinder and shows several of the copyrighted photos.
PDN: Jury Awards Daniel Morel $1.2 Million in Damages from AFP, Getty Images
Rangefinder: Jury Awards Daniel Morel Full Extent of Law; Finds AFP, Getty Willful in Copyright Violation
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:10 PM on November 25, 2013
From one of charlie don't surf's links:
"Baio also argued that Getty Images New York picture desk manager, Andreas Gebhard, was aware of Morel’s images on January 12, 2010 because he sent an email that day saying the earthquake images on Morel’s Twitter account looked “very decent.” He also said that Getty senior director of photography news and sports, Pancho Bernasconi, saw an email from AFP indicating Suero didn’t shoot the images in question, but Bernasconi didn’t take action to kill the images."
So it sounds like Getty was being willfully ignorant and hiding behind the license from AFP. Which is disappointing.
http://blog.wppionline.com/2013/11/closing-arguments-verdict-pending-in-daniel-morel-vs-agence-france-presse-and-getty-images-trial/
posted by DarlingBri at 7:52 PM on November 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Baio also argued that Getty Images New York picture desk manager, Andreas Gebhard, was aware of Morel’s images on January 12, 2010 because he sent an email that day saying the earthquake images on Morel’s Twitter account looked “very decent.” He also said that Getty senior director of photography news and sports, Pancho Bernasconi, saw an email from AFP indicating Suero didn’t shoot the images in question, but Bernasconi didn’t take action to kill the images."
So it sounds like Getty was being willfully ignorant and hiding behind the license from AFP. Which is disappointing.
http://blog.wppionline.com/2013/11/closing-arguments-verdict-pending-in-daniel-morel-vs-agence-france-presse-and-getty-images-trial/
posted by DarlingBri at 7:52 PM on November 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
So it sounds like Getty was being willfully ignorant and hiding behind the license from AFP. Which is disappointing.
Oh it's worse than that. AFP tried to argue it had the legal right to use the works without credit, without paying, under the Twitter license. And when Morel notified them of infringement, they took down his work, but left the stolen images online, attributed to the Twitter user who stripped the EXIF data that attributed them to Morel with copyrights. So they kept distributing the works that deliberately concealed the copyrighted source, while removing Morel's works with proper EXIF data. That is about the most malicious a way of "complying" with a takedown notice.
This is the original case against AFP that set up Morel to continue with the full trial:
AFP, Washington Post Violated Daniel Morel's Copyrights, Judge Says
Morel's agent, Corbis, sent take-down notices to Getty and AFP, but it took AFP two days to issue a kill notice. And when they did, they told clients and partners to kill images credited to Morel, but not the identical images that had been sent out initially under the false credit. Getty allegedly didn't purge the images with the false credits, and continued to distribute them.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:19 PM on November 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Oh it's worse than that. AFP tried to argue it had the legal right to use the works without credit, without paying, under the Twitter license. And when Morel notified them of infringement, they took down his work, but left the stolen images online, attributed to the Twitter user who stripped the EXIF data that attributed them to Morel with copyrights. So they kept distributing the works that deliberately concealed the copyrighted source, while removing Morel's works with proper EXIF data. That is about the most malicious a way of "complying" with a takedown notice.
This is the original case against AFP that set up Morel to continue with the full trial:
AFP, Washington Post Violated Daniel Morel's Copyrights, Judge Says
Morel's agent, Corbis, sent take-down notices to Getty and AFP, but it took AFP two days to issue a kill notice. And when they did, they told clients and partners to kill images credited to Morel, but not the identical images that had been sent out initially under the false credit. Getty allegedly didn't purge the images with the false credits, and continued to distribute them.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:19 PM on November 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older Walter White outsources production to China | the aspiration curve from youth to old age Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Bastards.
posted by ook at 6:45 AM on November 25, 2013 [15 favorites]