Jump to content

Getty Images


Recommended Posts

<p>My family recently attended an event on the white house lawn. The event was semi-public in that only those with tickets were able to attend and there was a rather limited number of tickets.</p>

<p>During the event, A Getty photographer took a photo of my wife and child participating in one of the activities. The photo later appeared on several websites across the world including Life.com and newspapers and news channel websites. My wife particularly liked one and contacted Getty to get a copy. They told her the best they could do was to sell her an electronic copy at a substantial price.</p>

<p>Is that right? My wife and child are the main subjects of the images, and both of them are clearly recognizable. Clearly Getty has made money off this image, or at least, depending on their contracts, used it commercially, and my wife did not sign any releases for her or our child.</p>

<p>We are not looking for the images to be taken down, we would just like a copy.</p>

<p>Is it legal for them to sell and distribute the image without a release? Is it right that we would not at least receive a copy of the image when requested?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p>Is it legal for them to sell and distribute the image without a release?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As long as it's been used in editorial, which it sounds like it is, it's perfectly legal.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is it right that we would not at least receive a copy of the image when requested?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would they have to give you a copy of a news photo?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>As long as it's been used in editorial, which it sounds like it is, it's perfectly legal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was not used in an editorial. It was used in articles and in galleries.<br>

<br /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why would they have to give you a copy of a news photo? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it is of my wife and child, and we did not authorize the commercial use of their image. And to clarify, we are actually willing to pay for it. The "best they can do" fee, however, is unreasonable.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Articles are editorial. Galleries (as in photo galleries on a news site) are editorial. Galleries (like an art gallery) are art. Neither use requires a release.</p>

<p>More to the point, you probably explicitly provided consent by accepting the tickets. There's almost always a catch to these sorts of events, that being that your image can be exploited for any purpose. Could have been on the tickets, could have been signage at entry—if I were a betting man, I'd play big money on the fact you consented, whether you realized it or not. Big PR shindigs are tricky that way.</p>

<p>If you know who the photographer is (which Getty usually lists), you may be able to contact him directly to see if you can get prints. It'll depend on his agreement with Getty, but he may retain the rights for that sort of thing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>While editorials are articles, articles are not editorials. At least, they shouldn't be, though that is often the problem with American media these days. Regardless, the photos were not run in editorials; they were run in news articles.</p>

<p>Regarding the tickets, that is a good point, and I will have to look at them again. Regarding signage at the entrance, I definitely did not see anything. I am surprised that a sign would be enough though as I would have expected to have to sign away the rights to my image, or perhaps, as you've pointed out, waive them by accepting the terms printed on the ticket.</p>

<p>I will follow up later regarding what was or was not on the tickets.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Also, Getty did not post the images in articles or in galleries. Getty sold the photos to news groups who did. If, for example, a Life.com photographer took the image, then Colin's comments above would apply. Or perhaps Getty could post them on their article and in their own gallery, but they didn't. They sold them. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Is it legal for them to sell and distribute the image without a release? Is it right that we would not at least receive a copy of the image when requested?<br>

Yes.<br>

Yes, if by "right" you mean not surprising.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ethical ? It's how they make their money so I guess I'm not personally troubled by it. But I understand your reaction. I had a similar experience (not the White House and not Getty). I thought the publisher might give me a copy as a courtesy but it was not to be. I wasn't able to track down the photographer which I think was a good suggestion by Colin. The photographer might retain rights in the photo and may be more amenable to giving you a copy for personal use or for what you consider a more reasonable fee. Good luck. Sounds like a good time in any event. Did you meet The President ?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>you probably explicitly provided consent by accepting the tickets.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Consent is not needed for the images to be taken and/or published in the way described.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>articles are not editorials. At least, they shouldn't be, though that is often the problem with American media these days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its not a "these days" phenomenon. The use of people's likeness in imagery has been permissible long before the media, as you know it, existed. If your beliefs were actually applicable, we wouldn't even have a visual media. Its actually amusing, somehow, that you are attacking news article use as it is the holy grail and poster child of permissible use of someone's likeness. What next? People can't be verbally described in the news without permission either? Names can't be mentioned either because doing so happens to feature the named person? That's the equivalent of what you are saying. Photographic depictions are not magical, just more detailed. The reality is that you don't have a right to not be depicted, described or seen in society. There are some, uses of one's name/likeness ect. that have restrictions that arose due to special situations go beyond that principle.</p>

<p>Being featured in an image has nothing whatsoever to do with owning an image. Would you claim that someone mentioned in a newspaper article owns the copyright to the article? No (I hope). Photos are copyrighted by the creator too and work the same way. If your view were the rule, authors could not write about other people because the other people could veto the use. Photography works the same way. The owner of the image owns the image and they have no obligation to give you something they own even if you are willing to pay for it.</p>

<p>As to selling the images, we can use the author analogy again. Authors own their creations. They own them even when they are writing about other people. They often sell their writings to book and publishers. Stories of and about other people has been a commodity for countless years now. Drawings of other people have been as well. Photos, newer to the scene, are just another depiction of people. If selling these works were forbidden because someone was featured in them, you wouldn't even recognize society as it would exist and you certainly wouldn't know much of anything going on in the world.</p>

<p>The focus on selling is also misplaced. Let's face it. You would balk if the image were plastered on bill boards or TV even if the image weren't sold. The financial aspect is just "seems" to make it different until you think about with less haste.</p>

<p>For many years you have read articles, watched shows and viewed photos and never believed anything improper was being done until an image happened to involve you. Your entire analysis is derived from the filter of this tunnel vision. Step back from the trees to see the forest and you will regain your bearings on this issue. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This is not a question of whether an article is editorial or whether an editorial comment is an article. The use of the word "editorial" refers to the actual USE of the image and, unless I'm completely mistaken, the law says that uses such as those you described all fall under the "editorial" use license and as such do not require "model releases" or the subjects' consent.</p>

<p>Now, if they use your image to promote a PRODUCT (even if that product is a service) - in other words if your likeness is used to actively advertise a specific product, then the ADVERTISER would need a full model release from all of you. If you can find such a use then you could easily demand that Getty remove the image from their collection. Otherwise, however sympathetic I am to your plight, I very much doubt you'll get anywhere...I'm sorry...:-( Personally, I'd see if the image appears in print somewhere (maybe the print edition of Life?) and then cut and frame that...;-) After all, how may people can claim to have been published in Life? ;-))))))))))</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>however sympathetic I am to your plight</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is there to be sympathetic about? Without the right to publish, the news would die. As John points out, this would be across the board, not just photography, since it's about a principle. Instead, we have freedom of the press. If you don't want freedom of the press and want more control of images, there's always Saudi Arabia, Burma, and Iran.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Getty sold the photos to news groups who did</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Highly doubtful Getty (<strong>sold</strong>) the images.<br>

I'm sure they <strong>licensed</strong> them along with a wonderful "Indemnification" clause that keeps them free & clear of any problems arising from the Licensee's (use) of the images.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff and John, there is a huge void between using someone's name or describing them and actually using someone's image. If there was not more significance applied to one's image, releases would never be needed. And John, the problem I light-heartedly mentioned with the media today was specifically about the news reporters' apparent desire to inject opinion into every news article, thus shading the difference between an article and an editorial. It was a cheap shot against today's media, and admittedly had nothing to do with my original question.</p>

<p>Regardless, you both also missed that I said I have no problem with the use of the image or that I am being charged for it. I specifically said in the OP that I was not looking for the image to be taken down. I just don't believe their unrealistic fee is justified. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The focus on selling is also misplaced. Let's face it. You would balk if the image were plastered on bill boards or TV even if the image weren't sold. The financial aspect is just "seems" to make it different until you think about with less haste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am impressed that you able to read me after a single, simple question. Unfortunately, you are completely wrong. You have no idea what I would or would not balk at, and I would appreciate your not making assumptions you are not qualified to make. Regarding haste . . . the event was over two months ago. No haste here. </p>

<p>As for the photos I have seen in the media for years, I have never "believed anything improper was being done." I have wondered, however, the difference between those photos and my candid street shots, which I was advised to take off my site unless I had releases from the subjects. True, I was not motivated to ask about the difference until my family was a subject of similar photos. </p>

<p>Bottom line, you guys can spare me the lectures. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Highly doubtful Getty (<strong >sold</strong>) the images.<br />I'm sure they <strong >licensed</strong> them along with a wonderful "Indemnification" clause that keeps them free & clear of any problems arising from the Licensee's (use) of the images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I am sure that license would be free ...<br>

Actually, I revisited Getty's website and was able to find the photos in their archive. I then had the option to BUY the image for use in editorials, texts books, and for use in wall displays and advertisements for non-profits among other uses. Oddly, some of the pricing is less than what they offered me on the phone. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Robert:<br /><br />In the world of licensing photos, commercial doesn't mean what you think it means. If the photographer (and/or agency) received payment is moot as it has no bearing on if a use of a photo is editorial or not. It breaks down to (simplified):<br /><br />Commercial: Photo is used to sell or promote a product or service. Such as adverts for instance. For commercial use a release is commonly required.<br /><br />Editorial: Use of image inside a newspaper, magazine, website, books etc (not in adverts though) doesn't require a release.<br /><br />Look at my work as an example. I photograph law enforcement and prisons. I license a large amount of images every year of people being arrested, cops busting a drug house, inmates in prison, parole hearings, etc. My images are mainly used in text-books, kiddie books (I know, surprising), and magazines. My images are never released by any of the people in the photos, meaning I don't have their explicit permission to use/sell/license/publish/etc the photos any way I want. Because the way my images are used (Editorial), there's no need for any releases. This is what I do (mainly) for a living so yes, I most certainly get paid.<br /><br />A photo can be used both editorially and commercially. Take the photo of your wife and daughter. The photo could indeed be licensed to (say) a text-book publisher for use inside a book with no permission needed from your wife or daughter (or you). The very same photo used in an ad to promote anything should be released though. Without a model release on file the image falls substantially in value for Getty. If you see it on Getty's website and they claim to have a release I suggest you e-mail and/or call them and let them know that your wife and daughter never signed a model release and that you all expect them to not license the photo(s) commercially. As others have said though there might be something on the tickets or in the information from the WH that spells it out that you accept some sort of model release by taking part in the event.<br /><br />If something like that is legally binding and a "good enough" release I don't know since IANAL.<br /><br />That Getty doesn't want to give or sell you a copy for a small amount very likely comes down to policy. It can sure seem petty but I can see how they would get absolutely swamped with requests if they did offer this service. It would be hard and a lot of work for them to establish that the individual making the request for a photo is indeed in that photo based on only e-mails or phone calls. Me I merrily provide prints to people I photograph if they want one, free of charge. But I'm not Getty and for the small amount of requests for this that I get per year (maybe 200 at the very most) it's no big deal for me. What it eats up in costs it more than makes up for in pr and goodwill which in turn makes it easier for me next time I want to photograph a particular agency/department/prison/jail/court/individual etc.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Is it right that we would not at least receive a copy of the image when requested?"<br /> " I just don't believe their unrealistic fee is justified."</p>

<p>They can set whatever price they desire for the photo they made.</p>

<p>The difference between media photos and personal photos of newsworthy events is, in some sections of the country: none. Read up on the Branzburg case; note, that the decision for Branzburg was not honored evenly across all US District Courts. End result is, for most uses, in the US the First Amendment right lets pretty much anyone print or reprint anything; but, making money off of a publication is another matter. Branzburg is significant in that those trials ended up being about borderline matters: where one set of laws and their influence ends, and where another might begin. Particularly, it's a commercial matter more than an informational matter.</p>

<p>Printing and publishing are not the same thing.</p>

<p>One of the best explanations between printing and publishing can be found by closely reading the FAQ pages and other info at www.copyright.gov</p>

<p>Printing has to do with the mechanics of the picture. Publishing has to do with payment for the public display of information. They're not the same thing.</p>

<p>As far as privacy goes, there may be no expectation of privacy at the White House whatsoever, as it is a government building. What privacy you received there was probably under the gentlemanly auspices of The President and his officers. The whole issue of expectations of privacy on government properties is, in practice, complex; but, for the most part can be summarized with "none." That is, no expectation of privacy is available there which would be comparable to that you might have within your own home.</p>

<p>How much privacy you might receive socially, and how much you might expect as a right, are two different ideas.</p>

<p>Probably the same gentlemanly conduct which got your family member invited up to the White House would be the same gentlemanly conduct which got the Getty Photographer on the lawn of the White House.</p>

<p>If the Getty photographer's work, or his agency, is not cutting it for you, the alternative thing to do would be to make your own photo. This is what most of us do.</p>

<p>If I were you, I would just calm down and pay the fee, if you want that picture; get an 8X10 and tell people how proud you were that the wife and kids made it to the White House lawn for a visit. That's the main idea about the event for y'all anyway, isn't it?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For the printing and publishing, I don't know if I was clear:<br>

in general purpose photography for personal use, people may have a lot of experience with printing. Yet, they may not get it with publishing. Some of those matters with publishing are probably affecting what Getty is telling you. </p>

<p>P.S. Congrats on the White House visit. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mikeal and John, thanks to you both for the very, very informative responses. I understood the public/privacy issue, but through your postings, I have learned quite a bit about commercial and editorial photos and printing and publishing.</p>

<p>While I like the photos the Getty photographer took, you better believe I snapped off several of my own too. I was interested in his, however, because there is an obvious reason why he works for Getty and I do not :) Then again, the difference between his and mine in this case is not worth the fee Getty wants for the image.</p>

<p>Honestly, though I did not appreciate a few of the replies above, I am not upset about the situation with Getty at all. It just provided me the motivation I needed to ask about a topic I wanted to know more about. If I was upset, I would have gotten on here two months ago instead of waiting until I got around to it.</p>

<p>Following Colin's advice above, I have searched for and found an email for the photographer and have tried contacting him directly. Assuming it is the right guy (Getty did not provide contact info), maybe, Mikeal, I will get lucky and he will reply in the same manner as you would have. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Robert, also don't be fooled by the word "buy" in the context of "buying" an image for use in, say, a newspaper, magazine, web site display, etc. In such circumstances "to buy" means "to acquire" certain (often non-exclusive) rights.<br>

And also #2: contrary to your belief, in the context of editorial vs. commercial, there is not much (or maybe any) difference between someone's image and someone's words if you think of it in terms of advertising (= commercial). Most people would no more want their words taken, without authorization, to sell (advertising/commercial) a product than they would their image. (I am sure there are legal cases revolving around exactly such circumstances but don't have any citations on hand.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>there is a huge void between using someone's name or describing them and actually using someone's image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, no. There isn't. As already explained, an image merely provides more detail of what someone looks like or serves as different means of identifying someone. This is why the the law in terms of using identifiable information about someone using photos, video and written communication is so similar.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If there was not more significance applied to one's image, releases would never be needed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This assumes releases are not needed for similar written uses but releases are, indeed, needed for commercial use of identifiable people in written communication for certain uses just as there is with photos with identifiable people. If I write, in an advertisement, that Robert Moorhouse endorses my brand of coffee, I need your permission to do so just as much as if I used your picture instead to suggest the same thing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you both also missed that I said I have no problem with the use of the image or that I am being charged for it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>"Getty has made money off this image... ...and my wife did not sign any releases" </em><br /> <em>"Is it legal for them to sell and distribute the image without a release? we did not authorize the commercial use of their image."</em><br /> <em>"I would have expected to have to sign away the rights to my image"</em><br /> <em>"by "right" I meant legal or ethical."</em><br /> <em> "They told her the best they could do was to sell her an electronic copy at a substantial price. Is that right"</em><br /> <em>"we would just like a copy."</em><br /> <em>"Is it right that we would not at least receive a copy of the image when requested?"</em></p>

<p>You might be forgiving of someone thinking so after making all these remarks and not mentioning that you had no such problem.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have no idea what I would or would not balk at... ...I would appreciate your not making assumptions you are not qualified to make.... ...you are completely wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>After questioning, at length, the ability use of the images in websites and newspapers, we are to believe you would not harbor such reservations "if the image were plastered on bill boards or TV"?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have wondered, however, the difference between those photos and my candid street shots, which I was advised to take off my site unless I had releases from the subjects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a good question and the answer depends on how they were being used (or if they were a result of "intrusion" which is a different issue). If they were merely being displayed for art or general enjoyment of photography (so called editorial uses) then you were given erroneous information unless there are other factors we are not told about.</p>

<p>Actually, your original questions were good too. The reason for busting your chops a bit was that it was apparent, at the time, that you had a strong belief in what the answer should be and seemed resistant to accurate responses that did not fit that model. Shaking the tree you were in (to make a pun of the trees/forest analogy I used) was designed to provide situational awareness and I think you are well informed of the overall situation now.</p>

<p>I would be glad to help with other questions if I can.<br /> <em><br /></em></p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...