That Coronavirus Image Is Public Domain, But That Won't Stop Getty From Trying To Sell You A $500 License To Use It
from the seriously,-guys? dept
Late last week, we wrote a nice story about how the infamous image of the coronavirus that is causing COVID-19 is in the public domain, since it's a work of the US federal government. That's part of the reason why it's everywhere these days:
But, as one of our commenters pointed out, that won't stop Getty Images from trying to sell you a license to the image (even complete with the CDC logo on it, which takes real balls by Getty) for an astounding $500.
I mean, the text with the image even directly says that it was created at the CDC. You'd think some worker bee at Getty might recognize that this makes it public domain.
Getty has a bit of a history of this, and was even sued by a photographer for trying to license images that she had put into the public domain. To be clear, Getty is not violating any law here. Something that's in the public domain is free for use in any manner, meaning that you certainly could try to sell it, though it does seem a bit sleazy and dishonest, especially at a time when news about the coronavirus is so important.
What would be problematic, of course, is if Getty actually threatened, sent DMCA takedowns, or sued over anyone using the image. Because that would be bullshit. It's a little unclear exactly how Getty got this image. It's listed as part of the "Smith Collection/Gado." However, it's hard to find out what exactly that means. There is a company called Gado Images, which mixes a bunch of buzzwords about AI with stuff about archiving photographs. I'm not sure I understand what one has to do with the other. It says it's using AI for "digitizing, capturing and sharing the world's visual history." And licensing it, perhaps. But if the images are not Gado's to share, then that raises a whole bunch of other questions.
Either way, the whole thing is pretty sleazy, and Getty should either (a) take it down, or (b) admit that it is public domain and make it freely available.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cdc, copyright, coronavirus, licensing, public domain
Companies: gado images, getty images
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyfraud
This is pretty much the textbook definition of Copyfraud: That is, claiming to own a copyright on something that doesn't have it.
If we actually had a balanced Copyright regime, there would be penalties for copyfraud. But alas, as with all other regulatory bureaus in the executive branch, the enforcement is on the take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyfraud
Since CDC made it and should have for media section somewhere, high quality image should be download from CDC. That was standard but I'm not sure if dot gov web sites are still laid-out that way.
What Getty does is sleazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyfraud
So, can anyone explain to me how this copyfraud is not actual fraud - or even extortion? They're extorting $500 payments under at least an implied thread of a lawsuit if you don't, based on an assertion that they one something that they know that they don't.
If I claim I own the Brooklyn Bridge, someone believes I own it, and I sell it to that someone, I have committed a crime. If I threaten to sue someone for doing something unless they pay me $500, unless I am VERY careful in my phrasing, I have committed a crime.
So how is this not illegal at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyfraud
The same reason the biggest donors to the politicians' campaign funds get lax to no regulation: because the beneficiaries of the copyright regime have the biggest bank accounts and the loudest voices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyfraud
And even without the implied threat of an infringement lawsuit, Getty is claiming to sell a license which they are literally unable to provide. There is no license for that image; how is misrepresenting something's existence for profit not fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyfraud
"So, can anyone explain to me how this copyfraud is not actual fraud - or even extortion?"
Because - as anyone who followed the DMCA shit-show can attest - the lawmakers bought and paid for by the copyright lobby were outraged at the idea that the industry representing the "poor and starving artists" should have the added burden of having to actually prove their claim was correct before making it.
Hence the DMCA is formulated to assume that any claim made in "good faith" was to be assumed valid, and that a copyright holder would not be liable to any mistakes made in such a claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyfraud
Getty makes no statement it owns the copyright.
All Getty is doing here is trying to profit from the public domain, also known as taking a page from the Disney "How To Screw Everyone" playbook.
It's unethical, for sure, but I'm surprised anyone is actually paying Getty for the use of any of its images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyfraud
I think you're right. So does the law. However, a better analogy to what Getty is doing is like Penguin (or their children's imprint, Puffin) selling a print copy of Treasure Island when you could get it for free on Project Gutenberg. What Disney does is sell cinematic adaptations of Treasure Island (three as far as I can tell: The 1950 live-action one, The Muppets version, and Treasure Planet), so they're not selling the same thing (unless you count their former literary imprint Hyperion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyfraud
If Getty is selling something they don't own and know they don't own, it would be legally the same as someone selling the Brooklyn Bridge.
People have gone to prison for running that sort of scam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyfraud
Not quite, and that's unfortunately enough wiggle room to allow them to continue their despicable behavior. Something in the public domain can be 'sold' by anyone, because depending on how you look at it either no-one owns it or everyone owns it, and that includes Getty.
There's nothing inherently wrong in selling public domain works, where it gets scummy is if you imply that you own what you're selling, by, oh, I dunno, phrasing it as a license or something along those lines, a term most people associate with ownership. Something like that takes selling public domain works from fine to what is essentially 'legal scam', where it might technically be legal but it's still reprehensible and sleazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyfraud
Copyrfraud is claiming copyright over something that someone else holds the copyright too, or claiming copyright on something in the public domain.
ANYBODY can sell public domain image. You can sell them. Getty can sell them. I can sell them. It happens all the time. It is not even wrong or unethical. Shakespeare? Dickens? Old silent movies? Civil War photos. Someone is out there selling them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"rights-managed" on Getty
On Getty, it's license type is listed as "rights-managed". Implies there's limitations on usage.
Rights-Managed/Rights-Ready
Limited to the specific use, medium, period of time, print run, placement, size of content, and territory selected, and any other restrictions that accompany the content on the Getty Images website (or any other method of content delivery) or in an order confirmation or invoice. Non-Exclusive, meaning that, unless otherwise indicated on the website, your invoice, sales order or separate agreement, you do not have exclusive rights to use the content. Getty Images can license the same content to other customers.
Common uses include:
Newspapers and magazines (except for covers), editorial broadcasts, documentaries, non-commercial websites, blogs and social media posts illustrating matters of public interest
Can’t be used for:
Book or magazine covers, commercial, promotional, advertorial, endorsement, advertising, or merchandising purposes in any media (e.g. print, commercial broadcast, film, digital)
Standard editorial rights:
Anyone in your organization can use it an unlimited number of times for up to 15 years, worldwide, with uncapped indemnification
Subject to the Content License Agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "rights-managed" on Getty
Sounds like what I read about limits on NASA meatball logo on NASA site.
Reckon i'll have to visit CDC site see if it has same boilerplate for images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "rights-managed" on Getty
According to the CDC Image library <b>Copyright Restrictions</b>:
None - This image is in the public domain and thus free of any copyright restrictions. As a matter of courtesy we request that the content provider be credited and notified in any public or private usage of this image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "rights-managed" on Getty
On Getty it's listed a $499 USD. Implies they're profiteering assholes,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't copyfraud... The original image doesn't have the CDC logo added as a watermark! If Getty doesn't sell licenses, how else would they be motivated to photoshop a government-made watermark onto a government-made photo? /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creating a photo at the CDC does not in and of itself render the photo a work of the United States Government. The person creating the photo must be an officer or employee of the USG, and the photo must have been created as a part of that person’s official duties. If these requirements are not met, such a photo is not within the public domain. In such a situation the subsequent transfer of copyright, if any, in the photo to the USG would enable the USG, if so inclined, to assert the copyright against others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The photo was [indeed created by employees of the CDC](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200402/23034744231/how-public-domain-coronavirus-beauty-sho t-you-now-see-everywhere-came-to-be.shtml], so your argument is invalid (or at least moot).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Goddammit, I should proofread my comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Creating a photo at the CDC does not in and of itself render the photo a work of the United States Government. The person creating the photo must be an officer or employee of the USG, and the photo must have been created as a part of that person’s official duties. If these requirements are not met, such a photo is not within the public domain.
We discussed all that on Friday. It qualifies. Not sure why you need to bring this up now. It was created by two full time CDC staffers as a part of their official jobs (they do this all the time for the CDC).
Why post this comment other than to suggest we made a mistake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, you did not mention anything about the official duties at the CDC of the two creators. Again, the requirements per 17 USC 101 is that a work of the USG must have been created by an officer or employee of the USG and as a part of their official duties. Mere employment status is not dispositive. The nature of official duties associated with employment is equally important, and both criteria must be met for such a work to fall within the public domain per 15 USC 105.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Should be 17 USC 105. Regret typo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The horse is dead, so please stop kicking it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's odd that you insist on talking in hypotheticals for a situation that has already been explained in detail in the article you didn't bother to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You really are just itching to be an asshole, ay? How many time must we make an example of how your stupid smug cocksure wrongness?
She's a medical illustrator at the CDC and was assigned by her boss to create the image. So go back into your troll hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably hoarded a mountain of toilet paper, so now they're looking for a way to spend it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh...supposedly there were two people who were the creators. Unless the second person also meets both tests expressed in the statute, there is no way you can express with certainty that the photo resides in the public domain.
Before you fall back on your use of expletives, consider the fact that some of us have in the past had to deal with federal agencies on matters involving agency assertion of copyright in works that initially appeared to be either a work of the USG or work for hire. Turned out in at least one case that the agency was able to present a credible argument that it held a valid copyright in accordance with the last sentence to 17 USC 105, I.e., by an assignment which the statute expressly recognizes as a means by which the USG can secure a copyright in a work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rule of Holes
When one digs their own grave, dig down, not up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd facepalm to this comment, but CDC guidelines suggest I'm not supposed to touch my face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh...supposedly there were two people who were the creators. Unless the second person also meets both tests expressed in the statute, there is no way you can express with certainty that the photo resides in the public domain.
Were you born this dumb?
Yes, BOTH of the employees are employees of the federal government and BOTH of them work as illulstrators on this and similar images and BOTH of them were assigned to work on this project as a part of their job.
As I said. The work is in the public domain. Your nitpick is dumb and wrong and it was from the moment you said it. I don't know why you decided to pick this fight other than to look like a smug jackass who pretends he knows stuff and pretends he has some experience when you're a hack lawyer who never did anything special in life. You used to make the same snide "if you only knew what I've experienced" comments on our patent stories. You're a smug little prick.
Now go the fuck away you nitwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
sizzle sizzle roast roast burrrrrrrrn...... and toast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd rather have Mike use expletives than an ass like you throwing stupid shit around (from a dead horse).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would rather have the author actually present accurate information instead of the broad and inaccurate generalizations he is so fond of promoting. His presentations here are factually inadequate to prove the conclusions he has asserted. IOW, there is a latent possibility he may be wrong because he has not developed all the relevant facts, but his ego prevents him from considering such a possibility. Of course, if his self-proclaimed expertise in matters of law was even the least bit accurate, this issue would never have arisen because he would have seen the shortcomings of his argument and continued his investigation to ensure all predicate facts required by the governing law had been determined. Had he done so he would almost certainly have found the YouTube video where one of the image creators explained in great detail the actual nature of her work as a CDC illustrator. This is likely what the other creator also does, but that has yet to be confirmed. Of course, the absence of factual confirmation is not something that troubles the author. He feels completely comfortable slandering a company like Getty precisely because of his unwillingness to consider the possibility he might be wrong because of his inadequate investigation. Thank goodness our legal system demands a higher standard of proof than what the author deems adequate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either the CDC is lying with their public domain statement about the image, or you are lying because you do not like this site. Hmmm which is more likely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could not care less about the true status of the image. Do care about someone making a declarative statement in a printed article that is not supported by the facts presented in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you won't have to worry, because the image's public domain status is supported by the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So your entire point was to talk about your hateboner for Masnick after your hero Shiva Ayyadurai failed to tear him a new asshole, what a fucking surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, considering that the CDC itself said that the image was itself in the public domain, you could extremely safely assume that Dan Higgins (the other illustrator_ whom you're talking about) was an employee of the CDC who was working his duties. Otherwise the image wouldn't have said it was in the public domain.
I'd tell you to use your common sense, but it's clear from your comments on this article that you have none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike quoted from a New York Times article about the illustrator being an employee of the US government working in her official duties. Why are you badgering him? Take it up with the New York Times.
Or you could just go to the goddamn image on the CDC website that says the image is "is in the public domain and thus free of any copyright restrictions."
On another note, you're confusing "slander"-which is spoken-with "libel"-which is written. If you tend to confuse them, just use the word "defame". And what Mike is doing is surely not defamation because he has evidence on his side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what he's been doing this whole time you illiterate shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this was true I would never have made a comment. Alas, it is not. The image did not become public domain because it was created at the CDC, as Masnick states in the above article. It only becomes public domain if the two statutory requirements recited in 17 USC 101 for a “work of the United State Government” are met such that the public domain provision of 17 USC105 becomes operative.
See, for example, https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-laws-in-a-u-s-government-works/
Read it and you will realize that the law is not as clear cut as you might otherwise believe if you rely just on what is said here on the subject.
And, BTW, for readers from outside the US, public domain status is limited to just the US and its territories. It is possible that an image that can be used in the US without permission because of its public domain status may not be used in other jurisdictions without permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I take it you have not reviewed the linked material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whatever hallucinations make you comfortable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this was true I would never have made a comment.
It was true, and you still made the comment, and despite me being proven right over and over again you still insist on defending your indefensible comment.
Alas, it is not.
It was and is.
The image did not become public domain because it was created at the CDC, as Masnick states in the above article.
It was a work of employees of the federal government as part of their job duties. That was made abundantly clear in the original piece, and you continue to deny it because you're a terribly pedantic shithole.
See, for example, https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-laws-in-a-u-s-government-works/
Your link turns up a 404. You're even bad at linking. JFC.
Read it and you will realize that the law is not as clear cut as you might otherwise believe if you rely just on what is said here on the subject.
I have not said anything inaccurate. The only person in this thread who has is you and you refuse to admit that. Because you're a terrible person.
And, BTW, for readers from outside the US, public domain status is limited to just the US and its territories. It is possible that an image that can be used in the US without permission because of its public domain status may not be used in other jurisdictions without permission.
This is about the first accurate point you've made -- though even you know that the US would be insane to go after people for using the image outside the US. It's a meaningless point because it's never going to come into play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be fair, US foreign policy is pretty insane…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Search Google using search term “copyright in u.s. government works copyright laws.com”. First result should be a working link at the site to a January 2020 course it presented to its students.
In your third and fourth sentences to your article you state that the image having been created at the CDC means that it is in the public domain. This Is inaccurate for the following reason. The governing statute specifcies that a work of the US Government arises when the work is created by a USG officer or employee, and the work they performed to create the work was within the scope of their official duties. When both requirements are met, then and only then does the second statute come into play which says that for such works of the US Government copyright is not available under US copyright law. The absence of copyright is, of course, what defines a work in the US public domain.
As for foreign jurisdictions in which such a work might be used, never underestimate the ability of the USG to throw reason to the wind and try to restrict third party use within such jurisdictions. While not commonplace, I had to deal with various federal agencies on several occasions where they attempted to limit use of such works outside the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Something being in the public domain really makes you twist your own panties, doesn't it Slonecker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright laws.com should read copyrightlaws.com
Auto correct can be quite irritating when it ignores what is actually typed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or... just not typing with the ferocity of a jilted lover and doing a little spellcheck before hitting the Submit button, but you supporters of Prenda Law and Malibu Media have never been particularly stable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would rather have the author actually present accurate information
I did.
instead of the broad and inaccurate generalizations he is so fond of promoting
So much projection dude. You were the one promoting broad generalizations about how this might not have been in the public domain, despite the confirmed fact that it is.
there is a latent possibility he may be wrong because he has not developed all the relevant facts
The only one who failed to "develop all the relevant facts" was you. No wonder you were such a failure as a lawyer.
Of course, if his self-proclaimed expertise in matters of law was even the least bit accurate, this issue would never have arisen because he would have seen the shortcomings of his argument and continued his investigation to ensure all predicate facts required by the governing law had been determined.
I got it right. You got it wrong. Take the L and shut the fuck up already.
This is likely what the other creator also does, but that has yet to be confirmed.
It was confirmed you pathetic shitgibbon.
Of course, the absence of factual confirmation is not something that troubles the author.
No, I had factual confirmation. The only one who did not is you, and now you're pathetically trying to weasel word you way out of looking like a total fuckwit. Remember when you used to sign your name to these things, and we kept making you look like the total idiot? And then you stopped signing your name. But your idiotic "well, maybe I know something you don't..." tone has never changed, nor has it made you any less than an utter piece of shit. Go the fuck away.
He feels completely comfortable slandering a company like Getty precisely because of his unwillingness to consider the possibility he might be wrong
It's not slander. I'm not wrong. And, for a lawyer who is so insistent on getting every little nitpick exactly right, can you explain how it could possibly even have been "slander" when it was written not spoken? You incompetent jackass.
Thank goodness our legal system demands a higher standard of proof than what the author deems adequate.
The incredible thing is that you're a lawyer. I'm writing an article, and the only one here is wrong. The legal system clearly does not demand higher standards or you would have lost your license to practice decades ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the legal system actually demanded higher standards just about every IP enforcement lawyer would be out on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? On the street?? How slimy do you have to be for the Health Department to forbid them from even flipping burgers??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"How slimy do you have to be for the Health Department to forbid them from even flipping burgers??"
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want slime all over my burger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How's that coronavirus patent coming along, Slonecker? Got enough baby souls yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who's this Slonecker assclown anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Slonecker's a pretty by-the-books apologist for patent trolls whose squeaky clean reputations might be besmirched by people who dare to question their legitimacy.
He's been around since 2009, a time when he was brave/foolhardy enough to leave his name behind, expressing his concerns that the RIAA might be unfairly criticized for attempting to bankrupt grandparents.
Like average_joe/antidirt, he's quick to express outrage when people call him out despite not leaving a moniker behind. Of course, it's not difficult to figure out when it's him. His approach to defending patent trolls and lawyers like Richard Liebowitz always defaults to an argument of "but you're not an expert in intellectual property, and I know people who are, so that entitles me to insist that you're being very very naughty when you criticize these fine people".
Goodness knows why he does it, because Masnick is usually never far behind to remind Slonecker that he's become instantly recognizable without his actual name, and already hangs out with other lawyer friends he'd suck the cocks off of so he has no real reason to be here outside of a humiliation fetish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Slonecker's a pretty by-the-books apologist for patent trolls whose squeaky clean reputations might be besmirched by people who dare to question their legitimacy. "
...and otherwise known as Bobmail, Out_of_the_blue, Jhon Smith, and assorted other nicknames.
I usually call him Baghdad Bob after his days on Torrentfreak where he tried to convince everyone there was a small army of copyright defenders around online instead of just one pathetically underpaid member of the RIAA's 50-cent army.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, not really.
Masnick's actually mentioned that Jhon Smith/bobmail is a separate individual from Slonecker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is gettying ridiculous. Someone needs to getty busy and rein in this nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anybody with share alike licenses on works could check for Getty copying and putting restrictions on distribution, which would make such distribution copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it isn't the highly contagious and fatal SARS virus wrapped in EBOLA and AIDS envelopes that you claimed it to be Tyler? But more like spider eggs in bubble yum? Never mind. That is quite a miscalculation, but you sold a lot of soap as a journo terrorist after destroying everyone's lifee! With your feet on the ground and your head up your ass try this trick and spin it! You're full of shit and that's all that's in it and you'll ask yourself, where is my mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What in the blue hell are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The high resolution image, all 27 MB of it, can be downloaded here: https://phil.cdc.gov/Details.aspx?pid=23311
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Smithcollection/gado" is generally a purveyor of public domain images. Just trolling through their 'catalog', found one that was identical to the one on the wikipedia page for Katherine Johnson, from NASA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a Rush to Judge
I wish they had a different name. Every time I hear that word Getty, I have to think about the extortionists and fraudsters who try to bilk people into paying money for architectural and landscape photos, rather than the best bass guitar player of all time (spells his name different, but you know what I mean). It really is a shame!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In a Rush to Judge
I was actually fortunate enough to have met Geddy Lee, and one of my chiptune covers (I make music on retro video game systems) is of YYZ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In a Rush to Judge
I hope he isn't too bad when it comes to copyright, because any drummer, guitarist or bassist would do well to learn from Rush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In a Rush to Judge
Fortunately, copyright wasn't an issue with these covers because I paid for a mechanical license for them.
On another note, as a courtesy I give the original songwriters a CD-R of the cover I made with their song or songs I have covered. I was able to do so with all my covers except for Blue Öyster Cult's "Burnin' For You" (I have not yet met Buck Dharma) and the "Land of Chocolate" theme from the Simpsons (I have not yet met Alf Clausen). To everyone else I gave a CD with my cover of their song on them, including Geddy Lee (unfortunately, I couldn't give it to Neil Peart, but them's the breaks).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Rush to Judge
As a copyright holder (would have been a Creative Commons owner if I'd heard about it in 2017), I want to be very generous with my little Crafty Coyote and hope other people get something out of him. I hate how copyright is used as a form of censorship, I truly do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Rush to Judge
I'm all about Creative Commons. The reason why they're not on my copyrighted covers is because I don't own their copyrights; I'm merely their licensee so I must stay within their bounds. Music whose copyright I do own I have licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license (as well as covers of Jonathan Coulton who licenses his music in a similar fashion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright registration for public domain works
The web page has a footer "© 2020 Getty Images", which is misleading but maybe not so clearly associated to the image itself.
I couldn't find any copyright registration by "Gado", but funnily enough there are 1177 copyright registrations containing the keyword "CDC":
https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?ti=1,0&SAB1=CDC&BOOL1=all%2 0of%20these&FLD1=Keyword%20Anywhere%20%28GKEY%29%20%28GKEY%29&GRP1=OR%20with%20next%20set&am p;CNT=10&REC=0&RC=0&PID=ZFkr0_L7g37iWSH4WBC1ZrnOu&SEQ=20200407021637&SID=2
Inclu ding several which list the CDC as author:
https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SEQ=20200407021906&PID=LAo cG3v9QlCKYsm-Yw7qaULF6&SA=Centers+for+Disease+Control+and+Prevention
How can the "CDC Yellow Book 2020: Health Information for International Travel" be registered for copyright when the registration itself says:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i don't understand why getty still exists. haven't they completely proved they are of no value to society? they are kudzu and should be treated accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How embarrassing.
The company that forced google to remove the “view image” button, one of the companies that supported article 17 of the EU.
And now trying to sell something that can be freely used as much as a laptop. What a desperate company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It gets better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]