Editing Getty Images (section)

==Copyright enforcement and controversy==
{{controversy-section|date=October 2024}}
[[File:Panorama of Stockholm with Getty Images watermark.jpg|thumb|500px|An image formerly available at Getty Images, displaying a [[Digital watermarking|watermark]] with "Getty Images", the author's name, and a file-[[ID number]]. This watermark exists on all images on Getty Images when previewing the images, to prevent [[copyright infringement]].]]
Beginning in 2008, Getty Images has been the subject of controversy for its methods of pursuing copyright enforcement on behalf of its photographers. Rather than pursue a policy of sending "[[cease and desist]]" notices, Getty typically mails a [[demand letter]] that claims substantial monetary damages from owners of websites it believes infringed on their photographers' copyrights. Getty commonly tries to intimidate website owners by sending collection agents, even though a demand letter does not create a debt.<ref name="Guardian"/>

One photographer noted, "Courts don't like to be used as a means of extortion."  In one case, Getty sent a church in [[Lichfield]], [[Staffordshire]], a £6,000 bill for photographs it used on its website, apparently placed there by a church volunteer.  In this case, the church offered to pay Getty what it thought was a reasonable amount. The [[diocese]]'s communications director said:

<blockquote>Getty was not playing ball or following the normal litigation or [[dispute resolution]] procedures and [I advised the church] to ignore them. We don't deal with bullies; we deal with [[legal threat]]s appropriately. I told [Getty] by letter that's what [the church was] doing, that we were not going to play, and didn't hear any more.<ref name="Guardian"/>  </blockquote>

''[[The Guardian]]'' described other instances in which Getty or other stock photo businesses dropped a claim when a website owner refused to pay and hired a lawyer.  A law firm was quoted as saying: "Once we get involved generally Getty does back off."<ref name="Guardian">Grossman, Wendy, [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/nov/27/internet-photography "Is a picture really worth £1,000?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211021135200/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/nov/27/internet-photography |date=21 October 2021 }}, ''The Guardian'', 27 November 2008. Retrieved November 2011.</ref>

In 2009, Oscar Michelen, a New York attorney who focuses on such damages claims, said: "The damages they're requesting aren't equal to the copyright infringement," and "there's no law that says definitively what images are worth in the digital age."<ref name="latimes1">{{cite news |date=13 September 2009 |first=David |last=Lazarus |author-link=David Lazarus |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-13-fi-lazarus13-story.html |title=Controlling illegal use of copyrighted material on the Web - Los Angeles Times |publisher=Articles.latimes.com |access-date=12 September 2013 |archive-date=2 September 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130902124913/http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/13/business/fi-lazarus13 |url-status=live }}</ref>  He called Getty's effort to assess four-figure fines "a legalized form of extortion".<ref name="latimes1"/>

In an effort to combat online copyright infringement, in March 2014 Getty Images made over 35 million images available free for non-commercial online use via embedding with [[Attribution (copyright)|attribution]] and a link back to the Getty Images website.<ref>{{cite web|last=Laurent |first=Olivier |title=Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringement |url=http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringement/ |date=5 March 2014 |work=British Journal of Photography |access-date=6 March 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140306090832/http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringement/ |archive-date=6 March 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Brustein|first=Joshua|title=Since It Can't Sue Us All, Getty Images Embraces Embedded Photos|url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/since-it-cant-sue-us-all-getty-images-embraces-embedded-photos|access-date=7 March 2014|newspaper=Bloomberg Businessweek|date=6 March 2014|archive-date=6 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140306215329/http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/since-it-cant-sue-us-all-getty-images-embraces-embedded-photos|url-status=dead}}</ref> According to Getty Images executive Craig Peters, "The principle is to turn what's infringing use with good intentions, turning that into something that's valid licensed use with some benefits going back to the photographer".<ref>{{cite web|last=Brandom|first=Russell|title=The world's largest photo service just made its pictures free to use|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use|date=5 March 2014|work=The Verge|access-date=7 March 2014|archive-date=7 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140307025551/http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use|url-status=live}}</ref>

On 15 February 2018, [[Google Images]]' interface was modified in order to meet the terms of a settlement and licensing partnership with Getty. The "View image" button (a [[deep link]] to the image itself on its source server) was removed from image thumbnails. This change is intended to discourage users from directly viewing the full-sized image (although doing so using a browser's context menu on the embedded thumbnail is not frustrated), and encourage them to view the image in its appropriate context (which may also include attribution and copyright information) on its respective web page. The "Search by image" button has also been downplayed, as [[reverse image search]] can be used to find higher-resolution copies of copyrighted images. Google also agreed to make the copyright disclaimer within the interface more prominent.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/15/17017864/google-removes-view-image-button-from-search-results|title=Google removes 'view image' button from search results to make pics harder to steal|work=The Verge|access-date=16 February 2018|archive-date=15 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180215235818/https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/15/17017864/google-removes-view-image-button-from-search-results|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-getty/|title=Internet rages after Google removes "view image" button, bowing to Getty|last=Amadeo|first=Ron|date=16 February 2018|website=Ars Technica|language=en-us|access-date=12 April 2019|archive-date=25 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190325004331/https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-getty/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Copyright infringement lawsuits===
In 2009, Car-Freshner Corp., makers of [[Little Trees]], filed a lawsuit against Getty Images in [[U.S. Federal Court]], Northern District New York (Case 7:09-cv-01252-GTS -GHL).<ref>{{cite web|title=No. 7:09-CV-1252 (GTS/GHL)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=getty+images&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&case=3004682583920192380&scilh=0|website=Google Scholar|publisher=United States District Court, N.D. New York.|access-date=27 January 2015|archive-date=22 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322235430/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=getty+images&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&case=3004682583920192380&scilh=0|url-status=live}}</ref>  Car-Freshner claimed that Getty Images had in its catalog photos that included the famous "tree-shaped" trademarked car fresheners.  In 2011, Getty Images attempted to have the case dismissed, but its motion was denied.<ref name="CourtroomStrategy2011">{{cite web |first=Oscar |last=Michelen |url=http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2011/10/makers-of-pine-tree-deodorizers-allowed-to-proceed-with-lawsuit-against-getty-images/ |title=Makers of Pine-Tree Deodorizers Allowed to Proceed With Lawsuit Against Getty Images |publisher=Courtroomstrategy.com |date=4 October 2011 |access-date=21 September 2012 |archive-date=13 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121213115358/http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2011/10/makers-of-pine-tree-deodorizers-allowed-to-proceed-with-lawsuit-against-getty-images/ |url-status=live }}</ref>  In 2012, Getty Images agreed to settle by paying $100,000 to Car-Freshener Corp., but admitted no wrongdoing.<ref name="CourtroomStrategy2012">{{cite web |first=Oscar |last=Michelen |url=http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/08/getty-images-pays-100k-to-settle-car-freshener-suit/ |title=Getty Images Pays $100K to Settle Car-Freshner Suit |publisher=Courtroomstrategy.com |date=28 August 2012 |access-date=21 September 2012 |archive-date=4 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120904011048/http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/08/getty-images-pays-100k-to-settle-car-freshener-suit/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In September 2013, Avril Nolan brought a $450,000 suit against Getty Images. Nolan alleged that Getty Images improperly let her image be used in advertisements that depicted her as HIV-positive. She claimed the ad's depiction of her as HIV-positive (she is not) hurt her personal and professional relationships and caused her emotional distress.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://nypost.com/2013/09/19/woman-sues-getty-after-photo-appears-in-hiv-positive-ad/ | work=New York Post | first=Julia | last=Marsh | title=Model sues after HIV-positive ad | access-date=13 December 2017 | archive-date=17 January 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180117011954/https://nypost.com/2013/09/19/woman-sues-getty-after-photo-appears-in-hiv-positive-ad/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url= http://observer.com/2013/09/greenpoint-model-tired-of-telling-dates-shes-hiv-free-sues-getty/ | work= The New York Observer | first= Órla | last= Ryan | date= 20 September 2013 | access-date= 22 April 2014 | title= Greenpoint Model Tired of Telling Dates She's HIV Free Sues Getty | archive-date= 12 October 2014 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141012032039/http://observer.com/2013/09/greenpoint-model-tired-of-telling-dates-shes-hiv-free-sues-getty/ | url-status= live }}</ref> In March 2014 a judge ruled the lawsuit will be taken to court rather than dismissed.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://nypost.com/2014/03/10/model-wins-round-in-hiv-ad-lawsuit/ | work=New York Post | first=Julia | last=Marsh | date=10 March 2014 | access-date=22 April 2014 | title=Model wins round in HIV-ad lawsuit | archive-date=15 March 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140315230352/http://nypost.com/2014/03/10/model-wins-round-in-hiv-ad-lawsuit/ | url-status=live }}</ref> Getty Images settled with Nolan in January 2015.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Butler|first1=Office of Joy R.|title=More Lessons on How Not to Use Stock Images. Improper Use of Stock Image in HIV Ad Results in Successful Lawsuits against Getty Images and Advertiser|url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a01c793c-67d9-4dd7-a8d1-7c5c51241534|website=Lexology|date=8 February 2016|publisher=8 February 2016|access-date=13 July 2016|archive-date=22 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160822044243/http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a01c793c-67d9-4dd7-a8d1-7c5c51241534|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 2013, Getty and [[Agence France-Presse]] were ordered to pay $1.2 million compensation to freelance photojournalist Daniel Morel for using his images posted on [[Twitter]] related to the [[2010 Haiti earthquake]] without his permission, in violation of copyright and Twitter's terms of service.<ref>{{cite news|last=Ax|first=Joseph|title=Photographer wins $1.2 million from companies that took pictures off Twitter|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-media-copyright-twitter-idUSBRE9AL16F20131122|newspaper=Reuters|date=22 November 2013|access-date=25 November 2013|archive-date=21 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151121234303/http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/22/us-media-copyright-twitter-idUSBRE9AL16F20131122|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Laurent |first=Olivier |title=Getty Images disappointed at $1.2m Morel verdict |url=http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2308888/getty-images-disappointed-at-usd12m-morel-verdict |date=24 November 2013 |work=British Journal of Photography |publisher=Incisive Media |access-date=25 November 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131126170747/http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2308888/getty-images-disappointed-at-usd12m-morel-verdict |archive-date=26 November 2013 }}</ref>

In July 2016, Getty was sued, unsuccessfully,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/|title=$1 Billion Getty Images Lawsuit Ends Not with a Bang, but a Whimper|website=petapixel.com|date=22 November 2016|access-date=2020-02-16|archive-date=16 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200216104525/https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/|url-status=live}}</ref> for over $1 billion by [[Carol Highsmith]], an American photographer notable for donating her 100,000+ image collection, royalty-free, to the [[Library of Congress]], when Highsmith found that Getty had been selling unauthorized licenses of her work (an instance of [[copyfraud]]).<ref>{{cite web|last1=Hiltzik|first1=Michael|title=Photographer sues Getty Images for $1 billion after she's billed for her own photo|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html|website=Los Angeles Times|access-date=3 August 2016|date=29 July 2016|archive-date=1 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160801013239/http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="highsmith-arstechnica">{{cite web|last1=Farivar|first1=Cyrus|title=Photographer sues Getty Images for selling photos she donated to public|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/photographer-sues-getty-images-for-selling-photos-she-donated-to-public/?comments=1|website=Ars Technica|access-date=28 July 2016|date=28 July 2016|archive-date=30 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160730165049/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/photographer-sues-getty-images-for-selling-photos-she-donated-to-public/?comments=1|url-status=live}}</ref>  Highsmith found out about this when she received a letter from a law firm representing Getty, demanding $120 for displaying her pictures on a personal website of hers.<ref name="latimes20160801">{{cite news|last1=Hiltzik|first1=Michael|title=Getty Images will bill you thousands to use a photo that belongs to the public. Is that legal?|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-photos-20160801-snap-story.html|newspaper=LA Times|access-date=2 August 2016|date=2 August 2016|archive-date=3 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160803213552/http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-photos-20160801-snap-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2016/08/03/pay-up-getty-sends-trolling-letter-to-photographer-highsmith-demanding-money-for-her-own-photos/#3a23d5a6596e|title=Getty Likely To Settle $1B Suit By Photographer For Appropriating Her Public-Domain Work|work=Forbes|access-date=4 November 2018|archive-date=4 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104171327/https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2016/08/03/pay-up-getty-sends-trolling-letter-to-photographer-highsmith-demanding-money-for-her-own-photos/#3a23d5a6596e|url-status=live}}</ref>

In August 2016, [[Zuma Press]], an independent press agency, filed suit against Getty for alleged copyright violations and unauthorized licensing of more than 47,000 images.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/getty-images-sued-again-over-alleged-misuse-of-over-47000-photos/|title=Getty Images sued again over alleged misuse of over 47,000 photos|publisher=Ars Technica|year=2016|access-date=4 November 2018|archive-date=4 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170213/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/getty-images-sued-again-over-alleged-misuse-of-over-47000-photos/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Claiming copyright over public domain content ===
Getty Images has continued the practice that Corbis (whose license it acquired in 2016) has been criticized for of claiming copyright, watermarking and selling images that are in public domain, including images related to The Holocaust like the [[Warsaw Ghetto boy]] photo,<ref name="Struk">{{cite book |last=Struk |first=Janina |date=2004 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P0CnKQpDIL8C |title=Photographing the Holocaust: Interpretations of the Evidence |publisher=I.B.Tauris |pages=208–209 |isbn=978-1-86064-546-4 |access-date=5 August 2022 |archive-date=13 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230113183109/https://books.google.com/books?id=P0CnKQpDIL8C |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/frightened-jewish-families-surrender-to-nazi-soldiers-at-news-photo/613463274|title=Nazis Arresting Jews in Warsaw Ghetto|website=Getty Images|date=7 October 2016 |access-date=1 November 2018|archive-date=1 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801022843/https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/frightened-jewish-families-surrender-to-nazi-soldiers-at-news-photo/613463274|url-status=live}}</ref> the [[Polish cavalry in Sochaczew photograph]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Battle of the Bzura. Polish cavalry in Sochaczew in 1939.World War II |url=https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/battle-of-the-bzura-polish-cavalry-in-sochaczew-in-1939-news-photo/113494246 |website=Getty Images |date=2 May 2011 |access-date=13 November 2018 |archive-date=13 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181113210500/https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/battle-of-the-bzura-polish-cavalry-in-sochaczew-in-1939-news-photo/113494246 |url-status=live }}</ref> or images created by [[NASA]].<ref name="techdirt"/> Getty has also tried to collect fees from photographers for use of their own images that they had previously put in the public domain.<ref name="techdirt">[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190329/15352641901/getty-images-sued-yet-again-trying-to-license-public-domain-images.shtml Getty Images Sued Yet Again For Trying To License Public Domain Images] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801031258/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190329/15352641901/getty-images-sued-yet-again-trying-to-license-public-domain-images.shtml |date=1 August 2020 }}, Mike Masnick, techDirt, 1 April 2019</ref>

Public-domain photos from historical photographers such as [[Dorothea Lange]] and [[Walker Evans]] have long been available for unrestricted downloading from the United States [[Library of Congress]].  The exact same images are also available from Getty Images, subject to a licensing fee of up to $5,000 for a six-month term.<ref name="latimes20160801"/>  This demonstrates an example of [[copyfraud]].

=== Controversy over AI-generated art ===

On January 17, 2023, Getty Images said it was suing [[Stability AI]] over the use of Getty's images to train [[AI-generated art|AI art]] generator Stable Diffusion and for imitating the Getty Images' trademark.<ref name="GettyPress23">{{cite web |url=https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/getty-images-statement |title=Getty Images Statement |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=17 January 2023 |website=newsroom.gettyimages.com/ |publisher= |access-date=24 January 2023 |quote= |archive-date=24 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230124151734/https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/getty-images-statement |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Verge1">{{cite web |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit |title=Getty Images is suing the creators of AI art tool Stable Diffusion for scraping its content |author=James Vincent |date=17 January 2023 |website=[[The Verge]] |publisher= |access-date=24 January 2023 |quote= |archive-date=23 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230123232242/https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit |url-status=live }}</ref> Getty released its own AI image generator trained on its library of licensed stock images in September 2023.<ref name="getty-ai">{{Cite web|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/getty-images-launches-its-own-commercialy-safe-ai-image-generator/|title=Getty Images launches its own 'commercially safe' AI image generator|last=Ortiz|first=Sabrina|website=ZDNET|date=25 September 2023|access-date=22 February 2025}}</ref>