Brilliant eloquent answer on the topic and 100% true! Elle,copyright holder :-)

great answer, very clear. I'm curious what the law allows copyright owners who have not registered their images.

DNB,

A well-written analysis that proceeds with airtight logic toward the proper legal conclusion.

But that ultimately reaches the absolute wrong moral conclusion because it is built on a faulty foundation.

So-called "infringers" have stolen no property of Getty that should be accorded any time of legal protection. Getty still has the physical photographs that it paid to produce. If Getty did not want the images reproduced online, it should not have published them online.

Property rights are meant to protect the use and control of scarce goods. Infinitely reproducible digital images are not scarce, and should therefore do not give rise to a property right that should be accorded the protection of law.

The better moral conclusion is that Getty is a monopolist bully that is seeking to extort money from those weaker than itself by means of a morally defective law and a morally defective legal system. I'm not saying that those attacked by Getty have completely clean hands themselves, but that still does not excuse the reprehensible conduct of Getty.

No King But God

All law is founded on either (1) a moral principle [thou shall not kill] or (2) an expediency to promote social order [speed limits]. The people, like you, who do not believe "intellectual property" should exist improperly characterize that issue as one based on morality. Specifically, it is immoral to define as "property" the exclusive right to copy a creative work once the author of that work presents it to the public. THAT is your 'foundation" for your alleged moral objection to the existence of intellectual property. I submit that your position is not only not a "moral" one but it also is very, very poor social policy. Does society benefit by the creation of new works of authorship and inventions? Of course. Will more of those creations be created if the creator is granted a time-limited exclusive right to commercialize those creations. Of course. [And I do not want to hear arguments otherwise -- they're all old and tripe and unsubstantiated]. Do we have that bargain set up perfectly? No -- the copyright term is too long and patents too easy to get, though both are too hard to enforce with our judicial system.

It is not a moral question as to whether intellectual property [copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets] should exist or not. They do because they are useful tools to motivate members of society to create new works and new inventions. If you have a better alternative then lay it out. But playing the "intellectual property is not moral" card is silly.

I am troubled by this legal argument, which assumes that all "infringers" is are "thieves" who should not be permitted to define the cost or the value of the infringement. It's also virtually impossible for most of the victims to have prevented this unknowing "theft" from having occurred.

It is just as morally objectionable to require an innocent purchaser - not thief - to pay the arbitrary value that an artist decides should be paid for that item. It has been used a sword to create massive damages where none would ever have existed. So how many people would pay a $1,500 monthly usage charge for a clip art photo of a television had they been reasonably made aware of what they were receiving? Is this any different from someone who buys an item from a merchant on the street for perceived market value only to later find out they are out the object and the money they paid?

The law needs to reflect a punishment to fit the crime and address a problem with a fair and appropriate solution. In this case, making innocent infringers pay even additional damages is adding insult to injury - and I'm a fellow artist who is troubled by a difficult problem that currently has no viable solution.

Q1. "I am troubled by this legal argument, which assumes that all "infringers" is are "thieves" ... ."
R1: No it does not. Intellectual property rights are, properly, very porous. The scope of the "right" conferred extends only so far as to benefit society, not the creator of the work. Lots of Supreme Court case law on that.

Q2: "It's also virtually impossible for most of the victims to have prevented this unknowing 'theft' from having occurred."
R2: Replace "theft" with "infringement" [see R1]. Your assertion becomes that it's "virtually impossible" for a person to know whether he has infringed another's rights. That's clearly not true. If a person fails to pay to do with a work what only the rights holder is granted the right to do then the assumption is that the person infringes -- IF there's an exception, privilege or excuse to use the work then it's rightfully up to the person to find and prove it.

Q3: "It is just as morally objectionable to require an innocent purchaser - not thief - to pay the arbitrary value that an artist decides should be paid for that item."
R3: Wow. I think you're saying that a creator does NOT have the right to sell his creations at the price that he chooses. If that's what you're saying then it would have been nice of you to start your commentary by confessing that you do not believe in capitalism. That would explain much and make any dialogue that we may have uttery futile. Absent an agreed-upon view of the rights of marketplace participants we will forever be talking past each other.

Good luck with your law practice.

My comments weren't condescending or disrespectful, counselor. It's manifestly clear that in the context of discussion, my comment was pertaining a price demanded by the artist retroactively and enforced without the opportunity for *both* parties to have bargained freely. I'm assuming that you may be aware that this concept is fundamental to capitalism.

The intelligent discussion I thought I might be able to have was in discussing a solution that, IMHO, might work more effectively and provide for a more satisfying result for both parties, not just one of them. I appreciate the referral to and refresher of Supreme Court opinions and how the law currently handles this problem and the benefits to society.

I can't stop an attorney from zealously pursuing every grandmother who pays for a website for her grandson, created by a local professional, only to be surprised with a demand letter at three times the cost of the entire website for a single, mediocre, low res graphic image. I'm aware that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Granny should have known about this problem and taken some unmentioned screening measure to ensure that not one image among 500 was infringing. All that matters is that she didn't have rights and can't find a legal exception to grasp. And as a result, if the artist feels that his out of focus picture of a chair leg is a masterpiece, Granny should be forced to pay that price without having had the benefit of considering whether she or anyone in their right mind would pay that price. That's the price you pay for being an infringer - plus attorneys fees, since our work isn't free.

I'm not saying that I'm not sympathetic to the rights holders about a copyright infringement problem that exists, where many Internet surfers believe that the "images" tab that is a part of most search engines means royalty free clip art. I'm not saying someone is not permitted to make a living this way at the present time if they so desire. I'm also not looking to engage in any acrimonious dispute. Best of luck with your law practice.

Michael, I represented the very first Doe defendant in the RIAA cases way, way back when the fight was over whether the section 512(c) subpoeanas were Constitutional [the Verizon case]. After they started suing Doe defendants I negotiated innumerable settlements with the RIAA and MPAA and spoke on the issue at conferences. In short, I know when copyright holders are too extreme in their enforcement efforts. On the flip side, I also know under what circumstances infringers should know damn well that they're infringing. And that is, by far, most of the time.