Carol Highsmith, the author of this image, received a demand letter from Getty to pay for using it on her own website. ©Carol M. HighsmithThree weeks after a federal judge gutted photographer Carol Highsmith’s $1 billion copyright claim against Getty Images, the two sides have ended their dispute with a settlement of the remaining claims. The terms of the settlement, over minor state law claims, were not disclosed.

US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff dismissed all of Highsmith’s federal copyright claims—which were the foundation of her lawsuit—on October 28. He left three of Highsmith’s state law claims intact, and said he would issue a written explanation of the ruling “in due course.” Instead, he signed a terse  order of “voluntary dismissal” of the remaining claims on November 16, after Highsmith and Getty agreed to settle the case.

Highsmith filed suit in July, after discovering that Getty and its subsidiaries had been charging customers fees to license her images, without her consent. She alleged “gross misuse” and false attribution of 18,755 of her photographs of Americana. According to her claim, Getty and its subsidiaries were “falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner” of her images. (An example of one of those images, distributed by Alamy, a Getty affiliate, is shown above).

Highsmith was claiming damages not for copyright infringement per se, but for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Specifically, she charged Getty with violations of DMCA provisions that make it illegal to remove, modify or falsify copyright management information.

Getty countered that Highsmith’s images were in the public domain, and because she had donated the images to the Library of Congress and signed away her copyrights, she had no grounds for making her DMCA claims. (Highsmith donated her images to the Library of Congress in 1988).

Getty said it had done nothing illegal by offering copies of Highsmith’s image for license on its website. “Public domain works are routinely commercialized – e.g., publishers charge money for their copies of Dickens novels and Shakespeare plays, etc.,” the agency said in defending against Highsmith’s claims.

The court has said nothing about the merits of the arguments, but it was apparently persuaded by Getty’s argument to dismiss the federal claims. The state law claims that remained prior to the November 16 settlement were based upon New York state laws against “deceptive acts or practices” in the conduct of business.

Related:
Getty Says Photog Shut the Door on Her $1 Billion Claim


COMMENTS

MORE POSTS

Danny Clinch Sues for Copyright Infringement of Tupac Shakur Photos

Posted by on Monday June 5, 2017 | Copyright/Legal

Danny Clinch filed suit in federal court in New York June 2, alleging multiple copyright infringements of two of his photographs of late rap artist Tupac Shakur. The photographs were allegedly reprinted and distributed on T-shirts without permission. Clinch, a noted music photographer, names five defendants, including an agent for Shakur’s estate, two merchandise manufacturers,... More

Montana Photographer Sues Republican National Committee for Copyright Infringement

Posted by on Friday May 19, 2017 | Copyright/Legal

Missoula, Montana-based photographer Erika Peterman is suing The Republican National Committee (RNC) for willful copyright infringement. The suit, filed in Montana District Court earlier this week, alleges the RNC used without permission a Peterman photograph of Rob Quist, the Democratic candidate in a special election to fill Montana’s seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.... More

Jury Awards $900K in Marketing Photo Copyright Case

Posted by on Monday May 15, 2017 | Copyright/Legal

A federal jury in Maryland has awarded $900,000 in actual damages to an Oregon-based plant retailer for its claims against a competitor over unauthorized use of two dozen copyrighted images. The jury verdict, delivered last week, also included a $300,000 statutory damages award, but the plaintiff may elect one jury award or the other (not... More