
Getty Images Forces Blog to Pay $868 Fee for Using ‘Socially Awkward Penguin’ - AshFurrow
http://petapixel.com/2015/09/05/getty-images-forces-blog-to-pay-868-fee-for-using-socially-awkward-penguin/
======
jlarocco
The headline seems a little sensationalist. Even the blog in question released
a statement saying it was obvious that they were in violation.

Arguments in favor of violating copyrights are getting old. It's easier than
ever before to create images, music, and movies. If you don't want to play by
the copyright rules that content creators have opted into, create your own
works and release them public domain, and get other people to do so, and then
instead of breaking the law, you can legally enjoy public domain stuff. Like
in this case, I'm sure there are millions of similar images released public
domain or creative commons, so why pick the image that has a license fee?

~~~
mohsinr
Because they did not know it was copyrighted image. And getty images was
secretly enforcing the copyright.

------
benologist
The interesting part here is what Getty will do about the highly derivative
'new work' the infringing blog created as a public domain substitute for
Getty's IP.

~~~
drdeca
It's a penguin, with a similar pose.

Is that really sufficiently derivative for legal problems?

~~~
jlarocco
Except it's not a similar penguin. It's the exact same Penguin image with the
background clipped out.

~~~
mjrpes
The image at the bottom of the article? It's not the same penguin it's a
cartoon drawing. The feet are different, the eyes are different, the beak is
different, the wings are different. The only thing similar is the pose.

~~~
benologist
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement)

It might fall under a permitted derivative work but it looks like they just
did a freehand drawing of the photo explicitly intending to provide an
equivalent substitute. If it doesn't qualify as a derivative work it might be
willful copyright infringement.

