Getty Images Forces Blog to Pay $868 Fee for Using ‘Socially Awkward Penguin’
petapixel.comThe 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?
Because they did not know it was copyrighted image. And getty images was secretly enforcing the copyright.
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.
It's a penguin, with a similar pose.
Is that really sufficiently derivative for legal problems?
Except it's not a similar penguin. It's the exact same Penguin image with the background clipped out.
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.
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.