There’s been loads of cases of stock photo companies selling on work they’ve never had any rights to, they just exist to get the buck passed to if someone gets sued for copyright infringement, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the public domain as that is still useful in case you would’ve otherwise accidentally used someone’s 2014 recreation of the painting or something
Fucking copyright trolls, wonder what would happen if someone reversed the roles and sued them for accidentally laying claim to a CC image they don’t own.
How does Getty Images have a claim on a 200+ year old painting in the public domain?
There’s been loads of cases of stock photo companies selling on work they’ve never had any rights to, they just exist to get the buck passed to if someone gets sued for copyright infringement, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the public domain as that is still useful in case you would’ve otherwise accidentally used someone’s 2014 recreation of the painting or something
Fucking copyright trolls, wonder what would happen if someone reversed the roles and sued them for accidentally laying claim to a CC image they don’t own.
Because it’s their face, silly