Download, Edit, and Print Your Favorite Getty Artwork for Free

[usonian]

Posted in GD because it applies to artists, photographers, writers, historians, educators, illustrators and “Joe the DU poster”.
Classier images for our posts!
CC0 is a BIG DEAL.

https://www.getty.edu/news/download-edit-print-your-favorite-getty-artwork-for-free/
Mar 07, 2024

The J. Paul Getty Museum announced today nearly 88,000 images of artworks from its collection are now available for free download on its Open Content database under Creative Commons Zero (CC0).

Users can download, edit, and repurpose high resolution images of their favorite Getty artworks without any legal restrictions. Add a print of your favorite Dutch still life to your gallery wall or create a shower curtain using the Irises by Van Gogh—the possibilities are endless.

While Getty’s Open Content program began in 2013, its transition to relicensing its entire collection of images under CC0 policy marks a strong commitment to increase transparency and access for art enthusiasts, educators, artists, historians, and more. In addition to the images, key information about each object is available under CC0 and easily searchable, including artist name, title, date, culture, medium, dimensions, object type, and more.

“We are committed to supporting and growing a diverse audience and have already noticed an uptick in image downloads on our site, averaging about 30,000 per month,” says Jenn Stringer, vice president, chief digital officer at the J. Paul Getty Trust. “This shows demand is high and we anticipate that number will grow as more images from the Getty collection are made available.”

[niyad]

1. KNR and bookmarking. Thank you.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Wow, what a generous move by the Getty people! The possibilities are endless. Thank you, dear usonian! ♥ nt

[hunter]

3. Explanation of CC0 here:

“No Rights Reserved”



CC0 enables scientists, educators, artists and other creators and owners of copyright- or database-protected content to waive those interests in their works and thereby place them as completely as possible in the public domain, so that others may freely build upon, enhance and reuse the works for any purposes without restriction under copyright or database law.

--more--

https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/

[littlemissmartypants]

4. Very cool! ❤️

[Roy Rolling]

5. I'm gonna redecorate

My living room is gonna need some VanGoghs, DaVincis, and Rembrandts. 😂

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. CC0 means you only owe me $100 per 100, with $0 shipping! Act now!

Ok, that's a nice boost to the commons.

[Raine]

7. THANKS so much for this info! 👍🙂 nt

[progressoid]

8. Meanwhile Getty Images will sell licenses for images that are already public domain.

Good for the museum. But J Paul Getty's grandson has a little (understatement) company called Getty Images that set the standard for screwing creators and now has a monopoly on image licensing. They'll even sell you a license to use an image that our government will let you use for free.
Ain't that nice?

Sorry, I have kind of a bone to pick with billionaires throwing bones to the proles who made them rich to begin with.

...As a product of U.S. government employment, the images are in the public domain. Lange’s photographs of “migrant mother” Florence Owens Thompson and Washington farmer Chris Adolf, along with Walker Evans’ image of Alabama sharecropper Floyd Burroughs and thousands of other photos taken by other Depression-era photographers, can be downloaded by anyone as a digital file of pristine quality from the Library of Congress website, at no charge and without restriction.

But they also can be purchased from the commercial licensing firm Getty Images, for fees that can run to thousands of dollars, depending on how they’re to be used, how large they will be displayed, and how many people might see them. Getty’s library of public-domain images is vast, and its rates aren’t cheap.

...

The case isn’t the first time that private exploitation of publicly available images has been an issue. Just last year, the veteran computer columnist John C. Dvorak wrote that he was “stunned by the number of free public domain images” being sold by Corbis, a photo agency then owned by Bill Gates. (Gates later sold Corbis to a Chinese consortium, which promptly licensed the collection to, yes, Getty Images.)
...

For example, one image of sharecropper Burroughs, a sepia-toned color image on file at the Library of Congress, bears the credit, “Photo by VCG Wilson/Corbis via Getty Images.” Although a note on the image does state it was taken by Walker Evans, there’s no mention that the identical image can be downloaded in high resolution from the Library of Congress website for free and for unrestricted use. An unwary customer might assume that paying Getty — whose license fee can run to nearly $5,000 for a six-month term — is the only way to obtain the photo legally.

...https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-photos-20160801-snap-story.html

[hunter]

11. It's a "better safe than sorry" insurance policy for publishers...

... who don't want to research the copyright status of every image they publish.

These publishers know full well that some of the images they buy from Getty are in the public domain, they just don't want to expend any effort sorting them out.

Getty is a relatively safe one-stop shopping solution. As they used to say about IBM, "nobody ever got fired for buying it."

IBM likewise sold a lot of stuff originally bought and paid for by the U.S. American people at an incredible markup.

[progressoid]

12. Yeah, I've read that argument. Not sure I buy it (pun intended)

Especially considering that publishers deal with copyrights all day long. It's kind of their thing.

Ironically, it's behemoths like Getty that publishers should be worried about. They are the ones creating this situation. They are the ones who decided to commercialize public domain IP and will send you a bill for it.

On the flip side, us lowly creators rarely have the resources to mount a infringement case against publishers. I'm currently writing letters to three companies (not publishers) who have been using my work without compensating me. If I'm lucky, they'll do the honorable thing and cough up a few bucks. If not, I'll likely have to let it slide. I don't have the resources or time to pursue it. Even if I found a lawyer willing to take on the tasks, the cost would likely outweigh the benefit.

[calimary]

9. I'd guess it might whet the appetite for more.

Especially an appetite for travel to the Getty Museum to see the real things close up.

That’s one of the first thoughts I’d have!

[SoFlaBro]

10. That Orange Bastard is a stupid motherfucker and a piece of shit.