上海的月亮: EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF: Jews are Plundering the World

The Getty Center, in Los Angeles, California, US, is a campus of the Getty Museum and other programs of the Getty Trust. The center branch of the museum features pre-20th-century European paintings, drawings, illuminated manuscripts, sculpture, and decorative arts; and photographs from the 1830s through present day from all over the world. Source

Another link in the chain of plundering society is the field of images residing on the Internet. One of the greatest plunderers is Getty Images (Alamy is second). They have hundreds of thousands of images on their website, but actually have publication and sales rights to only a tiny fraction of those. Getty scan the Internet regularly and copy onto their own website nearly every useful image they find. They then the scour the Internet to learn if anyone anywhere has used one of those images, and demand a huge fee, under threat of serious civil and criminal action. They state that the images were copied from their website, claim the copyrights, and demand payment.

In one celebrated case, an American painter put thousands of her own paintings on the Internet, specifying that she was putting them into the public domain for anyone to use. Shortly thereafter, she published an article, illustrating it with one of her own paintings, and received a threat of a lawsuit from Getty Images, and a demand for a huge payment. She sued Getty Images for $1 billion for fraud, but a “bought judge” threw out the case. In another celebrated case, Getty Images charged a church $38,000 for an image to which Getty had no rights at all.

My advice to everyone on receiving a demand from Getty images would be to agree to pay if Getty provides two things: (1) irrefutable proof that the image was in fact obtained from Getty’s website, and (2) a copy of the legal document proving that Getty actually has the financial rights to that image. My guess is those people would never hear from Getty again.

Getty’s Predatory Business Model; How the Racket Operates

Getty Images is a textbook case of modern, institutionalised predation that fits perfectly within our discussion of systemic decay. It describes a company that has built its empire not on creation, but on the aggressive and fraudulent monetisation of others’ property. This is not merely a questionable business model; it is a sophisticated form of extortion that exploits the ignorance and fear of the public, systematically corrupting the very concept of intellectual property. Getty Images has perfected a strategy of aggressive, mass-volume enforcement that functions as a protection racket. And note that this is not only a US fraud; Getty operates globally, stealing money in every country where possible. The mechanics of this operation are as follows:

The Systematic Upload of Unlicensed Content

Getty’s website collection contains far more images than they have rights to. The evidence shows they have intentionally built their library using questionable tactics. The most egregious evidence is a federal RICO class action filed in the Western District of Washington, which alleges that Getty “fraudulently claims ownership of copyrights in public domain images, which no one owns, and sells fictitious copyright licenses for public domain images, which no one can legally sell”. The complaint charges Getty with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and various tort laws. This is not a minor dispute. This is a federal fraud allegation.

The complaint details that Getty uses “a number of different deceptive techniques” to mislead customers and potential customers into believing it owns the copyright to all the images on its website, and that a license is required to use any of them. Getty also uses its subsidiary, License Compliance Services, Inc. (LCS), to send demand letters to users of public domain images, accusing them of copyright infringement. By creating a hostile environment, Getty and its subsidiary “drive up the market for its own deceptive licensing of public domain images”.

The complaint further alleges that “Getty’s unlawful conduct is, at a minimum, knowing and intentional, [and] malicious, as its practice of selling copyright licenses for public domain images has been the subject of litigation against it, yet it has continued to sell purported copyright licenses for images that it knows are in the public domain”.

The Mass Litigation and Demand Letter Machine

Once Getty has seeded its collection, the second phase of its operation begins: the mass-extraction of settlements. The primary mechanism is “copyright trolling”, where Getty issues demand letters to individuals and small businesses, often demanding thousands of dollars for a single image under threat of legal action. This system is specifically designed to be predatory. The fear of litigation, not the validity of the copyright claim, is what compels payment.

The Legally Dubious Foundation of Its Claims

When faced with a lawsuit, the house of cards often collapses. The central legal vulnerability in Getty’s model is that the watermarks they use are not proof of ownership. In a landmark 2023 decision, China’s Supreme People’s Court established a critical precedent. The court ruled that where ownership of a copyright is disputed, “the copyright ownership of a work cannot be determined solely by a watermark or rights statement”. Getty’s local partner failed to prove they actually owned the rights to the images in question. And in court, Getty admitted the photographer retained the copyright. This ruling has been a significant setback to the power of any image licensing company.

The Legal Vulnerability of Its Business Model

The unstable foundation of Getty’s business has been exposed in several major cases. Perhaps the most well-known case is that of Carol M. Highsmith, a photographer who donated her entire life’s work – over 18,000 images – to the US Library of Congress for free public use. In 2016, Highsmith sued Getty for more than $1 billion, alleging the company was selling licenses for her public domain images and even sent her a demand letter for payment for using her own photo of the Washington, D.C. skyline. [1] [2]

The lawsuit charged that Getty was “not only illegally collecting royalties… but is also fraudulently holding itself out as the exclusive copyright holder”. The complaint noted that Getty had lost a similar copyright case in 2013, where photographer Daniel Morel won $1.2 million. Highsmith sought triple damages under the Copyright Act, a claim that could be made because Getty had a judgment entered against it in another copyright case within the previous three years.

Multiple authoritative news sources confirmed that Getty Images sent Carol Highsmith a letter demanding a settlement payment after she used one of her own photographs on her non-profit’s website. She discovered that Getty had been improperly selling her photographs (at high prices) without her permission, and were “threatening those who didn’t pay”. Highsmith then filed a $1 billion lawsuit. In October 2016, a federal judge dismissed all of Highsmith’s major copyright-related claims. [3] In November 2016, the parties settled, but the terms were not disclosed.

As the Los Angeles Times noted, [4] “If you wish to reproduce it, you can download it from Getty Images, for a fee that might exceed $5,000. Or, like Highsmith’s photos, you can download it for free from the Library of Congress, with no restrictions. The choice is yours.” When cornered, Getty pretends it makes no claim to copyright of the images on its website. According to Getty, “Distributing and providing access to public domain content is different to asserting copyright ownership of it.”

At the hearing, the judge presiding in the case, US District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, [5] said he was dismissing Highsmith’s claims. Rakoff’s conduct at the hearing indicated that he had already come to a prior decision on the claims. Rakoff also dismissed Highsmith’s case “with prejudice”, meaning that Highsmith is forbidden from filing another lawsuit on those grounds. [6] [7]

The collection letter Getty sent to Highsmith was treated as a separate issue by the judge. Getty called it an “honest” mistake that was corrected when discovered. However, the characterisation of Getty’s demand letter to Highsmith as an “honest mistake” is not credible in light of the company’s documented history. Getty Images is widely-known as a “copyright troll”. The company has a reputation for converting false copyrights into a significant revenue stream, a pattern of predatory enforcement that is consistent and well-documented. Accepting the “honest mistake” claim at face value would be an insult to intelligence.

It’s worth noting that a separate, more recent federal lawsuit (in 2019) brought by a digital marketing company, specifically accused Getty Images of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act by fraudulently claiming ownership of public domain images.

The Individuals Behind the Empire

Getty Images is not an abstract corporation. It is controlled by specific individuals – people with names and faces – who designed, implemented, and continue to profit from this predatory, fraudulent, and extortionate business model.

Craig Peters serves as Chief Executive Officer of Getty Images, responsible for the organization across its Getty Images, iStock, and Unsplash brands. He joined Getty Images in 2007 and was appointed CEO in 2019. Mark Getty is the company’s Co-Founder and Chairman of the Board. Jennifer Leyden is the Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President. Kjeliti Kellough is the Senior Vice President and General Counsel, the company’s top legal officer. These individuals are not passive stewards of a legitimate business. They are the named directors of a system that has been accused in federal court of running a RICO enterprise based on the fraudulent licensing of public domain images.

Craig Peters, CEO of the Getty Extortion Enterprise. Source: Getty Images

Jennifer Leyden; Chief Financial Officer. Getty Images. Source: Getty Images

The full list of named executive officers includes:

Mark Getty Chairman of the Board, Co-Founder

Jonathan Klein Co-Founder

Craig Peters Chief Executive Officer, Director

Jennifer Leyden Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President

Kjeliti Kellough Senior Vice President, General Counsel

Gene Foca Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer

Nate Gandert Senior Vice President, Chief Technology Officer

Mikael Cho Senior Vice President, CEO, Unsplash

Grant Farhall Senior Vice President, Chief Product Officer

Ken Mainardis Senior Vice President, Global Content

Andrew Saunders Senior Vice President, Creative Content

Peter Orlowsky Senior Vice President, Strategic Development

Lizanne Vaughan Senior Vice President, Chief People Officer

Michael Teaster Senior Vice President, Chief of Staff

Chris Hoel Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer

The Anatomy of a Predator

Getty Images has built a multi-billion-dollar enterprise not on the value it creates, but on the fear it instills. The evidence is clear: they regularly claim ownership of works they do not own, use the threat of ruinous litigation to extract settlements, and rely on legally dubious watermarks and rights statements as their primary “evidence”. Getty have been called out for these practices in both US federal court and the highest courts of other nations. Not only do Getty Images operate a predatory business model, but there are legitimate reasons to question the fairness of the legal system. When large corporations deploy sophisticated legal teams against individuals, the odds are never equal.

Getty Images is not a copyright defender. It is a sophisticated enforcement racket. Its executives – Craig Peters, Mark Getty, Jennifer Leyden, and others – are not stewards of creators’ rights. They are the architects and managers of a criminal predation machine that has systematically corrupted intellectual property law, privatised the public domain, and imposed a fear tax on free expression.

The case against Getty Images is not one of minor overreach. It is one of systemic fraud, predatory enforcement, and the deliberate corrosion of the legal and cultural foundations of a free society. The fact that this company continues to operate, continues to profit, and continues to be treated as a legitimate business by the legal system it exploits, is not an anomaly. It is a symptom of a deeper rot. It is another piece of the same coordinated system of institutional predation we have been tracking. And like the others, its power depends entirely on the assumption that no one will push back.

The Societal Effects — Systemic Corruption and Fear

The impact of this predatory model extends far beyond individual lawsuits. It inflicts a slow, pervasive corruption on society:

The Weaponisation of Legal Systems

Getty has turned the court system, a pillar of justice, into an arm of its private debt collection agency. It has weaponized the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, not for their intended purpose, but to pressure web hosts to act as their private enforcement arm. The fear of statutory damages, which can be ruinous, is a powerful extortion tool.

The Chilling Effect on Free Expression

The knowledge that any use of an image could result in a five-figure settlement has a paralysing effect on publishers, educators, and everyday internet users. Citizens self-censor rather than risk a demand letter. Entire genres of commentary and criticism have been chilled.

The Privatisation of the Public Domain

One of the most insidious aspects of Getty’s model is its attempt to privatise the public domain. The public domain belongs to everyone. It is a cultural commons, our shared inheritance. Getty is literally enclosing this commons, building fences around what belongs to the people, and then charging admission. The RICO class action lawsuit makes the legal argument: this is not just wrong; it is criminal.

The Corruption of Creation and Commerce

Getty’s model destroys the very photographers it claims to represent. It has turned them into a low-margin, high-volume content farm, devaluing the craft of photography. It imposes a massive tax on small businesses, startups, and non-profits who cannot afford legal counsel, forcing them to pay protection money for the right to use images they thought were free. This creates an artificial barrier to entry, hindering innovation.

The Erosion of Trust

Perhaps most fundamentally, the enterprise erodes trust in digital spaces. We cannot trust that any image we see has been legitimately licensed or belongs in the public domain. We cannot trust that the platform hosting the image is acting in good faith. We cannot trust that even our own use of our own creative work will not be met with a demand for payment. This creates a pervasive atmosphere of fear and manipulation.

Jewish Cohesion

I will point out to you that nearly all of Getty’s executives – and Getty’s financiers – are Jews. Getty Images have Jewish founders and historically significant Jewish involvement at the executive level. Co‑founder Jonathan Klein’s Jewish family emigrated from Russia. In terms of financiers, Getty Images has been owned by private equity firms including Hellman & Friedman, the Carlyle Group, and Koch Equity Development. All of these firms have a specifically Jewish ownership profile.

And Judge Jed Rakoff just “happened” to be a Jewish judge. That was not a coincidence. Elon Musk does the same thing. It’s called “judge-shopping”. Many other wealthy Jews do the same, navigating the system to obtain a Jewish judge who will favor their position. Judges in Western countries are apparently as easy to buy as are politicians.

Judge Jed Rakoff. Source:

The term “judge shopping” refers to the practice of selecting a favorable judge by filing in a particular jurisdiction or by manipulating the random assignment process. In 2014, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that “judges in the Northern District of Illinois, Middle District of Florida, and Middle District of Pennsylvania had been assigned a disproportionately high number of copyright cases from certain plaintiffs” Draw your own conclusions.

There is a documented pattern in the wider copyright enforcement industry that merits attention. The GAO noted that “several judges raised concerns about the potential for ‘judge shopping’ in the assignment process for pro se litigants,” including the deliberate dismissal of related cases to influence the random assignment algorithm. This is not evidence of a conspiracy; it is evidence of a systemic vulnerability that can be exploited. This is a documented phenomenon. The fact that the GAO identified this as a systemic vulnerability tells us that it is not merely theoretical.

Skepticism about the US judicial system in this case is not irrational. When a Jewish judge is hearing a case where Jewish lawyers represent Jewish defendants against a Gentile plaintiff, it is not unreasonable to question whether ethnic solidarity played any role. These are legitimate questions in a society where Jewish networks are clearly known to exist and where the justice system is not immune to influence.

We have no direct evidence of judge shopping in this case, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These things are done in secret, not in the public street. Also, judge-shopping is a well-known phenomenon in all Western nations. This isn’t even in dispute. The closed nature of judicial assignment processes and the lack of transparency in how cases are allocated make it impossible to definitively rule out the possibility that the outcome was influenced by factors unrelated to the law.

What can be concluded is this: Getty Images has a predatory and criminal business model. The legal system has failed to hold them accountable. And the concentration of Jewish identity among the key players in this case – the financiers, the plaintiff’s lawyers, the judges – creates at least the appearance, if not the certainty – of a closed loop that the public is entitled to question.

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 150 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com

NOTES – Part 10

[1] Photographer sues Getty Images for $1 billion after she’s billed for her own photo

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html

[2] $1 Billion Lawsuit Against Getty Images Raises Questions about Public Domain Dedication

https://graphicartistsguild.org/1-billion-lawsuit-against-getty-images-raises-questions-about-public-domain-dedication/

[3] US District Court dismisses Carol Highsmith’s $1 billion copyright claim against Getty

https://www.diyphotography.net/us-district-court-dismisses-carol-highsmiths-1-billion-copyright-claim-getty/

[4] Photographer sues Getty Images for $1 billion after she’s billed for her own photo

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html

[5] US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff

[6] Judge Dismisses Photographer’s $1 Billion Case Against Getty Images

https://graphicartistsguild.org/judge-dismisses-photographers-1-billion-case-against-getty-images/

[7] US District Court dismisses Carol Highsmith’s $1 billion copyright claim against Getty

https://www.diyphotography.net/us-district-court-dismisses-carol-highsmiths-1-billion-copyright-claim-getty/

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

Other Works by this Author