上海的月亮: CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 犹太人正在掠夺世界——第10部分 — 盖蒂图片社 — Jews are Plundering the World – Part 10

译者：Pearl

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.

盖蒂中心位于美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶，是盖蒂博物馆和盖蒂信托其他项目的所在地。该博物馆的中心分馆主要展出20世纪前的欧洲绘画、素描、手抄本、雕塑和装饰艺术作品；以及19世纪30年代至今来自世界各地的摄影作品。源/Source

CHINESE ENGLISH ESTONIAN

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.

掠夺社会链条中的另一个环节是互联网上的图片领域。最大的掠夺者之一是盖蒂图片社（Alamy位列第二）。他们的网站上有数十万张图片，但实际上他们只拥有其中极小一部分的出版和销售权。盖蒂会定期扫描互联网，并将他们发现的几乎所有有用图片都复制到自己的网站上。然后，他们会搜索互联网，以了解是否有人在任何地方使用过这些图片中的任何一张，并威胁要采取严重的民事和刑事诉讼行动，以此要求巨额费用。他们声称这些图片是从他们的网站上复制的，主张版权，并要求支付费用。

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.

在一个著名的案例中，一位美国画家将自己的数千幅画作上传至互联网，并明确指出她将这些作品置于公有领域，供任何人使用。不久之后，她发表了一篇文章，并配以自己的一幅画作，却收到了盖蒂图片社的诉讼威胁，要求她支付巨额赔偿。她以欺诈为由起诉盖蒂图片社索赔10亿美元，但一位“受贿法官”驳回了此案。在另一个著名的案例中，盖蒂图片社向一家教堂索要3.8万美元，因为盖蒂图片社对其中一张图片根本不享有权利。

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.

对于收到盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）索赔要求的每个人，我的建议是，如果盖蒂能提供以下两样东西，就同意支付赔偿：（1）确凿证据，证明图片确实是从盖蒂的网站上获取的；（2）一份法律文件副本，证明盖蒂实际上拥有该图片的版权。我猜这些人以后就不会再收到盖蒂的来信了。

盖蒂的掠夺性商业模式；这一骗局是如何运作的 — 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:

盖蒂图片社是现代制度化掠夺的典型案例，完全符合我们关于系统性衰败的讨论。它描述了一家公司，其帝国的建立并非基于创造，而是基于对他人财产的侵略性和欺诈性货币化。这不仅仅是一种有问题的商业模式；它是一种复杂的敲诈勒索形式，利用公众的无知和恐惧，系统地破坏知识产权的概念。盖蒂图片社完善了一种侵略性、大规模强制执行的策略，这种策略起到了敲诈勒索的作用。请注意，这不仅仅是美国的欺诈行为；盖蒂在全球范围内运营，在每个可能的地方窃取资金。这种操作的机制如下：

未经授权内容的系统性上传 — 1. 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.

盖蒂（Getty）网站上的图片数量远超过其拥有版权的图片数量。证据表明，他们故意采用可疑手段建立自己的图片库。最令人震惊的证据是华盛顿西区提起的一项联邦《反诈骗组织操纵和腐败组织法》（RICO）集体诉讼，该诉讼指控盖蒂“欺诈性地声称拥有公共领域图片的版权，而这些版权实际上并不属于任何人，并出售公共领域图片的虚假版权许可，而这种许可实际上任何人都不得合法出售”。该诉讼指控盖蒂违反了《反诈骗组织操纵和腐败组织法》（RICO）、《华盛顿消费者保护法》以及多项侵权法。这并非一起小纠纷。这是一起联邦欺诈指控。

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”.

该投诉详细指出，盖蒂使用“多种不同的欺骗手段”误导客户和潜在客户，使其相信盖蒂拥有其网站上所有图片的版权，并声称使用任何图片都需要获得许可。盖蒂还利用其子公司License Compliance Services, Inc.（LCS）向公共领域图片的使用者发送索赔函，指控他们侵犯版权。通过营造一种敌对环境，盖蒂及其子公司“推高了其自身对公共领域图片的欺骗性许可的市场价格”。

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”.

诉状进一步指控称，“盖蒂（Getty）的非法行为至少是明知故犯、蓄意而为且具有恶意，因为其销售公有领域图片版权许可的做法已多次被诉至法庭，然而，它仍继续为其明知属于公有领域的图片出售所谓的版权许可”。

大规模诉讼与索赔函件生成器 — 2. 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.

一旦盖蒂为其收藏作品播下种子，其运营的第二阶段就开始了：大规模提取定居点。主要机制是“版权钓鱼”,盖蒂向个人和小企业发出索赔函，往往以法律诉讼相威胁，要求为一张图片支付数千美元。这一制度是专门为掠夺而设计的。迫使人们支付的不是版权主张的有效性，而是对诉讼的恐惧。

其主张的法律可疑基础 — 3. 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.

当面临诉讼时，纸牌屋往往会轰然倒塌。盖蒂模式的核心法律漏洞在于，他们所使用的水印并不能证明所有权。在2023年的一项具有里程碑意义的判决中，中国最高人民法院确立了一个关键的先例。法院裁定，在版权归属存在争议的情况下，“不能仅凭水印或权利声明来确定作品的版权归属”。盖蒂的当地合作伙伴未能证明他们实际上拥有相关图片的权利。在法庭上，盖蒂承认摄影师保留了版权。这一裁决对任何图片授权公司的权力都是一个重大打击。

其商业模式的法律漏洞 — 4. 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]

盖蒂公司业务的不稳定基础在几起重大案件中暴露无遗。其中最著名的案件可能是摄影师卡罗尔·M·海史密斯（Carol M. Highsmith）的案件，她将自己毕生的作品——超过18,000张照片——无偿捐赠给美国国会图书馆供公众使用。2016年，海史密斯起诉盖蒂公司索赔超过10亿美元，指控该公司出售其公有领域照片的使用许可，甚至还向她发送了一封要求支付使用她自己拍摄的华盛顿特区天际线照片费用的函件。 [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.

该诉讼指控盖蒂“不仅非法收取版权费……而且还欺诈性地声称自己是独家版权持有者”。诉状指出，盖蒂在2013年的一起类似版权案中败诉，摄影师丹尼尔·莫雷尔（Daniel Morel）赢得了120万美元的赔偿。海史密斯（Highsmith）根据《版权法》要求获得三倍赔偿，这一索赔要求是合理的，因为盖蒂在过去三年内在另一宗版权案中被判败诉。

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.

多家权威消息来源证实，在卡罗尔·海史密斯（Carol Highsmith）的非营利组织网站上使用了一张她自己的照片后，盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）向她发函要求支付和解金。她发现盖蒂图片社未经她许可就以高价出售她的照片，并“威胁那些不付款的人”。海史密斯随后提起10亿美元的诉讼。2016年10月，一名联邦法官驳回了海史密斯所有与版权相关的主要主张。[3]2016年11月，双方达成和解，但具体条款未予披露。

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.

”正如《洛杉矶时报》所指出的[4]，“如果你希望复制它，可以从盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）付费下载，费用可能超过5000美元。或者，像海史密斯（Highsmith）的照片一样，你可以从国会图书馆（Library of Congress）免费下载，没有任何限制。选择权在你。”当被逼到墙角时，盖蒂假装对其网站上图片的版权没有任何主张。盖蒂表示，“分发和提供公共领域内容的访问权限与主张其版权所有权是不同的。”

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]

在听证会上，本案的主审法官、美国地区法官杰德·S·拉科夫[5]表示，他驳回了海史密斯的指控。拉科夫在听证会上的行为表明，他已对这些指控做出了预先裁决。拉科夫还“带有偏见地”驳回了海史密斯的案件，这意味着海史密斯不得再以这些理由提起诉讼。[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.

法官将盖蒂（Getty）发给海史密斯（Highsmith）的催款函视为一个单独的问题。盖蒂称这是一个“无心之失”，发现后已立即纠正。然而，鉴于该公司有案可查的历史，将盖蒂向海史密斯发出的索款函定性为“无心之失”并不可信。盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）以“版权流氓”而闻名。该公司以将虚假版权转化为可观收入流而著称，这种掠夺性执法的模式是一贯且证据确凿的。若轻信“无心之失”的说法，无异于对智商的侮辱。

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.

值得注意的是，一家数字营销公司于2019年提起的另一起更近的联邦诉讼中，特别指控盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）通过欺诈手段声称拥有公共领域图片的所有权，从而违反了《联邦诈骗影响和腐败组织法》（Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act，简称RICO）。

帝国背后的个体 — 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.

盖蒂图片社并非一家抽象的公司。它由具体的个人——有名字、有面孔的人——控制，这些人设计、实施了这种掠夺性、欺诈性和敲诈勒索的商业模式，并从中持续获利。

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.

克雷格·彼得斯（Craig Peters）担任盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）首席执行官，负责管理盖蒂图片社、iStock和Unsplash等品牌。他于2007年加入盖蒂图片社，并于2019年被任命为首席执行官。马克·盖蒂（Mark Getty）是该公司的联合创始人兼董事会主席。詹妮弗·莱登（Jennifer Leyden）是首席财务官兼高级副总裁。凯利蒂·凯洛夫（Kjeliti Kellough）是高级副总裁兼总法律顾问，是公司的首席法务官。这些人并非合法企业的被动管理者。他们是该系统的指定董事，该系统因欺诈性授权公共领域图片而在联邦法院被指控为《反腐败组织犯罪法》（RICO）下的企业。

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

克雷格·彼得斯，盖蒂勒索企业首席执行官。来源：盖蒂图片社

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

詹妮弗·莱登；盖蒂图片社首席财务官。图片来源：盖蒂图片社

The full list of named executive officers includes:

全部具名高管名单如下：

Mark Getty Chairman of the Board, Co-Founder

马克·盖蒂董事会主席，联合创始人

Jonathan Klein Co-Founder

乔纳森·克莱恩联合创始人

Craig Peters Chief Executive Officer, Director

克雷格·彼得斯首席执行官、董事

Jennifer Leyden Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President

詹妮弗·莱登首席财务官，高级副总裁

Kjeliti Kellough Senior Vice President, General Counsel

凯利蒂·凯洛夫高级副总裁、总法律顾问

Gene Foca Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer

吉恩·福卡高级副总裁，首席营销官

Nate Gandert Senior Vice President, Chief Technology Officer

内特·甘德特高级副总裁、首席技术官

Mikael Cho Senior Vice President, CEO, Unsplash

高级副总裁兼首席执行官

Grant Farhall Senior Vice President, Chief Product Officer

格兰特·法哈尔高级副总裁，首席产品官

Ken Mainardis Senior Vice President, Global Content

肯·梅纳迪斯全球内容高级副总裁

Andrew Saunders Senior Vice President, Creative Content

安德鲁·桑德斯创意内容高级副总裁

Peter Orlowsky Senior Vice President, Strategic Development

战略发展高级副总裁

Lizanne Vaughan Senior Vice President, Chief People Officer

高级副总裁，首席人事官

Michael Teaster Senior Vice President, Chief of Staff

迈克尔·提斯特高级副总裁、办公厅主任

Chris Hoel Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer

克里斯·霍尔副总裁，首席会计官

捕食者的解剖学 — 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.

盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）之所以能打造出一个价值数十亿美元的企业，靠的不是它所创造的价值，而是它所灌输的恐惧。证据确凿：他们经常声称拥有自己并不拥有的作品，利用毁灭性诉讼的威胁来迫使他人达成和解，并依赖法律上存疑的水印和版权声明作为其主要“证据”。盖蒂图片社的这些行为已在美国联邦法院和其他国家的最高法院受到质疑。盖蒂图片社不仅采用掠夺性的商业模式，而且有正当理由质疑法律制度的公平性。当大公司动用精锐的法律团队对付个人时，胜负从来不是平等的。

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.

盖蒂图片社并非版权捍卫者，而是一个老练的执法敲诈集团。其高管——克雷格·彼得斯、马克·盖蒂、詹妮弗·莱登等人——并非创作者权益的守护者。他们是犯罪掠夺机器的设计师和管理者，该机器系统地破坏了知识产权法，将公共领域私有化，并对言论自由征收恐惧税。

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.

针对盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）的诉讼并非一起轻微的越权行为。这是一起系统性欺诈、掠夺性执法，以及对自由社会法律和文化根基的蓄意侵蚀。这家公司继续运营、继续盈利，并继续被其所利用的法律体系视为合法企业，这绝非反常现象。这是更深层次腐败的征兆。这是我们所追踪的同一套机构掠夺协调体系中的又一颗毒瘤。与其他毒瘤一样，它的力量完全建立在无人反抗的假设之上。

社会影响——系统性腐败与恐惧 — 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:

这种掠夺性模式的影响远不止于个别的诉讼案件。它给社会带来了缓慢而普遍的腐败：

法律体系的武器化 — 1. 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.

盖蒂（Getty）已将法院系统这一司法支柱转变为其私人债务催收机构的一个分支。它利用《数字千年版权法》（DMCA）的安全港条款作为武器，但并非出于其原定目的，而是为了迫使网络主机充当其私人执法机构。对可能带来毁灭性后果的法定赔偿金的恐惧，成了一种强大的敲诈勒索工具。

对言论自由的寒蝉效应 — 2. 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.

任何使用图片的行为都可能导致五位数赔偿金的事实，让出版商、教育工作者和日常互联网用户感到不知所措。公民们宁愿自我审查，也不愿冒收到索赔信的风险。整个评论和批评领域都陷入了寒冬。

公共领域的私有化 — 3. 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.

盖蒂模式最阴险的一个方面是它试图将公共领域私有化。公共领域属于每一个人。它是文化公地，是我们共同的遗产。盖蒂实际上是在圈占这片公地，在属于人民的东西周围筑起围篱，然后收取入场费。RICO集体诉讼提出了法律论点：这不仅错误，而且是犯罪行为。

创造与商业的堕落 — 4. 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.

盖蒂的模式破坏了它声称所代表的摄影师。它把摄影师变成了一个低利润、高产量内容工厂，贬低了摄影艺术的价值。它对小企业、初创企业和非营利组织征收巨额税款，而这些企业无法负担法律咨询费用，被迫为使用他们原以为免费的图片支付保护费。这人为地设置了进入壁垒，阻碍了创新。

信任的侵蚀 — 5. 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.

也许最根本的是，这种行为侵蚀了数字空间中的信任。我们无法相信我们所看到的任何图像都已获得合法授权或属于公共领域。我们无法相信托管图像的平台是在诚信行事。我们甚至无法相信，我们对自己创意作品的使用不会遭到索赔。这营造了一种普遍的恐惧和被操纵的氛围。

犹太凝聚力 — 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.

我要指出的是，盖蒂（Getty）的高管几乎全部是犹太人，包括盖蒂的金融家。盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）的创始人是犹太人，且历史上在管理层中也有重要的犹太人参与。联合‑创始人乔纳森·克莱恩（Jonathan Klein）的犹太家族是从俄罗斯移民来的。在金融家方面，盖蒂图片社一直由包括赫尔曼与弗里德曼（Hellman & Friedman）、凯雷集团（Carlyle Group）和科氏股权发展公司（Koch Equity Development）在内的私募股权公司所有。所有这些公司都有特定的犹太人所有权结构。

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.

而杰德·拉科夫法官“恰好”是一位犹太法官。这绝非巧合。埃隆·马斯克也做了同样的事。这被称为“挑选法官”。许多其他富有的犹太人也这样做，他们利用体制来获得一位会支持他们立场的犹太法官。西方国家的法官显然和政客一样容易收买。

Judge Jed Rakoff.

杰德·拉科夫法官。来源/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.“挑选法官”一词指的是通过在特定管辖区提起诉讼或操纵随机分配程序来选择对自己有利的法官的做法。2014年，美国政府问责局（GAO）发现，“伊利诺伊州北区、佛罗里达州中区和宾夕法尼亚州中区的法官从某些原告那里分配到的版权案件数量异常多”。请自行得出结论。

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.

在更广泛的版权执法行业中，存在一种值得关注的已记录模式。美国政府问责局（GAO）指出，“多名法官对自诉当事人案件分配过程中可能出现的‘挑选法官’现象表示担忧”，包括故意驳回相关案件以影响随机分配算法。这并非阴谋的证据；而是表明存在可被利用的系统性漏洞。这是一个有记录的现象。美国政府问责局将其确定为系统性漏洞，这一事实告诉我们，这并非仅仅是理论上的问题。

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.

在此案中对美国司法系统的怀疑并非毫无道理。当一名犹太法官审理一宗由犹太律师代表犹太被告对抗非犹太原告的案件时，质疑种族团结是否在其中发挥了任何作用并非不合理。在一个犹太人网络显然存在且司法系统并非不受影响的社会中，这些质疑是合理的。

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.

我们没有直接证据表明此案存在挑选法官的行为，但无证据并不等于不存在。这些事情都是暗中进行的，而不是在光天化日之下。此外，挑选法官在所有西方国家都是一个众所周知的现象。这一点甚至没有争议。法官指派过程的封闭性以及案件分配方式的不透明性，使得我们无法完全排除结果受到与法律无关的因素影响的可能性。

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.

可以得出的结论是：盖蒂图片社（Getty Images）的商业模式具有掠夺性和犯罪性质。法律制度未能追究其责任。而且，本案的关键参与者——金融家、原告律师、法官——中犹太人身份的集中，至少在表面上（如果不是确定无疑的话）形成了一个闭环，公众有权对此提出质疑。

Mr. Romanoff’s writinghas 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).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成34种语言，他的文章被发布在30多个国家的150多个外文新闻和政治网站上，以及100多个英文平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫（Larry Romanoff）是一位退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职务，并拥有一家国际进出口企业。他曾任上海复旦大学客座教授，为高级EMBA课程讲授国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生现居上海，目前正在撰写一系列共十本书，总体上涉及中国与西方的话题。他是辛西娅·麦金尼（Cynthia McKinney）新选集《当中国打喷嚏》（When China Sneezes）的特约作者之一（第2章——与恶魔打交道）。

His full archive can be seen at

他的全部档案可以在以下网址查看：

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

He can be contacted at: 2186604556

他的联系方式是：2186604556

NOTES – Part 10

注释 – 第10部分

[1] Photographer sues Getty Images for $1 billion after she’s billed for her own photo
[1] 摄影师因被收取自己照片的费用而起诉盖蒂图片社，索赔10亿美元
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
[2] 针对Getty Images的10亿美元诉讼引发公众对公共领域作品使用问题的质疑
https://graphicartistsguild.org/10-亿-美元-针对-盖蒂图片社-的-诉讼-引发-关于-公共领域-贡献-的-问题/

[3] US District Court dismisses Carol Highsmith’s $1 billion copyright claim against Getty
[3] 美国地方法院驳回卡罗尔•海史密斯对盖蒂提出的10亿美元版权索赔
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
[4] 摄影师被盖蒂图片社就其自己的照片收费后，起诉该社索赔10亿美元
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html

[5] US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff
[5] 美国地方法院法官杰德•S•拉科夫
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff

[6] Judge Dismisses Photographer’s $1 Billion Case Against Getty Images
[6] 法官驳回摄影师对盖蒂图片社提出的10亿美元索赔诉讼
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
[7] 美国地方法院驳回卡罗尔•海史密斯对盖蒂提出的10亿美元版权索赔
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.

本作者的其他作品