April 22, 2013 06:37 PM UTC

The Hackstaff Election Flier: Skullduggery or Misdeeds?

• 1 Comments
• by: ClubTwitty

Hat Tip to David T for noticing this was licensed to Getty Images. 

So I did some digging.  Comments led me to wondering what exactly are the requirements for and agreements in using a licensed image, like the one from Getty used in the Hackstaff stamped smear mailer.

And, unless the dirty-tricks dark money shop has some particular and unique license with Getty Images, it would appear to be in violation of Getty’s license agreement. 

First of all, it is a licensed image, as the caption from the Washington Post story the original appears in also notes. 

People wait in line to vote at Caroline High School on November 6, 2012 in Milford, Virginia. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

From the Getty Images licensing information and indices, we learn it is classified as an ‘Editorial (Rights Managed) Photo.

Editorial (RM)

Products in our editorial collections are licensed with restrictions on usage, such as limitations on size, placement, duration of use and geographic distribution. Editorial products must be used in an "editorial" manner, which means use relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest. If you wish to use an image or video from our editorial collections for a non-editorial use, you must contact a sales representative to assist you. All licenses of editorial products are subject to Getty Images Editorial, Rights-Managed and Rights-Ready Image and Video License Agreement.

Getty Images serves as a broker for professional photojournalists, and this–especially–is considered a premium service.  And a premium, proprietary product. 

About pricing rights-managed image

RM images are part of our high-end, premium collections. The price is determined by how you intend to use the RM image. Need to display an RM image across multiple media types? Please contact us.

All licenses of editorial products are subject to Getty Images Editorial, Rights-Managed and Rights-Ready Image and Video License Agreement.

Maybe the dark money dirty-tricks shop mailing from the Hackstaff Llc address bought the premium license for this image.  If so it still appears it is in violation of the Editorial, Rights-Managed Agreement referenced above. 

2.4 Editorial Licensed Material may be cropped or otherwise edited for technical quality, provided that the editorial integrity of the Licensed Material is not compromised, but shall not, under any circumstances, otherwise be altered.  (Emphasis Twitty)

So, how does this work now?   If the dark money shop neglected to comply with either or both requirement above—that is in (1) getting a license from Getty Images, the lawful broker of the image, and (2) in following the specific requirements of the Getty Images Editorial, Rights-Managed and Rights-Ready Image and Video License Agreement who exactly looks into that?

Can Hackstaff Llc still claim it is just performing a client service if actual misdeeds, not just skullduggery, were done? 

Does this warrant an investigation by Secretary of State Gessler?