Sites like thechive.com, heavy.com, buzzfeed.com, etc. seem to post a lot of copyrighted images, even celebrity photoshoots, from a wide variety of sources. How do they get away with it? They can't possibly have agreements with the owners of all the rights holders, and yet, they are high-traffic sites that would seem to be a target for invalid copyright use by the rights holders. I don't see them as uploaded as users so it can't be a "safe harbor" case and it's not fair use either. Everyone is always cautioned to not use copyrighted images, yet these large sites get away with it, what am I missing?
There are a few factors in play. First, if they get a DMCA take down request on the images, I am sure they comply quickly to avoid legal trouble. Next, someone would have to see the content and report it to the copyright holder for them to complain before anything would actually happens. Images are difficult to "get in trouble" for, because they don't have a lot of value, so the cost of protecting them is usually less than the lawyer fees to actually do anything about it.
Most of the time anyone can get away with using a copyrighted image, because it's not worth anyone's time to do anything about it
I doubt that they get away with it. Just that they have the resources to remove the images or content if any DMCA is sent, or that the original copyright owner may not even know of the infringement. Also such sites are normally run by large companies with their own legal team, so I guess even if they get into legal issues, they can settle without much outcry.
How does the govt get away with corruption? When you figure that out, then you have your answer.... When you have a lot of money/resources, then you will be surprised what you can get away with, or even making arrangements with the owner to buy the content, or whatever, they have more resources then a site that has nothing, and therefore they can not absorb a lawsuit, not even a small one.
What dsculock said and also DMCA policies. If you have a DMCA policy and the owner is not uploading the content then the owner is not held responsible.
As someone who ran a very large user generated content site, the DMCA laws are something of a compromise between not restricting the growth and value of the Internet and protection of intellectual property. Here's the way it works. They don't upload any of the information themselves. They are considered a "service provider" in the same way you might consider your ebay as a provider for an online auction service. If the company is responsible directly for uploading infringing content that you assume may be occurring, they have a problem. There is an odd kind of "willful blindness" where you can be aware that many users might be uploading infringing content. But unless you know, you aren't going to be held liable for providing an online service that does have useful lawful purposes. Once aware of infringing content or a repeat offender uploading the same, then you must do something about it or lose your safe harbor.
First of all, like many have already said, they probably respond and act quickly when they receive DMCA take down requests. They probably more or less comply with all take down requests, even if they come from individuals. On the other hand, like you've already stated, they are large organisations, probably with a lot of legal firepower, a lot of people would probably count their losses and move on as a legal battle with them would likely cost a lot of money.