Click Official ELI Links
Loading
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support with Matthew Chan | Oscar Michelen Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI Letter and 30 day preview agreement
« Last post by Mulligan on Today at 05:58:41 PM »
Good post, SG!

Even at my advanced age, I was unfamiliar with the phrase "Assuming argenudo" and at first thought it had something to do with Argentina, Tango, and perhaps love making requiring strenuous or agile positions.

But then, because I'm now a diligent legal scholar -- thanks for the motivation to learn intellectual property law from the copyright trolls at Getty Images and their outside counsel Timothy B. McCormack -- I visited Wikipedia and learned that...

Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument. The phrase "assuming, arguendo, that ..." is used in courtroom settings and academic legal settings to designate provisional and unendorsed assumptions that will be made at the beginning of an argument in order to explore their implications. Making an assumption arguendo allows an attorney to pursue arguments in the alternative without admitting even the slightest possibility that those assumptions could be true. Often, these assumptions would be that the facts or legal arguments endorsed by a hostile party were true.

This seems to me to be more smoke and mirrors and manipulative fear tactics from the largest image company in the world to extract huge payments with an extrajudicial business scheme that's morally worse in my mind than using a gun in the dark of night to rob unarmed victims.

And, like most bullies, Getty Images and its troll Timothy B. McCormack prey on the small and weak. Of course they lack the balls to try to pull this sort of thing on a company that has its own legal department.

In this regard, I almost choked on my upper denture when I first read last year in my initial settlement demand how Getty Images wanted to "amicably settle this dispute between our two companies." Ha, what a freaking laugh that was... the largest image company in the world versus my little mom and pop website.

That may have been my very first "assuming argenudo" moment, and in my ignorance I didn't even know it!

Assuming argenudo does sound sexy, though, doesn't it?

Pass the Viagra.
2
I like Mulligan's posts.
I know how those "zero" keys on a keyboard can sometimes stick.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2wxegtYcD1qdwm2w.jpg

S.G.

3
This is all the same old thing that has been going on for years.
Getty wants money.  Getty says that it has "exclusive rights".  Getty can't prove that it has "exclusive rights"  Getty says that it doesn't "have to prove anything". lol

More misleading info: "nothing prohibits us from obtaining an expedited registration prior to filing suit".
While this is true, registering an image AFTER an infringement has occurred is useless to create "standing to sue", unless the registration is made within 90 days of the first publishing of the image in question.

Getty speaks of "litigation", however such a litigation WILL FAIL without Getty owning the copyright registration or owning "exclusive rights" (see Getty vs. Advernet).
Getty cannot sue over property that it doesn't own, whether it's for "damages" or "statutory damages".
Therefore the copyright registration/ownership of exclusive rights ARE relevant.

But, again, it's the same old thing we've discussed on here for years.
Here's some free advice: don't pay it.

S.G.

4
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI Letter and 30 day preview agreement
« Last post by Peeved on Today at 03:03:13 PM »
So I received a response from Getty and in their response they seem to have some boiler plate repsonses... anyone have any comments on how they handled these?

 

Please understand that, as exclusive licensor of the images in question, Getty Images is seeking compensation for the unauthorized usage of our represented photographers work. Getty Images’ responsibility to its represented photographers is not only to appropriately license the use of their images to its customers, but to also protect its represented photographer’s intellectual property from unauthorized use and to maintain the exclusive availability of the image through Getty Images.


Below are excerpts from their response:
 

With respect to your comment requesting that we provide proof of Getty Image’s right to manage the images; while this request would seem to be redundant because you have already apparently read the terms and conditions associated with the use of our represented photographers’ work; the author of a work has the right to transfer his exclusive rights to another party.  17 U.S.C. §101.  Those exclusive rights include the ability to license the material, grant permission for its, use and the ability to make and defend claims.  17 U.S.C. §106, 106A.  The authors of these images are the photographers. Getty Images contractually represents the photographers who created these images.  This representation includes the privilege to license their intellectual property and the obligation to protect it from unauthorized use.  Due to confidentiality concerns, we cannot provide you with copies of our contributor contracts, nor are we required to provide them prior to formal discovery requests.

Getty Images does not require its represented photographers to register their works with the US Copyright Office. Copyright exists upon the moment of creation.  Registration is not a requirement of copyright law and only an issue at the time a lawsuit is filed or if statutory damages are being sought.  Getty Images is currently attempting to resolve this matter without litigation and is not seeking statutory damages.  Accordingly, the registration certificate is irrelevant at this time.  The fact remains that the imagery was in use without the proper license and Getty Images continues to seek compensation for the prior unauthorized use. Please find enclosed a watermarked copy of the imagery as evidence of our rights in the same. Therefore, when copyright infringement occurs, Getty Images is entitled to compensation. We are aware of our obligations under the law and civil procedure requirements in filing formal proceedings. Assuming arguendo, registrations are not in place, which is not admitted, nothing prohibits us from obtaining an expedited registration prior to filing suit.


Looks very familiar! lol! Let's see the biggie stands out....

the author of a work has the right to transfer his exclusive rights to another party.  17 U.S.C. §101.

Of course the author of a work has the right to transfer his exclusive rights but the question remains.....DID HE/SHE???

All the other BS is stuff that has been gone over many times. The registrations are required in order to collect "statutory" damages but not "actual damages". etc...etc....

It may be worth more reading here or an Eli Support Call as Matt suggested.
5
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI Letter and 30 day preview agreement
« Last post by Mulligan on Today at 02:58:55 PM »
We are aware of our obligations under the law and civil procedure requirements in filing formal proceedings. Assuming arguendo, registrations are not in place, which is not admitted, nothing prohibits us from obtaining an expedited registration prior to filing suit.

Oh, interesting. It seems we're seeing evolution at work as Getty tries to counter ELI's wealth of information as to how to stand up to these copyright trolls. I found especially funny their "We are aware of our obligations under the law" because they also find every way to twist and pervert copyright law to extract ridiculous sums of money from scared people.

Isn't it remarkable how many ways these lawyers can find to pretend they have a copyright registration or a right of exclusivity?

The big point of all this: IF they had the proper documentation, you can be damn sure they'd shove it in your face with these outrageous demands.

My conclusion after dealing extensively with Getty and their outside copyright troll law firms like that of Timothy B. McCormick is that they have nothing but bluster, misrepresentations, and downright lies.

You can put sugar on a turd, but, by golly, it's still a turd, so, copyright trolls, show your cards if you expect to take the pot.

Otherwise, fold and go sulk with your troll buddies who can dish it out but whine like cockroaches snorting Raid when what you're doing is made public.
6
You are going down the wrong path here. It is way too involved to get into here based on your broad comments.

You might want to consider an ELI Support Call if you want to save time and get down to it.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/eli-phone-support-call-with-matthew-chan/


So I received a response from Getty and in their response they seem to have some boiler plate repsonses... anyone have any comments on how they handled these?
 
7
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI Letter and 30 day preview agreement
« Last post by KWR on Today at 02:41:21 PM »
So I received a response from Getty and in their response they seem to have some boiler plate repsonses... anyone have any comments on how they handled these?

 

Please understand that, as exclusive licensor of the images in question, Getty Images is seeking compensation for the unauthorized usage of our represented photographers work. Getty Images’ responsibility to its represented photographers is not only to appropriately license the use of their images to its customers, but to also protect its represented photographer’s intellectual property from unauthorized use and to maintain the exclusive availability of the image through Getty Images.


Below are excerpts from their response:
 

With respect to your comment requesting that we provide proof of Getty Image’s right to manage the images; while this request would seem to be redundant because you have already apparently read the terms and conditions associated with the use of our represented photographers’ work; the author of a work has the right to transfer his exclusive rights to another party.  17 U.S.C. §101.  Those exclusive rights include the ability to license the material, grant permission for its, use and the ability to make and defend claims.  17 U.S.C. §106, 106A.  The authors of these images are the photographers. Getty Images contractually represents the photographers who created these images.  This representation includes the privilege to license their intellectual property and the obligation to protect it from unauthorized use.  Due to confidentiality concerns, we cannot provide you with copies of our contributor contracts, nor are we required to provide them prior to formal discovery requests.

 

Getty Images does not require its represented photographers to register their works with the US Copyright Office. Copyright exists upon the moment of creation.  Registration is not a requirement of copyright law and only an issue at the time a lawsuit is filed or if statutory damages are being sought.  Getty Images is currently attempting to resolve this matter without litigation and is not seeking statutory damages.  Accordingly, the registration certificate is irrelevant at this time.  The fact remains that the imagery was in use without the proper license and Getty Images continues to seek compensation for the prior unauthorized use. Please find enclosed a watermarked copy of the imagery as evidence of our rights in the same. Therefore, when copyright infringement occurs, Getty Images is entitled to compensation. We are aware of our obligations under the law and civil procedure requirements in filing formal proceedings. Assuming arguendo, registrations are not in place, which is not admitted, nothing prohibits us from obtaining an expedited registration prior to filing suit.
8
ahhhh Mulligan is ever the optimist! I agree we may get a response soon, but not in terms of a correction..
9
That $35,000 has to be a typo since there are so many better images available for free or for pennies all over the web.

I like to give copyright trolling lawyers the benefit of the doubt whenever possible since I'm sure one of them somewhere, somehow, must be honest and decent at heart. Looking at her photograph so happily sipping a latte, perhaps Georgia Attorney Cindy Hsu is that honest and decent copyright attorney?

I bet she probably really meant to type $3.50 or $35.00 to reflect the actual value of the images in question! And that we'll have a correction from her soon.
10
Very good news indeed.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support with Matthew Chan | Oscar Michelen Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.