Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation 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.

Author Topic: 3 strikes for Alaska Stock  (Read 4742 times)

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
3 strikes for Alaska Stock
« on: December 31, 2011, 01:14:10 PM »
Seems like Alaska Stock has lost a suit, not once but 3 times..

“It is insanity to repeatedly do the same thing and expect a different result.” (Albert Einstein) This applies to the law as well as to physics. (Alaska Stock LLC v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company et al.)

Alaska Stock – no relation to Sarah Palin – is a stock photography agency. Houghton Mifflin, a publishing company, licensed a number of photographs from Alaska Stock for use in certain textbooks. Subsequently, Alaska Stock asserted that the licenses included quantitative limits, which were exceeded by Houghton Mifflin. Alaska Stock filed suit, claiming copyright infringement.

http://university.generalpatent.com/insanity
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

Peeved

  • Guest
Re: 3 strikes for Alaska Stock
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2011, 03:42:42 PM »
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it."
W. C. Fields

"Woo woo...I think I can, I think I can,...woo woo".

There will never be quitters so long as there is greed in this world. Been this way since the dawn of time.


« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 03:45:09 PM by Peeved »

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: 3 strikes for Alaska Stock
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2012, 12:53:57 PM »
My friend Russell Jackson represented Houghton Mifflin in that case (and Muench) and I congratulate him on another big win that supports our position. 

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: 3 strikes for Alaska Stock
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2012, 02:53:35 PM »
At this point, we can say with great certainty that those involved in the stock photo industry are loathe as to registering their content with the copyright office, and the contracts with their contributors are often quite shoddy.

Now, these stock image companies are testing the court system in the hope that some judge will find in their favor, thereby setting a precedent that essentially shows that one needn't possess actual concrete evidence of ownership in order to collect significant monetary damages.  Additionally, such a ruling would demonstrate to extortion letter victims that the stock images companies could win even if the evidence is quite lacking.

I believe that such court judgements are becoming increasingly less like to happen.  In the case of Getty vs Advernet, the judge said (with underlining by me), "In light of the foregoing analysis of the plaintiff's claim that the images at issue are licensed exclusively to it, the Court finds that material issues of fact exist with respect to the plaintiff's copyright ownership interest in twenty-seven of the images at issue, as discussed above. Moreover, with respect to the remaining eight images at issue, no specific time of infringement was asserted or established by the plaintiff. Additionally, whether the plaintiff, who is alleged to be “one of the world's leading content providers,” licensing “imagery via the Internet” and serving “an average of 3.2 million thumbnails, 6.5 million visits and 3.5 million unique users in addition to an average of 167 million page views each month,” has an exclusive right(s) in any particular image has the potential to be an issue of substantial public importance, given the size and scope of the plaintiff's alleged image collections.."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75525341/Getty-v-Advernet-Decision-Southern-District-of-NY?query=public

I doubt that multi-million dollar companies are going to be able to forego signed and dated contracts, and proper registrations and still be able to collect Statutory damages.  There's been word that these companies have been lobbying Congress, however, I doubt that copyright legislation will be "loosened".  If that were to happen, and the courts needed no proof of copyright ownership, then anybody could make dubious claims in court in order to simply to steal money.  That's just not going to happen.

I hope that the copyright trolls enjoyed their Christmas/New Year full of exquisite Butthurt:

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2233/santatrollcopyrightcour.jpg

S.G.

Peeved

  • Guest
Re: 3 strikes for Alaska Stock
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2012, 03:57:25 PM »
Funny Santa Soylent! I hope you are right however as Oscar stated, they are also watching and learning such as HAN and Vincent K Tylor!

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/hawaiian-art-network-lawsuit-collection/

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: 3 strikes for Alaska Stock
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2012, 04:10:21 PM »
Has H.A.N produced any paperwork from the copyright office?
Or, is this just another "Getty scam" as in, "we won't show you our evidence unless we go to court"?
If they can't show what they have upfront, I'm willing to be that these go nowhere...
Even if Tylor authored the images, there would have to be some registration in place to get any real settlement (in court).

Additionally, the fact that many of Tylor's images are marketed as FREE (in BIG letters) is a huge legal problem.
There may be some sort of verbiage on these sites that they aren't "responsible" for unauthorized use, etc.
But, I bet that writing is very small compared to the size of the font used for the word "FREE".
I doubt that this could be considered a Legal contract" or even a proper "notification", unless there's a button that you must click to indicate that you have read and agreed to the terms of service.
It isn't a "contract" anymore than if I put a "Picscout can't tresspass here" warning on my site.

A smart person could just look through some of the hundreds of sites wherein the "infringed" image resides, until he/she finds one without a legal warning.  Guess what?  "That's where I got it".

It's also quite absurd that these "FREE" images are in fact also, "Valuable RIGHTS MANAGED PREMIUM images".

I still believe that the scared people pay.  The educated people with some "fight" in them do not.

S.G.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 05:35:06 PM by SoylentGreen »

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI 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.