ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: eqszaz on August 17, 2013, 10:04:39 PM
-
Masterfile sent me a FedEx letter today. I began reading your forums for the first time today. Here is a brief summary of my situation.
I operate a blog with mental health information (I am a clinical psychologist). The blog contains no advertising revenue and no goods or services are sold on the blog. The blog links to my website which does list my information for clinical psychology services, but the blog itself does not promote these services.
One of my blog posts contained an image that masterfile claims to own the copyright. I took the image down upon receiving the letter.
I immediately called the contact person in the letter and explained that I have taken the image down. I also explained that my blog provides public service information (suicide prevention, mental health information) and is non-commercial and I believe there is a copyright exception for such material.
I asked the contact person to call me so I can discuss the issue further with him.
I have complied with the request to take the image down. I read about fair use of copyright material and public service announcements and education seem to be legitimate exceptions.
I would appreciate it if anyone could share information on the use of this exception, especially if related to these letters by master file.
Thanks for the helpful information.
-
I reached Geoffrey Beal of MasterFile today. I explained my rationale that:
1. Image is no longer on the site
2. I linked to the image without knowledge that I was infringing.
3. The blog has no advertising and does not sell goods or services
4. The posts are educational and public service in nature
His response was that I should pay as this does not constitute fair use because the artist was not credited.
He said MasterFile would settle for 600 (reduced from 1400). This is for a single image I linked to.
I offered 200. I told him this figure was due to the amount courts could reduce judgments to, and also, at the 600 range, I would be able to hire an attorney.
He immediately asked if the lawyer's name was Oscar Michelen. He said MasterFile has pending cases in my state (North Carolina) and hiring Oscar Michelen would only make things worse for me (glad he is looking out for my interests).
He was firm at 600. I took notes on the call and told him I would seek counsel on the issue.
I think I would like to look into hiring Mr. Michelen to help.
Previous posts I have read here suggest to try to fight it if they go higher than 300.00 to settle.
Does hiring Mr. Michelen seem wise in this case, or would it be better to settle for 600?
Thanks for your advice on this.
-
I think you could not do better then hiring Oscar. also if your image was linked and not actually on your site you should be alright as the courts have ruled that linking in image is not infringement. lookup perfect 10 v. google
-
A very upset Mr. Beal called me a few minutes ago. I was wondering to what extent he would threaten me. The call went like this:
"I made you an offer earlier today. You posted personal communications with me on the extortion letter blog. I rescind the offer and I am going to turn this matter over to our NC State attorney who will take it up with you."
At this point, he abruptly hung up. Interesting that in his own words, he is responding to me based on the websites I view and make posts on.
I actually told Mr. Beal in our original phone conversation that I would seek counsel before agreeing to any settlement. I have difficulty understanding what would cause him to believe that our conversation was in some way private when I had not agreed to keep any of it private, nor had he asked me to.
Based on this, I plan to hire legal representation on my behalf.
What legitimate business would oppose consumers being informed and educated of appropriate industry legal & ethical standards and pricing structure? The ironic aspect is that if I had learned from credible sources that Mr. Beals' proposal were fair and ethical, I would have paid it without being forced to.
Now I am left with first hand evidence that leads me to believe that Mr. Beals' approach is to keep the consumer uninformed and force payment out of a position of lack of information and vulnerability.
-
How would hiring Oscar make things worse for you?
Out of curiosity: Did you host the image on your server? Or just hotlink. If you only hotlinked... you have the unique opportunity to jerk this guy around. (Hotlinked means the image was on some other server you don't control but you inserted a link to that server. It's done all the time, especially at blogs.)
-
Oh... btw. Answer about hotlinking privately. Really... I'll pm you.
-
LOl it's really too bad that that douchebag Geoffrey Beal got his panties in a wad, he doesn't like ELI very much, and I suspect he doesn't care for Oscar much either considering Oscar gave it to him the hard way in Federal Court... I see he likes to visit ELI on a regular basis, to bad he doesn't have the ball to post here...
I'm sure he doesn't like me calling him a douchebag either, but I'm entitled to my opinion, you'd think he would be smart enough to realize that some people won't simply drop their drawers and bend over for him.. Every new person that comes to ELI effects his income, maybe if he acted ethical and honestly he wouldn't find himself getting bashed on a regular basis, but it seems the money is more important to him.
-
Thanks for the support, Lucia and Robert. I PM'd both of you.
I followed the instructions for sending my scanned information to Mr. Michelen. I hope I will be able to hire Mr. Michelen. I will wait to post specific information until I hear more about my case (don't want to hurt my case in some way).
Once I learn more, I'll make sure I share details of what I learn and how things turn out. It helped me to read about others' experience with this.
-
I woke up feeling rather generous this morning, hence there is a new post over @ http://copyright-trolls.com/site/ just for asshat Geoffrey Beal...he can thank me later...now to go feed it to the twittersphere..
-
As suspected Geoffrey Beal continue to blow smoke out his ass, a casual search of PACER shows ZERO pending cases in North Carolina, they may have sent letter to those residing there, but thats a little different than actually filing suit... I guess his parents never taught him about being honest.
-
Another thing he told me during our conversation:
Beal: "It does not matter if you link to an image and don't host it. If it is displayed on your website, you are liable for it."
Me: "The site is a blog, not a static website. I did not download the image on my hosting provider's servers."
Beal: "It doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of pinterest.com? Look there and you will see they promise penalties there if you link to copyrighted material."
-
Another thing he told me during our conversation:
Beal: "It does not matter if you link to an image and don't host it. If it is displayed on your website, you are liable for it."
Me: "The site is a blog, not a static website. I did not download the image on my hosting provider's servers."
Beal: "It doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of pinterest.com? Look there and you will see they promise penalties there if you link to copyrighted material."
Another complete bullshit statement from Geoffrey Beal! Yo Geoffrey maybe you should read up on perfect10 v google, where it was decided that linking to images is not considered an infringement... take your head out of your ass!!! if this were infringement Masterfail and Getty would be suing google on a daily basis for linking to images...
One thing that Geoffrey Beal is very well versed in is making himself look like a total a-hole....now onto the pinterest statement.. Their TOS are written and designed to absolve them (Pinterest) from any copyright liability issues, if users choose to pin items they themselves are on the hook for the infringement not pinterest.
It amazes me how far these trolls like Geoffrey Beal will go to extract moneys from unsuspecting and uneducated victims...and how rude and unprofessional they become when someone asks questions or seeks outside help..
::EDIT:: Compelled to add this:
http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/Rottenecards_61765672_q5vphw7s3x.png
-
Just one more on the Pinterest thing....
TOS link...
http://about.pinterest.com/copyright/
Highlights:
"Pinterest will take whatever action, in its sole discretion, it deems appropriate, including removal of the challenged material from the Site. DMCA Notice of Alleged Infringement ("Notice").
"I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the copyrighted material or reference or link to such material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., as a fair use)."
Now...if one uploaded an image on Pinterest and linked it back to ones personal or commercial website, I would think that this would NOT be considered "fair use".
-
If you hotlinked, you have no worries!! You're done. See
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1327768.html
There have been no supreme court rulings. But this is the 9th circuit, one level below the US supreme court. (There is a 2nd relevant ruling in another circuit. Pretty much in the same direction.)
This is the display right discussion in the case
Perfect 10 Google Amazon.
A. Display Right
In considering whether Perfect 10 made a prima facie case of violation of its display right, the district court reasoned that a computer owner that stores an image as electronic information and serves that electronic information directly to the user (“i.e., physically sending ones and zeroes over the {I}nternet to the user's browser,” Perfect 10, 416 F.Supp.2d at 839) is displaying the electronic information in violation of a copyright holder's exclusive display right. Id. at 843-45; see 17 U.S.C. § 106(5). Conversely, the owner of a computer that does not store and serve the electronic information to a user is not displaying that information, even if such owner in-line links to or frames the electronic information. Perfect 10, 416 F.Supp.2d at 843-45. The district court referred to this test as the “server test.” Id. at 838-39.
Applying the server test, the district court concluded that Perfect 10 was likely to succeed in its claim that Google's thumbnails constituted direct infringement but was unlikely to succeed in its claim that Google's in-line linking to full-size infringing images constituted a direct infringement. Id. at 843-45. As explained below, because this analysis comports with the language of the Copyright Act, we agree with the district court's resolution of both these issues.
We have not previously addressed the question when a computer displays a copyrighted work for purposes of section 106(5). Section 106(5) states that a copyright owner has the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly.” The Copyright Act explains that “display” means “to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process․” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101 defines “copies” as “material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” Id. Finally, the Copyright Act provides that “[a] work is ‘fixed’ in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.” Id.
We must now apply these definitions to the facts of this case. A photographic image is a work that is “ ‘fixed’ in a tangible medium of expression,” for purposes of the Copyright Act, when embodied (i.e., stored) in a computer's server (or hard disk, or other storage device). The image stored in the computer is the “copy” of the work for purposes of copyright law. See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 517-18 (9th Cir.1993) (a computer makes a “copy” of a software program when it transfers the program from a third party's computer (or other storage device) into its own memory, because the copy of the program recorded in the computer is “fixed” in a manner that is “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration” (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101)). The computer owner shows a copy “by means of a ․ device or process” when the owner uses the computer to fill the computer screen with the photographic image stored on that computer, or by communicating the stored image electronically to another person's computer. 17 U.S.C. § 101. In sum, based on the plain language of the statute, a person displays a photographic image by using a computer to fill a computer screen with a copy of the photographic image fixed in the computer's memory. There is no dispute that Google's computers store thumbnail versions of Perfect 10's copyrighted images and communicate copies of those thumbnails to Google's users.6 Therefore, Perfect 10 has made a prima facie case that Google's communication of its stored thumbnail images directly infringes Perfect 10's display right.
Google does not, however, display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user's computer screen. Because Google's computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects ․ in which a work is fixed ․ and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. 17 U.S.C. § 101.
So, at least the ninth circuit thinks it "matters" whether you have stored the image on your server. And this is true no matter what Pinterest might have to say on it's web page.
Another thing he told me during our conversation:
Beal: "It does not matter if you link to an image and don't host it. If it is displayed on your website, you are liable for it."
He's just wrong. Wrong. Laughably wrong.
Me: "The site is a blog, not a static website. I did not download the image on my hosting provider's servers."
Beal: "It doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of pinterest.com? Look there and you will see they promise penalties there if you link to copyrighted material."
It's not at all clear how Pinterest's Terms of Service could possibly affect your case. But it might have been fun if he gave you a link so we could laugh at precisely what language written by Pinterest he thinks affects your display!
-
It's not at all clear how Pinterest's Terms of Service could possibly affect your case. But it might have been fun if he gave you a link so we could laugh at precisely what language written by Pinterest he thinks affects your display!
Was thinking the same....WTF???
-
ROTFLMAO!
Another thing he told me during our conversation:
Beal: "It does not matter if you link to an image and don't host it. If it is displayed on your website, you are liable for it."
Me: "The site is a blog, not a static website. I did not download the image on my hosting provider's servers."
Beal: "It doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of pinterest.com? Look there and you will see they promise penalties there if you link to copyrighted material."
Another complete bullshit statement from Geoffrey Beal! Yo Geoffrey maybe you should read up on perfect10 v google, where it was decided that linking to images is not considered an infringement... take your head out of your ass!!! if this were infringement Masterfail and Getty would be suing google on a daily basis for linking to images...
One thing that Geoffrey Beal is very well versed in is making himself look like a total a-hole....now onto the pinterest statement.. Their TOS are written and designed to absolve them (Pinterest) from any copyright liability issues, if users choose to pin items they themselves are on the hook for the infringement not pinterest.
It amazes me how far these trolls like Geoffrey Beal will go to extract moneys from unsuspecting and uneducated victims...and how rude and unprofessional they become when someone asks questions or seeks outside help..
::EDIT:: Compelled to add this:
http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/Rottenecards_61765672_q5vphw7s3x.png
-
Hi Geoffrey...
-
His Mother never taught him to be honest.
-
Just one more on the Pinterest thing....
TOS link...
http://about.pinterest.com/copyright/
Highlights:
"Pinterest will take whatever action, in its sole discretion, it deems appropriate, including removal of the challenged material from the Site. DMCA Notice of Alleged Infringement ("Notice").
"I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the copyrighted material or reference or link to such material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., as a fair use)."
Now...if one uploaded an image on Pinterest and linked it back to ones personal or commercial website, I would think that this would NOT be considered "fair use".
I think if you uploaded it to your a Pinterest account that you control and then displayed a hotlink to that image you your Pinterest account at your blog, Masterfile might very well have a case against you. Because in this case, your Pinterest account is, for all practical purposes "your server" and you copied it to that server. So, in this case, you are for all practical purposes "hosting" the image. After all: you can delete it.
The fact that Pinterest doesn't charge you for the account is likely not relevant. So, in this case Perfect v. Amazon might not cover you. (I suspect it would not. But Masterfile still has to go to court and explain the distinction. But the way I see this, in this case you did make a copy-- to your Pinterest account. And you are displaying that copy-- both at Pinterest and at your blog. )
But if someone else uploaded it to their Pinterest account which you have nothing to do with and you hotlinked the image they hosted, Perfect v. Amazon covers you. Masterfile can sue the person who uploaded the image to their Pinterest account and potentially win. But they won't prevail against all the people who hotlink.
As for Pinterest: All their TOS says is that
(a) If Masterfile sends them a take down notice, they will take down.
(b) If you repeatedly upload stuff that gets sent take down notices, they will ban you etc.
(c) If you upload copyrighted stuff, the same people who can send take down notices might sue you. That would be their choice. This simply a statement of fact. DMAC does protect Pinterest but not necessarily the individuals who upload.
But unless the masterfile chase here involves someone uploading stuff to Pinterest and then displaying that at their blog, the whole Pinterest thing is just a red herring.
-
Just want to clarify what "uploading" means with regard to Pinterest...
"Uploading" usually means entering a "link" from which the image is located (usually from the net via search engines) and then posting that image from that link to a specific board. Now I am no expert here nor am I a Pinterest expert, but I'm thinking that this type of "upload" is still "hot-linking".
Now if one were to "copy" an image and put it on ones "own server" or "hosting service" and from THERE upload that image and link to Pinterest, that would be a big "no no".
Still best to use CAUTION when you don't know where the image originates with regard to copyrights.
Just my thoughts...
-
couple of items.. I believe Lucia meant to refer to perfect10 v google, not Amazon and in regards to Pinterest and Peeveds' comments.. When you "upload" something to Pinterest and enter a URL from which to get the image, an actual "copy" of that images is created, hence the whole shitstorm that has ensued over Pinterest..The image is actually copied and stored on Pinterest servers..so the scenario would be something like this
1. you come upon my site, like one of my images, and decide to pin it ( because it's totally awesome!)
2. you go ahead in pin it from the URL, pinterest grabs it and copies it for you in YOUR account
3. Lucia comes along, and thinks the image is equally as awesome ( and it is!) and repins it...
4. Pinterest now does not make another copy, but simply links to it from your board.
So technically there is a "COPY", Pinterest clearly states that it's the user or "pinner" that holds the responsibility , and to boot King douche bag Jonathan Klien pretty much stated on video, then when pinterest starts showing a profit the lawsuits will come.
And it gets more complicated for photographers that are trying to protect their work ( I must admit it is sometimes difficult living on both sides of the fence in terms of the copyright issue.)
It was brought to my attention that one of my images was pinned on Pinterest, no big deal but I did get curious, turns out it was seen on 500px.com and a user pinned it.. Also turns out that 500px TOS states that the "pin button" cannot be removed and that users agree to allow their images to be pinned.. I'm sure this does not sit well with those photog that are hell bent on protecting their works, and trust me most of the images on 500px.com are not your typical stock images of tree with fluffy clouds, they are for the most part good images.. Hell most users probably never even read the TOS..for me it's not that big of an issue, because my images really aren't that super awesome, and I have a moral compass and would not sue someone for some insane amount..
-
Actually Perfect 10 sued Google and Amazon so Robert and Lucia are both correct.
This is a good discussion, lots to think about.
-
Glad to have Robert clarify.
Right now Pinterest is just a "sharing what you love" site and the bottom line is as Robert stated:
So technically there is a "COPY", Pinterest clearly states that it's the user or "pinner" that holds the responsibility, and to boot King douche bag Jonathan Klien pretty much stated on video, that when pinterest starts showing a profit the lawsuits will come.
-
Glad to have Robert clarify.
Right now Pinterest is just a "sharing what you love" site and the bottom line is as Robert stated:
So technically there is a "COPY", Pinterest clearly states that it's the user or "pinner" that holds the responsibility, and to boot King douche bag Jonathan Klien pretty much stated on video, that when pinterest starts showing a profit the lawsuits will come.
sharing what you love is one thing, but what is going to happens to all those companies incorporating Pinterest into their social media marketing?? They're gonna find themselves on the hook someday, and it woldn't surprise me if the likes of getty / Masterfile didn't wait / monitor company boards until they had literally dozens of pinned ( infringing) images, and then swoop in for a large settlement. We can call them dumb asshats all day long, but that doesn't mean they are clever..
-
couple of items.. I believe Lucia meant to refer to perfect10 v google, not Amazon and in regards to Pinterest and Peeveds' comments..
Perplexingly, both,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Google_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc.
So technically there is a "COPY", Pinterest clearly states that it's the user or "pinner" that holds the responsibility , and to boot King douche bag Jonathan Klien pretty much stated on video, then when pinterest starts showing a profit the lawsuits will come.
Mind you, it's Pinterest's theory that they aren't the ones copying even though their servers do fetch the image at the 'pinners' behest. I"m not a copyright attorney, but I bet Oscar would suggest Pinterests theory has not been tested in court. This is not quite the same as a pinner downloading to their pc and then uploading to pinterest. Pinterest's hardware actually makes the copy, and I'm not sure the pinners all understand quite what's going on. (Some will; some won't.)
Hell most users probably never even read the TOS..for me it's not that big of an issue, because my images really aren't that super awesome, and I have a moral compass and would not sue someone for some insane amount..
Oddly, my thought is that 'justice' would deem Pinterest liable before it would deem the 'pinner' liable. But I don't know what courts would do.
-
BTW: I should add that Pinterest and pinner's liability in copying wouldn't be 'on or the other but not both'. It could be that both are liable.
-
BTW: I should add that Pinterest and pinner's liability in copying wouldn't be 'on or the other but not both'. It could be that both are liable.
I'd have to go back and look, but I'm fairly sure when Pinterest rewrote / changed their TOS, they made sure any liability fell solely on the user/pinner.
-
Robert,
Yes. That's what Pinterests TOS says. But that doesn't affect copyright law itself and doesn't affect what a Federal judge might rule in copyright court. .
I think that the question about whether Pinterest would be violating copyright law when Pinterest's servers are running the code that fetches the image and stores it on Pinterest servers has not been adjudcated in copyright courts. I also don't think Pinterest's TOS is binding on a federal judge enforcing copyright law. Yes. Pinterest's TOS claims any violation is purely that of the pinner. As things stand, as far as I can tell, all Pinterests TOS really means is that if a copyright holder sues in copyright court, Pinterest will argue that Pinterest is not the one copying.
But the truth is-- no matter what Pinterest says in it's TOS-- a judge might not buy that argument. As far as I am aware, there is no precedent suggesting any judge would accept Pinterest's claim that the copying is done by the pinner and the pinner only. Given the facts as they stand in a suite, a judge might very well decide that Pinterest is copying the image. And it will be the judges interpretation-- not Pinterest's-- that matters. If the judge agrees with Pinterest, Pinterest will be happy. If not.. not!
-
I don't think Pinterest TOS would matter all that much other than to perhaps allows Pinterest to sue the pinner for indemnification and reimbursement. But I also think that MF or Getty won't take on Pinterest for fear of going up against a large company and a large law firm that will reveal the emperor has no clothes. Do you think its a coincidence that we have not heard of Getty going after a big fish? History also has proven that these cases and issue are won when the troll goes after somebody who has enough money to fight and demand proof. Look at Imageline (and George Riddick) who terrorized companies for years with troll lawsuits over clip art. He got too big for his britches and went after Bernina. They counter-sued, proved the falsity of his claims and essentially bankrupted him and put him out of business. The "compilation registration issues" only were decided because a photographer named Bean (not Getty) sued Houghton Mifflin, the publishing giant. Alaska Stock made the same mistake. Masterfile sued none of my clients and then pushed the envelope by claiming my client Chaga International re-infringed after settling because the images involved were still allegedly left of dead pages of their website. Chaga decided to stand up and spend the money necessary to defend the case. So its not likely that Getty or MF will take on Pinterest directly. They may try to make a backroom deal with them that we will never hear about but they won't sue them. To get back to the original poster, I am not sure your use would be fair use just because it is non-commercial and educational. The use of the image is to decorate your website. You are not teaching the art of photography or even discussing what's shown in the image. It's all moot because of the "hotlink" issue and MF's reluctance to sue.
-
I received a copy of the defense letter today, and approved it. Thank you, Mr. Michelen.
The humorous issue with this thread (if you read the earlier posts) is the fact that I never used Pinterest to hotlink the image (it was hotlinked elsewhere).
When I explained to Mr. Beal that I never downloaded the image, but merely used a link, he told me it didn't matter and referred to Pinterest as an example, as if Pinterest TOS would apply to the internet as a whole.
My experience with the issue has been consistent with what has been posted on these forums so far:
1) I received a threatening letter from MasterFile.
2) I called and spoke with the contact person (as instructed in the letter).
3) The contact person, Mr. Beal, was single focused. Pay! He attempted to be mildly polite when I first called him (at least he wasn't interrupting or calling me names).
4) When he learned I was consulting this website -- his tactic changed. He called me and interrupted me and abruptly hung up after telling me he was escalating the issue to his North Carolina (my state) lawyers.
From what has been said in this thread, Mr. Beal provided me with false information (hotlinked images are the same liability as downloaded images) when he was still in the mood to discuss the issue.
If I had it to do over again, I would not have called. I would have sent one letter and then if I received a negative response (which I am certain I would have), I would hire Mr. Michelen (which I have now done).
My understanding is that from now on, I will simply refer any agents of MasterFile to Mr. Michelen if they try to contact me about this issue.
-
Once they receive Oscar's letter they are no longer allowed to contact you, if they do let Oscar know and he will handle it.
-
yes the thread did kinda get derailed with the whole pinterest thing, but I blame that on that turd-polisher Geoffrey Beal.. Damn I can't in good conscious call Beal a turd polisher, that name is reserved for Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack!...with that being said I guess I'll simply refer to Masterfiles Geoffrey Beal as an asswipe.
sometime I have to much fun with these copyright trolls...