ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: phxsunbum on September 16, 2011, 02:10:26 PM
-
Today I wrote my Congressman and my two Senators the following letter. I'd encourage everyone to do the same. I'm not sure it will do any good, but if enough people write it will at least draw attention to this issue, and possible lead to some change. As a matter of fact, if anyone knows of a system that can be used to generate an online petition and forward it to your representatives, I'd love to know about it.
Here's the text of the letter. I'd appreciate any feedback you'd like to share.
Senator Jon Kyle
730 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Friday, September 16, 2011
Dear Senator Kyle,
I am writing today to seek your assistance in modifying the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to require copyright holders and digital content distributors to first issue a cease and desist letter before demanding payment, including punitive damages, for copyright infringement.
My reason for enlisting your assistance is to help avoid penalizing people for innocent mistakes without giving them an opportunity to correct this oversight before imposing a penalty.
In today’s electronic age most business and many individuals are turning to the Internet to both promote their businesses, charitable organization, or small groups such as church groups, boy scouts and the like via websites, or to voice their personal opinion and share their knowledge via blogs.
To reduce the expense in creating these sites many people turn to “free stock art” offered on many sites on the web, purchase pre-designed templates, or hire overseas design firms, particularly those in India, to design their site.
The problem is that occasionally the “free stock art” is pirated, the template designers and overseas design firms use copyright protected art without the knowledge of the end user. The user then pays for the template or the design and continues to conduct business as usual, only to one day receive a cease and desist letter from a company like Getty Images demanding an exorbitant fee as a penalty for their unknown use of the image.
Case in point: I operate a small web design firm that creates sites for small businesses and charitable organizations. Over 75% of our work is donated to non-profit agencies. To assist the DELETED Chamber of Commerce in their fund raising efforts, I donated a free website to the highest bidder. I subsequently designed a site for the bidder, DELETED, and used several images obtained from a site offering free stock art.
On September 8, 2011, Getty Images, Inc. sent DELETED a letter demanding payment of $780 for unauthorized use of an image they claim they own the exclusive rights to. Had I known this in advance I certainly would not have used their work without purchasing the licensing agreement, which today is $30 per year. In effect, Getty is charging a $750 penalty for this oversight. In fact, in July 2011 I became aware of a new piece of software called ImageExchange that identifies possible rights managed images. I took the proactive approach of scanning all the sites I developed and completely removed this site, including the image in question, July 14, 2011; almost two months before Getty issued their demand letter, yet they still assert they are due the penalty even though I acted in good faith. As a side note, if content is copyright protected at the moment of creation, would not Picscout (the company Getty uses to search the web for unauthorized use of their images) be guilty of infringing my copy rights for downloading a copy of the site I created, saving it on their servers, and ultimately providing a copy of the site to Getty?
I would ask that you “Google” Getty Demand Letter and you will find that this is common practice for Getty. In fact this is a major income generator for them, preying on unsuspecting people and threatening them with legal action if they don’t remit payment within 14 days. Many people do so as they fear legal action, when in fact, over 90% of Getty’s portfolio is not exclusive to Getty. They have even been known to threaten people who have actually purchased the image from another company that had licensing rights prior to Getty.
I have attached a copy of their standard demand letter and ask your assistance in modifying the DMCA to help prevent this type of predatory extortion. In particular, I direct your attention to page 3 of their letter, titled Frequently Asked Questions, wherein they acknowledge the infringement may be unintentional however they remain dedicated to collecting a penalty. For more examples I ask that you visit the following website: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com where you will find hundreds of mom and pop businesses, small designers, web bloggers, churches and charitable organizations who have received similar demands from Getty and other such companies.
In short, we are being penalized for something we had no idea we were doing wrong. There is no sense of fairness and we are not given the opportunity to correct this matter before they impose a substantial penalty. This is simply not right, and serves as an example of a large corporation circumventing the spirit of the law to their financial gain.
Sincerely yours,
-
I meant to post this the other day, online petition pertaining to getty. I fully agree that something somewhere needs to change, to not only protect innoncent infringers, but at the same time protect the rightful owners of images / content..
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/boycott-getty-images/
As a side note the image exchange program you referred to is owned by PicScout, which was just recently purchased by....you guessed it Getty Images!
-
@phxsunbum,
That's an exceedingly well written letter. I hope you don't mind if I crib parts of it to send to my Senators and Rep Waxman. I don't want to violate your copyright on that letter.
;)
-
Be my guest. I promise not to send you a settlement demand. LOL
-
Contacting your representatives is like talking to a brick wall. They are either in bed with the industry seeking protections or just don't care. I finally received responses back from our two Senators representing NC. One co-sponsered pending legislation to make copyright infringment a "felony" and does not sympathize with any infringer regardless of the circumstances. Needless to say, I won't be voting for her again. The other one had an aide call me and I just hung up the phone from a lengthy but fruitless conversation. While he is believes the laws involving infringement should be addressed, it is not an issue that is near and dear to their hearts. They are definitely on the side of the copyright holder regardless of the way they choose to make money. I won't be voting for him either..... BTW, I contacted these people months ago, but I will give them credit for responding. Better late than never!
-
Thanks for the info regarding your communications with your state government, Bekka.
While it may seem fruitless on the surface, it's never a bad thing to make officials aware of issue of concern, and they may even look deeper into said issues in the future.
Copyright infringement is one of those things that most people never think about unless it's something that's affected them directly.
The "felony" thing comes up from time to time, and I always smile when I hear it.
There's a distinct line between "civil" and "criminal" justice.
The "government" or "police" won't be chasing infringements and sending Getty and their ilk a monthly stipend anytime soon.
Guess what? The prisons are full already.
I'm quite sure that Righthaven in particular has changed a few minds in terms these issues.
Thanks again for your efforts; they aren't wasted.
S.G.
-
Maybe we could utilize the White House's "new petition" site. If we could get one started and get enough signatures, maybe we could have a voice in this matter too.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions?utm_source=wethepeopleearly&utm_medium=bottom&utm_campaign=wethepeople
-
Very good letter. Send it to senators in other states as well. Send it everywhere. Some states and senators are simply corrupt and chose not to represent its people. There will be those that will act on it. Send it to the Attorney General as well.
-
White petitions started. Please view and sign here:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/modify-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-require-cease-and-desist-letters-imposing-penalties/xS2zs7tS?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
-
Ok. I created a petition. However, it will not show up on the White House petition list until it has 150 signatures. So guys and gals let's get busy. Here is the link to sign. Send it to everyone you know that believes changes are needed.
http://wh.gov/gJu
-
Thanx Bekka!!!
I just blasted this to several groups and 2500 of my closest FB fiends! hopefully some will act upon it!
-
I am #6 and I shared it on FB.
-
Thanks guys! I hope we make it. The administration promises to look into the matter and respond if you have 5000 signatures in 30 days. I don't know if we will get there or not. I wish I had known you could put email addresses in those petitions, because I definitely would have listed this one.
-
OOPS! Not email addresses.....website addresses, must be real tired thinking about all this mess.
-
Today I received a response to my letter from Senator John McCain. Here is the text of the letter:
October 19, 2011 (Note today is November 18)
Dear James,
Thank you for sharing your views with me. I am pleased that you too the time to write.
Your concerns, opinions an views are important to me and help me do a better job in the United States Senate. Your input on this matter is of much value to me.
Again, thank you for your recent correspondence.
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senator
Obviously my letter fell on deaf ears. If I receive a reply from my two congressmen I will post it here as well.
-
The reply from John McCain reads like the spam comments people post to my blog - Generic and not related to the topic! ( obviously sorted out by my spam filters )
-
As least you got a reply of any kind. I didn't get a single acknowledgment whatsoever 2 years ago when I wrote my senators and congressmen here in Georgia (relating to a different matter). I sent my letter Certified Mail which obviously didn't mean anything.
Even the White House, responded better than they did. I got a generic email response at least.
Matthew
-
Received a response from Senator Jon Kyle. While he did not completely blow me off, his response was not encouraging. He did suggest I contact my State Attorney General if I felt Getty was "indeed preying on unsuspecting users of copyrighted material" who is responsible for investigating cases of misrepresentation and deceptive practices.
Here's the link to his letter: http://www.box.com/s/q7jl1jvrvc3zlry84e4b
Any thoughts on his suggestion?
-
Personally, I believe asking for help from government "officials" is about as effective as counting sand grains on a beach.
I would argue that time and effort yield better results by sticking to the Internet where each of us can spread knowledge about the copyright trolls and how to respond to them. The more noise we make in forums and on blog comment areas, the more light we shed on the legalized extortion these people are profiting with.
Looking to government for help when so many politicians are in the pockets of big companies is a total waste of time, in my opinion.
-
Well said Mulligan
-
Though I agree with Mulligan on this, there might be something in making it very easy for people to write to their elected officials. I have seen several "causes" actually post pre-written letters and current lists of addresses for senators and congressmen. All one would have to do is then print the pre-written letter, sign it, and send it off. A site like ELI would be perfect to host such letters. I have also seen several attempts on the ELI forum to start online petitions on the whitehouse.gov site - does anyone know if they gained any traction? When I found the links, the petitions had already expired. Yes, it may be a waste of time, but it can't hurt our cause.
-
mcfilms and I actually discussed this on-camera in his very first video update. mcfilms is a more thoughtful and methodical guy than I am. He thinks like you do while it may be very slow, there is benefit from it.
My position is that if someone wants to sprearhead the idea of pre-written letters, I would be happy to post them into our Scribd account for anyone to use and access. ELI Defense Team members have different strengths and preferences in what each individual member wants to bring to the fight.
If someone believes in the idea strong enough and wants to take the lead in it, I would be happy to give support and visibility to it. However, for me, I think my time is best spent on another front.
Let us remember, ELI is a hobby or side-project for most of us including me. We have to be selective in how and where we put our time.
Though I agree with Mulligan on this, there might be something in making it very easy for people to write to their elected officials. I have seen several "causes" actually post pre-written letters and current lists of addresses for senators and congressmen. All one would have to do is then print the pre-written letter, sign it, and send it off. A site like ELI would be perfect to host such letters. I have also seen several attempts on the ELI forum to start online petitions on the whitehouse.gov site - does anyone know if they gained any traction? When I found the links, the petitions had already expired. Yes, it may be a waste of time, but it can't hurt our cause.
-
we could probably use the OP's letter to his/her congress person, as he did give MCFilms to use bits, at least for a starting point. I agree it's a good idea, but my writing skills pretty much suck, as evidenced by my posts, and as mentioned there is the time factor.. Maybe another idea if someone is willing is to draft a letter that can be sent to different media outlets, from small home town papers to larger publications, and maybe even TV shows or news related youtube channels not that it would get us anywhere, but it couldn't hurt to send it out there.. I keep thinking of Shawshank, and Andy writing the state everyday for a number of years, but he finally got the library..
-
buddhapi--
I've been wondering if there are differences between the demongraphics of recipients of HAN , Getty and any other group letter. I haven't followed this long, but it seems to me the few HAN cases discussed here involved small businesses who used images at a business site. For example: The HAN/skunks involves a picture of skunks front page of a dog grooming site which existed to make money. The skunks were selected to highlight a service the site sells: deskunking of dogs. The other case I read about was a plastic surgery case. In that case, the images were on a site used to give a professional appearance to the medical groups site. In both cases, the sites were online and in active use.
So, it seems to me that at least at the outset, these HAN has picked cases were the site designer should have known that they needed to pay for images even if they were merely "decorative".
I don't know the general demographics of Getty cases, but we seem to hear of theme designers who had a demonstration product on a server that turned out to be connected to the web. In my case, I got a letter because a hotlinked thumbnail image of cardinals appeared well down in comments during discussion on a blog post at a personal hobby blog.
Comparing this range, it seems to me that when discussing what one would do, I think it's likely important to recognize that cases where the images really, truly were used as the decorative matter on front pages of commercial sites. My understanding of copyright is it still exists even if the images wasn't registered-- the only open questions are: what is the open range of damages and who has standing to sue. HAN names the copyright owner in the suit, so even if HAN's paper work isn't in order, it seems someone has standing.
I understand that you are hopeful that a judge would see that the wallpapers were all over the place, making it easy for the business person to believe they were free might make the judge decide there is an implied license. But I would also think if you step back as a disinterested 3rd party that the judge might not see it that way. Especially not if the photographer shows evidence that many of those wallpaper sites are in eastern europe etc. I really think if someone wants to make that argument in court, they would be wise to beef it up, check if the photographer himself makes the images available on Webshots and look into whether or not it's easy for pirates to get the digital images. Merely showing they are all over the place might fall short- and in court, you don't want to fall short.
I don't want to dishearten people-- but I think it's important to do the extra work and not just assume showing the images are all over the place must be enough to convince a judge.
In the Tylor case, it's not just that they are all over the place. It's that they are all over the place, and I think it's happening because he is uploading to Webshots. And he continues to sell through Webshots while suing.
-
I checked via Google for impressions of Tylor's Road to Hana - Turquoise Lagoon.
I went to the first 7 instances of the photo.
Out of the 7, a WhoIS search showed that two were registered through GoDaddy.
http://www.wallpaperzzz.com/widescreen-river-download/
http://v3wall.com/es/html/pic_down/1600_1200/pic_down_5488_1600_1200.htm
So, just in an informal search, nearly a third resided on domains wherein a DMCA takedown request would work immediately.
I smell scamola here.
S.G.
-
Lucia:
I'm not going to get into demographics, mainly because I don't think we really have enough data at this point, true most of the letters we hear about are from small businesses or hobby sites. My theory on why we don't hear from larger corporations and such as I think they have the resources to handle these matters in house, whether it be to fight or just pay. In my time here I have seen no examples of any of them being selective..business sites, non-profits, retirees, blogs, we've seen them all.
We also know that very few suits have been filed from any company, and most if not all of those suits were involving sites that used many images, the only exception that I am aware of is the plastic surgery firm in Hawaii, that chose to default.
I't has been mentioned that Getty alone sends out perhaps 1000's of letter per year..and they have even sent their own customers demand letters.
I certainly would not go in front of a judge with only 1 piece of the puzzle ( implied license) I would also be armed links to all of the site said image was available on, printed copies of sites that have the creative commons license agreement, screen shots of what the actual image is selling for ( $10.00 for a VK Tylor 4 x 6 print..including shipping from Hawaii!), I would show that some of these site are registered / hosted thur go-daddy ( I don't care if they are from the ukraine) and that no action has been taken to remove these infringers (DMCA Takedowns).. am I hopeful??? yes I'm hopeful that the judge got lucky the night before, and I'm hopeful that he would be a reasonable person.. One other I would like to ask HAN if given the opportunity is not only how many letters do they send, but of the total how many are for single images?
I want to be clear here, and state that try to only post my thoughts/ idea/ opinions, of what I would do, I try not to give anybody advise on how to handle this, we all have to our own fights, if I were to do this all over again, I would most likely handle things a bit differently, althought at this point i'm certainly satisifed.
-
I'm enjoying the discussions here, indeed ELI gets even better with time.
I've noted that H.A.N./Tylor have a track record of pursing infringements internationally, specifically Canada.
This is 2012, and I don't see any reason that they couldn't pursue infringements by "free wallpaper" sites in Europe, or wherever.
"International" is not a problem, as shown by their own actions. They can't testify that it can't be done.
While somebody always has "standing", and "copyright" subsists in a work at the moment of it's creation,
it's only the copyright registration that enables "statutory damages" to be sought that makes a lawsuit worthwhile.
Otherwise, it's just "actual damages", and Tylor sells his stuff for ten dollars, or something.
Therefore, the first thing that I would check is to see if the work was registered at the time of the alleged infringement.
If they won't send you proof of registration, that's an answer in and of itself. That would mean that they have nothing.
If they have nothing, then it's over.
Next, to the free wallpaper sites...
It would be very difficult to prove who submitted the image to the wallpaper sites.
Often, you can submit images anonymously. IP addresses are shite. So, I suspect that this is a dead-end.
I don't think that a judge is a "disinterested third party".
Tylor's images are found on free sites worldwide, even on ones that shut down sites immediately upon a DMCA notice.
Hundreds, if not thousands of web impressions of his free images exist. They can be brought to court as evidence.
The key point is the "public interest". I doubt that a judge would grant their motion, as it would open the door to scams of truly epic proportions.
That's a compelling argument that can be made to a judge.
But, I really wonder if HAN/Tylor really have any intention of going through with a lawsuit, other than the one that is in "default".
Don't be so naive as to think that this isn't a scam. Don't be so naive as to think that Tylor and HAN haven't visited ELI months ago.
I'm seeing just a bit too much of the "benefit of the doubt" song and dance.
Next thing we know, Tylor is going to piss in everyone's face and say "it's raining".
Wow!! Thanks... that helps the flowers grow!! Herp-a-Derp.
But, yeah... some people won't put up a fight without a "guaranteed win".
They pay and it goes away. But that still doesn't necessarily mean that the plaintiff had a case from the beginning.
Just ask thousands of Getty victims who paid.
S.G.
-
buddhapi--
I've been wondering if there are differences between the demongraphics of recipients of HAN , Getty and any other group letter. I haven't followed this long, but it seems to me the few HAN cases discussed here involved small businesses who used images at a business site. For example: The HAN/skunks involves a picture of skunks front page of a dog grooming site which existed to make money. The skunks were selected to highlight a service the site sells: deskunking of dogs. The other case I read about was a plastic surgery case. In that case, the images were on a site used to give a professional appearance to the medical groups site. In both cases, the sites were online and in active use.
I just want to make a correction here. The website is not selling the service of deskunking dogs. The link goes to a page with instructions on how to clean the animal yourself.
-
Ahh! I stand corrected. But the dog grooming site was for a business, right?
I'm not trying to suggest that either HAN or Getty are the greater or lesser of the two evils. I'm just trying to wrap my head around whether their operations differ slightly. Someone ran a video where a HAN representative indicated they avoid going after hobby bloggers and focus on businesses. The examples we read about here seem to be small businesses and evidently not-for profit businesses, but still what at least appear to be businesses.
In my case, and mikedrag on another thread, Getty sent letters to a hobby blogger (me) and someone who runs an aggregator (mikedrag). So the two may have slightly different 'business models' dictating who they send letters to.
If they send stuff to hobby bloggers, they are eventually going to get jammed up. Some hobby bloggers are going to roll over. But others won't. And hobby bloggers with medium to large audiences can make their own publicity.
-
I'll throw another 2 cents in...
I think it's a mostly an automated process, they hire picscout ( owned by Getty images) PS does its thing, and send reports back, letter are generated and send. Having personally seen 4 different Getty letters and comparing them, they are all identical in verbage, the only difference is the images in question. Again we have no idea how many letters they send out, but i'd be willing to bet that we see a very small percentage here at ELI.
BTW - there was a hobbyist in Canada that got a nice HAN letter demanding 5k for one image, none of them discriminate in my opinion..
We NEED more of those bloggers to make a stink!!
I have visited a bunch of blogs over the last 2+ years that have gotten the letters and made posts, but they most of them didn't get much attention.
-
@Lucia
Being that you run your blog as a hobby, have you considered registering a DCMA agent?? It may be worth it to avoid any of these issues going forward.
Iv'e considered doing it for my clients but it would be cost prohibitive for me, and I highly doubt my clients would want to pay for this, although it could potentially same them aggravation as well. I've already had 4 client get letters from Getty Images ( and no I was not responsible for any of them ) :)
-
buddhapi--
How much does it cost?
My blog rarely displays images that are remotely likely to catch Getty's attention. This was a fluke-- and even so, the image was hotlinked not hosted at my blog! Images actually hosted on my server are ... graphs of global surface temperature generated by me, graphs of temperature generated by my co-bloggers, photos I took myself etc. Typical posts are like this one http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/december-uah-anomaly-up-a-whisker/ (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/december-uah-anomaly-up-a-whisker/). Does that look like something Getty might even remotely consider making a stock image? I think not. If I thought they'd use it, maybe I'd sign up as one of their artists and make money on it! :)
-
Lucia, FYI I am blocked from seeing that page. (This is why I am not crazy about having to block your site from certain IPs and user agents. Suddenly people that want to visit your site cannot get there.)
-
@Lucia I think it's like 135.00, but I will look into and confirm for you, I know in my case doing this for well over 200 domains, would be way to expensive...
FYI - i'm blocked as well, and I did see my ISP in a list you posted a while back
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/picscout-dmca-question/msg4159/#msg4159
in your htaccess
deny from c-76-101-177-151.hsd1.fl.comcast.net
This was when I was visiting your site and following the thread you created for the legal eagles..
-
@ Lucia
The $105 Fix That Could Protect You From Copyright-Troll Lawsuits
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole/
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/04/04/designating-your-own-dmca-agent/
http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/
-
Budhappi--
I guess I don't understand exactly how filing an DMAC agent would protect me from copyright trolls. It protects me if my commenters blog post, but it doesn't seem to protect me if I post something copyrighted. Am I missing something here?
Also, it only protects if I do take stuff down after a takedown notice. What if I disagree with the person requesting the take down so I refuse? Then I'm not protected, correct?
I think it might be cheap if it works-- but if it has huge holes, I'm not sure it's worth it. Am I misinterpreting something about how it protects?
-
Sorry about the block. You were blocked by referrer. I was blocking everything with "getty" in the referrer. Normally that's ok, but clearly, it's likely to be a problem for anything coming from ELI since "getty-images-...." contains getty. I've made the string longer to block "gettyimages" and "gettywan".
I know I'll still block somethings I don't want to block. Right now I'm monitoring 403's daily to tweak what I block.
-
you are correct, if YOU post something that infringes, you would not be covered, however if you had been a registered agent, and that poster came along and posted the cardinal picture, you would be covered, and you would have never gotten a letter as Getty would have had to issue a takedown notice. It would then be up to the poster to send a counter-notification, you would just be the "middle-woman". If you refused to takedown the image/content you could also be held liable..
It has been noted in the Righthaven fiasco that they intentionally steered clear of blogs with registered agents, because they just couldn't file suit, I'd be willing to bet that Getty does the same thing, as they have shoddy registrations and generally weak cases from the get go.
-
There is no bullet-proof way to protect yourself short of staying off-line and not participating.
The protection comes in when other people post things that you don't feel responsible for. Here on ELI, people can post what they want but if I feel it is a violation for forum policy or simply inappropriate, I will delete it altogether.
It also forces them to properly notify you even if YOU post something questionable vs. what happened here to me where Canada Julie went straight to my hosting provider.
When you become a DMCA Agent, you agree to following a proper procedure such as DMCA complaints and counter-notifications.
I guess I don't understand exactly how filing an DMAC agent would protect me from copyright trolls. It protects me if my commenters blog post, but it doesn't seem to protect me if I post something copyrighted. Am I missing something here?
Also, it only protects if I do take stuff down after a takedown notice. What if I disagree with the person requesting the take down so I refuse? Then I'm not protected, correct?
I think it might be cheap if it works-- but if it has huge holes, I'm not sure it's worth it. Am I misinterpreting something about how it protects?
-
FYI, I was initially blocked myself and did not see the photo of a cat when I was in Columbus, GA. Right now, I am in Atlanta.
Sorry about the block. You were blocked by referrer. I was blocking everything with "getty" in the referrer. Normally that's ok, but clearly, it's likely to be a problem for anything coming from ELI since "getty-images-...." contains getty. I've made the string longer to block "gettyimages" and "gettywan".
I know I'll still block somethings I don't want to block. Right now I'm monitoring 403's daily to tweak what I block.
-
if you had been a registered agent, and that poster came along and posted the cardinal picture, you would be covered, and you would have never gotten a letter as Getty would have had to issue a takedown notice.
My posters can't upload. They can only hotlink. While getting the letter made me anxious, the fact is that hotlinking doesn't violate copyright. So at least with respect to the images issue, I don't think I'd be getting much protection from DMAC. After all-- yes they can write me scary letters. And then I can write back and discuss the issue here.
I think the bigger concern would be quoting text. But at my blog, most people post links to newspaper articles. Iquote and DMAC won't protect me there. I guess I understand the notion that merely seeing I have a DMAC in place might make Getty or Righthaven-returned-from-the-dead stay away. But I think I'm willing to risk given that I believe my quoting method falls under fair use and I would be willing to go to court on that. My understanding is Righthaven lost. Big time. Right?
-
Big Time is an understatement in regards to Righthaven, they got their collective asses handed to them! and I think the worst is yet to come.