ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND Getty IMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

[AriellaGamer]

(remove image from your webpage, if it's there. If you continue to receive messages -- see instructions below)
(go to www.archive.org (Not archives), search for your website with name and tld extension (ie: example.com) - IF offending images are found, do the following:)

(add this to the TOP of your robots.txt file, to fully erase all archive.org data about you)

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /

(OR, add something like this to the TOP of your robots.txt file, to only erase selective data like a specific folder)

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /images/
Disallow: /pics/
Disallow: /name-of-directory-where-you-keep-images/

(upload your robots.txt to your main directory, then submit your site here:)

www.alexa.com/help/webmasters#crawl_site

(usually within 24 hours, alexa.com will make sure the offending images will be GONE from archive.org)

------------------------------------

The remainder of the post has been removed by the Administrator.

[Lettered]

Hi Ariella,

I'm just as upset as you are over Getty's behavior.  However, no disrespect intended, but your post could be a bit misleading in my humble opinion.

As an example, when you wrote "NO, photos aren't magically created with a copyright.":  You are right that there is nothing "magical" about it.  However, as I understand it, copyright is "automatically" created when a photo is taken (no registration needed).

Also, as I understand it, there are some limitations to the removal process you posted in that robots.txt doesn't actually remove anything (just blocks access), and there have been cases of people being able to access blocked content.

There are several other things you wrote that seem to me to have similar issues.  I hope that anyone reading the information you posted will also read more posts and information on this site (especially Oscar's summary) to get several other points of view.

[AriellaGamer]

First, archive/alexa issue. It absolutely does NOT 'just block access' - it actually removes ALL PREVIOUS ENTRIES from where the access is blocked. I'm 100% certain of this, so please don't try to mislead people. If you put:

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /images/

This will cause absolutely ALL their records that were EVER taken from the folder called imags (www.yourdomain.com/images/) to be PERMANENTLY removed from their records within about 24 hours of you submitting the update to alexa (www.alexa.com/help/webmasters#crawl_site --- submit www.yourdomain.com).

Lettered, it's disturbing that you're trying to mislead people on such a simple fact. It does not just block, it REMOVES.

As for your other .. umm .. point. CREATIVE WORKS are indeed "automatically" protected by a copyright. A photographer points at something that includes creative works of others, and presses a button. Once again, in court, photographer vs web designer - I will PERSONALLY stake my personal freedom (not just money) on the fact that the website I designed is MY intellectual property. I did much more than just press a camera button. I will repeat this once agian, in case someone isn't clear on it:

THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DEMAND MONEY FROM YOU!
NONE. ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. No legal right to demand money.

With all due respect, if you disagree with me and believe they have LEGAL right to demand money without proof that you owe them damages (statutory or otherwise) -- cite something from US Code that starts with the cute little symbol '§' and supports your claim - I'll be glad to look it up.

Therefore, please, - if the images are not on your site AND not on archive.org - FILE A POLICE REPORT. Ask for their false letter to be admitted in court with the word 'settlement' stricken from record. Why? They have NO legal right to make demands.

[Lettered]

I hope you didnt take my post the wrong way.  I wasn't trying to mislead (and I don't believe I did) nor was I trying to fence with you.

... as for archive.org , my experience was different than what you describe.  Apparently the following folks' experience was different also:

http://lawmeme.research.yale.edu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1543

Who knows, maybe they are doing things different these days.  You can always take robots.txt down from your site and see if archive.org resumes displaying your history.

Your statement about "no legal right to demand" doesn't make sense to me.  Why can't someone demand money if they think it is owed?  Of course it doesn't mean you are legally obligated to pay it if you don't think its owed.  I'm no lawyer though, and I will admit I've seen a few things about the law in my day that didn't make sense but turned out to be so (copyright law being one of those).

What specific charge (criminal statute) would you use as the basis of filing a police report?

[AriellaGamer]

Charges are extortion and harassment. Racketeering too, I'm sure.

It's like the mob charging you for "car insurance" and trying to cover it by saying "driving without insurance is illegal in your state" which IS true... but then they add an absolute blatant lie like "it doesn't matter if you paid for your insurance elsewhere, we're THE ONES and THE ONLY ONES you have to pay if you don't want to see awful things happen to your car. We don't care if you already paid somewhere else. We refuse to show proof that you have to pay to us, but we demand it.. or else!"

It's like someone saying they broke their leg in your store, and even though there's explicit evidence that he/she did NOT suffer any damage in your store, they refuse to show any evidence and continue to demand money "or else".

as for archive.org, removing your block (removing those lines from robots.txt) will once again allow for future archiving. It will NOT return what was already deleted.

www.archive.org/about/faqs.php
(the 2nd FAQs question is about removal)

www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/removal-policy.html
(the link from FAQs - please do not be mislead, when they remove records, the past records are indeed REMOVED.)

Allowing archiver to crawl again after it has removed the images will NOT bring back the deleted pages - although I will test that on a completely unrelated website (one that's getty free), and see what happens.

I personally suggest making a partial disallow (just folders with images) and keeping it in your robots.txt - since every site should have a robots.txt anyway.. not a law, just a good thing to have.

[Lettered]

Do test it.  I did and I found that the behavior was not as the FAQ described. Weeks after following the "removal" instructions, I removed robots.txt as a test and the old history reappeared.  This was in contradiction to the FAQ (the way I read it) even back then, but thats the way it worked out. Maybe this was due to an oversight that has since been corrected.  It would be interesting to hear what you find.  My guess is that your old history will reappear.  I hope you find me wrong.  Please post what you find here.

If this is indeed still the behavior, you can contact archive.org directly and have them block it on their end ... though you may have to persist through multiple form letter responses instructing you to put up a robots.txt file before you get someone to actually read your email and act on your request.  My guess is the content will still be stored there, just blocked at the archive.org server level.  This is better, because at least your historical content won't become viewable every time your website is down for whatever reason (making your robots.txt inaccessible).   However, I suppose that if it does indeed exist (and isnt just blocked) that it could still be obtained with a court order.

I hope something like this (posted by goober in an earlier thread): http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/04/03/ITNevada.pdf will eventually be brought against Getty.  Maybe someone will one day be able to convince the courts that Getty is either purposefully creating infringements or at least encouraging infringements (with sloppy protection) in order to create a cash business of suing and threatening to sue people.

[AriellaGamer]

Just as I thought - removing does NOT bring old history back, because it was deleted. New history never appears because Alexa states it's only showing stuff that's 6 months+ old.

Without having to wait too long, I did an even more definitive test! Put in a disallow of a totally different folder.

Now the stuff from that folder is gone from Archive.org AND the from the other folder is gone.

Put it back to the 1st folder disallow.

Now the stuff from the 1st and 2nd folder are still gone for old files. I know the future files will record the 2nd folder but not the 1st - the one I'm currently blocking.

ie:

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /folder1/

vs

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /folder2/

vs both lines gone

*** Alexa is a legitimate business to the best of my knowledge. Alexa's non-profit database is giant. If someone wants their stuff gone, it's GONE. If the domain is later bought by somebody else who doesn't use that robots.txt command, the old stuff will NOT reappear - it is GONE.
*** For those who believe Lettered - you can believe it was an 'oversight that has since been corrected' -- I do not believe it was the case for one second!

I won't point to which site I tested, because Getty can (and DOES) very easily fake ownership - I fear they may attack the site I point to. After all, taking a photo of an existing photo is pretty easy when you have a decent quality computer screen.

And I once again want to repeat this for people in USA, who have access to making a nice free police report:
* GETTY IMAGES (or anyone else, for that matter) has NO LEGAL RIGHT to demand money from you.
* Your website IS automatically the intellectual property of the website designer.
* The copyright belongs to the website designer.
* The copyright does NOT belong to Getty - they claim they represent someone who pressed a camera button, but refuse to offer any proof (copyright, exclusivity, damages, - anything?!?), and just demand money. They have NO RIGHT to do this.
* Do not waste any further time speaking with their telemarketers.
* Copyright your ENTIRE website (just $35 with copyright.org)
* First letter's reply should be short:

--------------
This is not a settlement demand, because we don't have what you claim as yours and you suffered no damages. If you wish to establish a need for settlement discussions, please present us with verifiable legal proof of copyright, exclusivity and damages. Dates are crucial, please provide those as well. DO NOT contact us with any further settlement issues until a need for a settlement has been established.
--------------

Remainder of content removed by Administrator

[Lettered]

I don't understand your post.  I wasn't talking about "new history".  I was talking about pages archive year(s) ago.  Here is approximately what I went through several months ago:

1) history from the previous year showed up on archive.org
2) I put up robots.txt and could no longer see the history
3) I submitted the site to be crawled
4) a week later I took robots.txt down and could again see the history from last year (just like on the day before I put robots.txt up)
5) I repeated #2 and #3 above
6) another week later I took robots.txt down and could again see the history from last year (just like on the day before I put robots.txt up)

This is also consistent with the behavior described in the link I posted.  I don't have any reason to lie.  Maybe it is different now, I don't know ... my experience was months ago.  I can't understand your post enough to tell if you tested it the same way I did.

[AriellaGamer]

Letty: I don't see what's not to understand. With or without robots.txt - once the old history is gone, it's gone FOR GOOD, it does not return (or doesn't return anymore?). I've checked.
Everyone else: Test it if you want, but remember: there's NO need to remove robots.txt, well, ever. Just put it up and file the police report.

Since getty refuses to provide proof it's irrelevant. No proof = no right to make demands. Even archive.org's picture of YOU having it isn't proof of their ownership, or exclusivity, or damages or anything else. IF they had such proof, they would offer it with their letters.

The very ACT of refusing to provide proof but claiming they have it but will only provide in court - is ILLEGAL. It's a very clear case for extortion.

[Lettered]

AriellaGamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> The very ACT of refusing to provide proof but
> claiming they have it but will only provide in
> court - is ILLEGAL. It's a very clear case for
> extortion.


Just curious: are you hearing this or a similar opinion from a lawyer or the police department you're complaining to?

regarding archive.org ... that is good news if they are indeed now actually removing content now instead of merely blocking.  I'd still advise anyone to test it for themselves based on earlier experiences.

[AriellaGamer]

.... interesting how you keep editing your threads, Lettered. Makes me extra paranoid. Just re-read before posting your messages. Anyway

> The very ACT of refusing to provide proof but
> claiming they have it but will only provide in
> court - is ILLEGAL. It's a very clear case for
> extortion.

This "opinion" - originally I heard it from a JUDGE. Completely unrelated case, but it was completely dismissed Specifically because the plaintiff was asking for an over-inflated amount and refused to explain the reason for this amount but threatened court instead (in their written reply).

I don't want to waste time explaining (different case, after all) but it please - just call 911, ask for a non-emergency police # for your area / precinct, call that number and ask them yourself:

*** is it legally allowed to send letters demanding money, and then refuse to prove why and how it came to that amount?

If YOUR police department says this is LEGAL, and you're in USA, please, tell me where!!!
I'll move nearby ... and I'll open me a very lucrative business! kidding.

ANYway, yes it's harassment. Yes, it's extortion. It's not an opinion. Call the police and see. Sheesh.

[goober]

What about iterasi.org...they index and won't remove at all...how do we get them to remove old thumbnails and what do we do with aboutus.org...they have a few sites that index.

[Lettered]

Ariella,

I'm not sure why my edits are relevent or why they would make anyone paranoid. They were all made before any replies to them. You are resorting to argumentum ad hominem ... and I really wasn't trying to argue at all.

The reason I asked if you were hearing this from a lawyer is that attorney opinions I've heard regarding this matter don't give me confidence that a criminal case against Getty would be so cut and dry as you are making it sound.  Here's one such opinion from this site:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,583,598#msg-598

I wish it were so cut and dry.  I hope it eventually comes to some sort of class action against Getty to shut down their letter program.

[Oscar Michelen]

Thank you Lettered for responding so quickly and well to Ariella's posts.

Dear Ariella: I admire your energy and commitment but what Getty is doing is not illegal. When a photographer takes a photograph that photographer has copyright protection in the photograph. Now if the photo itself is picture of ANOTHER copyrighted work, say a Roy Liechtenstein painting, then of course the photographer does not get copyright in the Liechtenstein work and he may not even be allowed to use the photo of the painting in any commercial capacity provided it is not a a "fair use."  

These photographers for a number of reasons have then transferred their copyright rights to Getty under a licensing agreement. That agreement gives Getty the EXCLUSIVE right to sell/license the images and also therefore pursue copyright infringement. While it may be impolite, secretive, etc. for Getty to say tht they will not show someone the license agreements  that is not illegal.  To use your example, I can write you a letter saying I broke my leg in your store and that I will sue unless you pay X amount and then refuse to show you any proof of my claim.  Is it a good way to resolve a dispute of course not.  And that is one of my principal objections to the way Getty is handling this issue.  But it is not illegal -neither criminally or civilly, so please stop advising folks on this site that it is and that they should call the police. I am involved in a litigation with Getty now and I have seen lawsuits they have filed in various courts around the country.  When they come to court, they produce the required proof - both the copyright registrations and the license agreements. So they have a good faith basis for making their demands.  

Your final point that your website is your intellectual property once you put it up does not allow you to make a website using other people's intellectual property. So please, we have endeavored very hard to keep the information on this site accurate so that people who get these letters know what their options are. Please read my summary and follow up posts to get better acquainted with the legal issues in this area.

[Matthew Chan]

Hello AriellaGamer,

Thank you for your participation and enthusiasm for the subject matter.  Unfortunately, I have had to delete parts of your content because some of what you are saying is in direct conflict with my and Oscar's recommendations and the tone is inappropriate for our discussion forum.

It is not that you cannot disagree with us.  You may disagree with us.  However, the top positioning and title of your posting could mislead newer readers to interpret your position as our position and actually follow the advice.  People do not always make the distinction of WHO writes the post.  Some people simply say "extortionletterinfo.com website said to do this".  While technically true because it was from a post, it is not our "official advice" to people.

We believe the issue is primarily a civil issue, not a criminal one.  As such, it is not always legally clear, hence, the ongoing disputes and dialog.  Also, we have endeavored to keep the tone of our messages and articles civil.  As LetterEd said himself, it is not that we do not feel frustration, anger, or any other negative emotion with this but it is important that we do not come off as "ranting and raving".  The energy and your choice of words come close to being inflammatory.  I do not feel you have any ill will or intentions but we cannot have our discussion board have posts where people are being overly-aggressive.

Oscar and I have worked hard to conduct ourselves and operate this website in an intellectual, professional, and civil manner while asserting our position and frustrations in an "acceptable" way.

I did not step in sooner because I was waiting for Oscar's "official" legal response.  Now that he has stated his position on your comments, I can unhesitatingly support it because I agree with it.

If you wish to re-engage, you may do so, but please tone down the rhetoric and inflammatory words.  Additionally, I do not believe the posters (most notably LetterEd) who questioned your advice were doing it out of malice.  I believe they simply wanted to ensure the accuracy and credibility of what you are stating, not picking a fight.

For the record, LetterEd has posted several times before and although I do not know him personally, I find his posts intelligent, well thought out, and contributory to the overall cause.  As he said, no need to get paranoid, aggressive, or defensive.  We are all on the same side here.

I hope this puts this thread to rest.

MatthewC

Oscar Michelen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you Lettered for responding so quickly and
> well to Ariella's posts.
>
> Dear Ariella: I admire your energy and commitment
> but what Getty is doing is not illegal. When a
> photographer takes a photograph that photographer
> has copyright protection in the photograph. Now if
> the photo itself is picture of ANOTHER copyrighted
> work, say a Roy Liechtenstein painting, then of
> course the photographer does not get copyright in
> the Liechtenstein work and he may not even be
> allowed to use the photo of the painting in any
> commercial capacity provided it is not a a "fair
> use."  
>
> These photographers for a number of reasons have
> then transferred their copyright rights to Getty
> under a licensing agreement. That agreement gives
> Getty the EXCLUSIVE right to sell/license the
> images and also therefore pursue copyright
> infringement. While it may be impolite, secretive,
> etc. for Getty to say tht they will not show
> someone the license agreements  that is not
> illegal.  To use your example, I can write you a
> letter saying I broke my leg in your store and
> that I will sue unless you pay X amount and then
> refuse to show you any proof of my claim.  Is it a
> good way to resolve a dispute of course not.  And
> that is one of my principal objections to the way
> Getty is handling this issue.  But it is not
> illegal -neither criminally or civilly, so please
> stop advising folks on this site that it is and
> that they should call the police. I am involved in
> a litigation with Getty now and I have seen
> lawsuits they have filed in various courts around
> the country.  When they come to court, they
> produce the required proof - both the copyright
> registrations and the license agreements. So they
> have a good faith basis for making their demands.
>
>
> Your final point that your website is your
> intellectual property once you put it up does not
> allow you to make a website using other people's
> intellectual property. So please, we have
> endeavored very hard to keep the information on
> this site accurate so that people who get these
> letters know what their options are. Please read
> my summary and follow up posts to get better
> acquainted with the legal issues in this area.