Tejas Research, LLC v. Getty Images

[SoylentGreen]

Tejas Research, LLC v. Getty Images

Patent lawsuit:

http://www.scribd.com/priorsmart/d/92199057-Tejas-Research-v-Getty-Images-et-al

"7.  Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No. 6,006,231 (“the’231 Patent”) entitled “File format for an image including multiple versions of an image, and related system and method.” A true and correct copy of the ’231 Patent is attached as Exhibit A."

---

Tejas seems to have filed several similar suits on May,2 and 3, 2012...

May 2:
•Tejas Research v. Vivid Entertainment Group et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00296
•Tejas Research v. Playboy Enterprises Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00299
•Tejas Research v. Walgreen Co. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00300
•Tejas Research v. Getty Images Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00301

May 3
•Tejas Research v. LFP Internet Group Case No. 6:12-cv-00302
•Tejas Research v. The Neiman-Marcus Group Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00303
•Tejas Research v. Academy Ltd. d/b/a Academy Sports Outdoors d/b/a Academy Sports and Outdoors et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00304

---

Here's the patent... a Canadian connection...?

http://www.scribd.com/priorsmart/d/92107910-File-format-for-an-image-including-multiple-versions-of-an-image-and-related-system-and-method-US-patent-6006231

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I saw these and thought I had mentioned them in an earlier post, but maybe it escaped me..I do remember looking to see who Tejas was/is and exactly what they filed suit over, and I'm still not clear on it.

[SoylentGreen]

I searched to see if it had already been posted, but I didn't find anything.
But, sorry if this has been reported before.

Tejas has a website:
http://www.tejasre.com/

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I honestly think it got lost in the shuffle, SG did you download the exhibits? I'm curious as to what exactly was infringed.. If you did download anything i can go back into pacer and grab more info, if your interested..

[SoylentGreen]

I put a link to the actual patent "Exhibit A" in my first posting.
I wouldn't waste money on getting more doc's, unless it really gets interesting.
I suspect that this might just be some "patent trolling"...
Thanks,

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

WAR OF THE TROLLS!

Patent Troll vs. Copyright Troll

Who will sink lower, faster?
Experience the thrills and chills of never-before-seen troll-on-troll action!

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Has anyone heard anything or have an update on the suit filed against Getty last fall for copyright infringement  over Getty’s use of the tree shaped auto air fresheners in a few of their images.  I remember reading about that awhile back but haven’t seen anything more on it here.  I know Getty was trying to have the suit dismissed.  It was good to see them get a taste of their own medicine.

[SoylentGreen]

Thanks for the idea, McFilms... lol...

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8227/catsvsdogswarofthetroll.jpg

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Has anyone heard anything or have an update on the suit filed against Getty last fall for copyright infringement  over Getty’s use of the tree shaped auto air fresheners in a few of their images.  I remember reading about that awhile back but haven’t seen anything more on it here.  I know Getty was trying to have the suit dismissed.  It was good to see them get a taste of their own medicine.

I'll check out the status when I'm in digging around pacer tomorrow, and try to give an update..

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Thanks buddhapi!

Has anyone heard anything or have an update on the suit filed against Getty last fall for copyright infringement  over Getty’s use of the tree shaped auto air fresheners in a few of their images.  I remember reading about that awhile back but haven’t seen anything more on it here.  I know Getty was trying to have the suit dismissed.  It was good to see them get a taste of their own medicine.

I'll check out the status when I'm in digging around pacer tomorrow, and try to give an update..

[Oscar Michelen]

Here's an update on the Car Freshener v. Getty lawsuit. Getty's initial motion to dismiss was denied in 2011. Car Freshener's lawyers have written the court complaining that Getty has refuse to provide initial discovery that would let them know if they have the right entities or if others have to be brought in. They also allege that Getty has been difficult in revealing the exact relationship they have with their photographers. They are also objecting to certain documents they want that Getty wants to label confidential. The court has authorized them to file a motion if they cannot work these issues out with Getty. Getty responded to that filing by of course denying they were being difficult and stating that CF's lawyers are asking for  burdensome information which they cannot retrieve (like they want every image that has the tree, a portion of the tree, an obscured view of the tree, etc etc) They said they are willing to continue to try and resolve these issues with CF's lawyers. They are also fighting over where to take the deposition of Getty personnel.  Getty wants it done in Seattle and the plaintiffs want it done in  NY.  Both sides agreed that having a settlement conference in front of a federal magistrate would be helpful.  One of the sticking points it appears in the settlement talks is that Getty wants to be able to continue to sell the images. The terms of this proposed on-going business agreement appear to be what's holding up the settlement. The court set August 21, 2012 at 3PM as the time for the next court conference. The documents can be viewed on PACER. The case is pending in the Northern District of NY under Index No. 09 cv 01252.

[Moe Hacken]

Thanks for the idea, McFilms... lol...

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8227/catsvsdogswarofthetroll.jpg

S.G.

There you go! LOLtrolls!

[Moe Hacken]

Here's an update on the Car Freshener v. Getty lawsuit. Getty's initial motion to dismiss was denied in 2011. Car Freshener's lawyers have written the court complaining that Getty has refuse to provide initial discovery that would let them know if they have the right entities or if others have to be brought in. They also allege that Getty has been difficult in revealing the exact relationship they have with their photographers. They are also objecting to certain documents they want that Getty wants to label confidential. The court has authorized them to file a motion if they cannot work these issues out with Getty. Getty responded to that filing by of course denying they were being difficult and stating that CF's lawyers are asking for  burdensome information which they cannot retrieve (like they want every image that has the tree, a portion of the tree, an obscured view of the tree, etc etc) They said they are willing to continue to try and resolve these issues with CF's lawyers. They are also fighting over where to take the deposition of Getty personnel.  Getty wants it done in Seattle and the plaintiffs want it done in  NY.  Both sides agreed that having a settlement conference in front of a federal magistrate would be helpful.  One of the sticking points it appears in the settlement talks is that Getty wants to be able to continue to sell the images. The terms of this proposed on-going business agreement appear to be what's holding up the settlement. The court set August 21, 2012 at 3PM as the time for the next court conference. The documents can be viewed on PACER. The case is pending in the Northern District of NY under Index No. 09 cv 01252.

So any image Getty sells that may have a copyrighted item in it anywhere could be trolled by the copyright owners? For example, a picture of a Barbie® or a picture of a man playing with a Frisbee®?

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-doll-dressed-as-beauty-queen-high-res-stock-photography/BA16947

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/hand-of-free-style-frisbee-player-royalty-free-image/124360264

I believe Wham-O owns the registered trademark for the brand name "Frisbee®", which Getty uses with a lowercase F in the description, as well as the mechanical patent for the ridges on the edge of the their flying disc design, which cause the air disturbance known as the "Bernoulli effect" which is exactly why a real Frisbee® flies so righteously while all the wannabee flying discs totally suck.