Thanks to Oscar and Matthew

[Hollowpoint]

Hi Oscar and Matthew,

I spoke with Oscar a few days ago about the Getty Extortion Letter I received.  They wanted $600 for a small thumbnail image on my webpage that my brother-in-law built for me through Yahoo site builder.  I really didn't want to play the game with them (more letters, collections calls, etc.) mainly because it was very distracting, and the anger that I was feeling was very unhealthy.  I didn't want to feed the monkey, but as Oscar said, what they are doing is legal, as unscrupulous as it may be.  I called them, and we settled for $500.  Had I been hornswoggled for more money, I would have taken a different route.  I think that what they are doing is despicable and they should be regulated somehow.  

On the flipside, I wanted to thank both of you for standing up for what is right and helping to protect the little guy who is getting railroaded.  With your help, I was able to educate myself, understand the situation, and make a decision that best suited my situation.   I have made my donation to the site so that others that feel lost, scared, and helpless, can educate and protect themselves.  

So what's next?  Maybe in the future they will claim that I used a font that they manage the rights to, or maybe a certain color of red that they claim the rights to.  To me, the possibilities seem endless.  I can see that there are 2 types of business people in this world, producers and parasites.

Thanks again,

Hollowpoint

[Oscar Michelen]

Thanks for the post and the kind words

[Matthew Chan]

Hello Hollowpoint,

Thanks, glad to be of service.  As you know, it is much better to "armed" with information than to simply listen to self-serving propaganda and party-line that Getty Images spews.  

MatthewC

[SoylentGreen]

Many fonts are in fact, copyrighted.  The terms of use for these fonts really vary... some allow you to use them freely for non-commercial work, but you must pay to use them for anything other than that.  Some, you have to pay for no matter what.

It seems that the Associated Press (AP) has been getting in on the game for a while now, including going after bloggers.  Many people have received "take-down notices" first.  But, some organizations have been sued.

But, there are some real peculiarities...

These two bloggers were charged for quoting themselves (one charged $17.50, and another $25):
http://daggle.com/ap-1750-quote-1261
http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2009-08/dave-on-tivos-pause-menu-advertising/

The AP will also sell you a “license” to quote words it didn’t write and doesn’t own. I'd post the phrase here (written by Thomas Jefferson), but I don't want to cause any hassle.  You can read about the issue here:
http://laboratorium.net/archive/2009/08/03/the_ap_will_sell_you_a_license_to_words_it_doesnt

The AP has also made copyright infringement allegations against the creator of the "Obama Hope" image:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9652OD01

These examples may be a little off-topic here, but these serve to illustrate a disturbing trend among different media on the web.  I'll be blogging soon, too.  But, I'll set up a limited corporation to run it, with no assets, a P.O. box address, and I'll shut it down completely should the need arise.  Not to abuse anyone's copyrights, of course.  But, to protect my own interests...

S.

[Matthew Chan]

The AP has other issues.  Believe it or not, they do NOT want Google exposure.  They get the very traffic and exposure people spend a fortune on.  Instead of finding a way to monetize their name and content, they have threatened and requested Google to NOT index their content.

In the same spirit, you are telling us they are going to charge people who quote them?  I do believe that proper attribution should occur vs. wholesaling lifting of article.  As a publisher and subject matter expert in my own fields, few things would make me happier than if other people quoted my work worldwide and have Google index my content.

There is a major paradigm shifting on the Internet.  Like it or not, it is about sharing and opening up, not closing up, and constantly suing people.

This website is living proof of it.  Oscar and I never asked to get into the stock photo defense business I can promise you that. At the risk of being overbearing, I knew the way to fight Getty Images was NOT to keep the fight to myself or to stay hidden.  It was opposite.  It was to make this fight very public, wide open in full view.  It was also not keeping my information to myself, it was about opening up the information.  It was about teaming up with others.

Fortunately, Oscar came a long when he did and shared a similar philosophy providing even more "free" information.  AP is going to commit brand suicide at the rate they are going.  Why keep going to and share AP for news when there are so many news sites nowadays and news blogs?

Same with Getty Images, why give them any good PR or business when they are busy being going after onesies-twosies?

MatthewC

[Oscar Michelen]

Matt - As usual I agree with your point. While the internet has allowed Getty and others to profit off of programs like PicScout,  it has also provided a way for folks to share knowledge and information about the issue in a way that could never have happened without it. I think in the end, the Congress is going to have to weigh in on some of these issues. The problem is that the large companies like Getty and Corbis will have the assets to lobby to death various senators and representatives to get the copyright act modified to their benefit.

[Lettered]

SoylentGreen Wrote:
. . . The AP will also sell you a “license” to quote
> words it didn’t write and doesn’t own. . . .



Bizarre.  Apparently the AP wants to freely quote others, but want bloggers to pay to quote AP (even brief quotes):
http://boingboing.net/2010/07/06/w00t-sends-associate.html
http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/associated-press-exp.html

Happily, I believe that the digital age copyright fiasco has gotten so bizarre and unmanageable that a change in legislation in the near future is inevitable. Sadly, those creating the fiasco have powerful lobbies to steer the direction of future legislation. Thanks to all the sites (present company at the top of the list) who make the public outrage at this mess heard loud and clear.  Let's hope that the public voice is loud enough to give us some measure of normalcy in the future.

[SoylentGreen]

Lettered,

Thanks a lot for the links; they're pretty interesting.  I particularly like the paragraph at the end of the second article:

"The people pushing for this stuff are not well-meaning, and they are not interested in making life better for artists, writers, or any other kind of individual creators. They are would-be aristocrats who fully intend to return us to a society of orders and classes, and they’re using so-called “intellectual property” law as a tool with which to do it. Whether or not you have ever personally taped a TV show or written a blog post, if you think you’re going to wind up on top in the sort of world these people are working to build, you are out of your mind."

The AP trolling for quotes as small as "five words" seems very ridiculous to me. That's because the odds of the same five words appearing in many places seems awfully high.  Even if people have not infringed on AP's copyright, do they have to pay them anyway, because it's cheaper that fighting a litigation?  Or, just pay to make the harassment go away?

Again, it is also important to keep in mind, that if you say something to the AP and it's published, they'll charge you if you repeat your own words in any other media.

I agree with you 100 percent that a change in legislation will come about.  I'm just concerned that it will take a while, as large companies fight positive change.  In the meantime, companies like the AP, Getty, etc. will milk it for everything they can get.

Yes, this site is definitely part of the public voice, and I really appreciate it.

S.

[Oscar Michelen]

Copyright law is clear that quotes are not copyrightable -especially small ones, so I don't see why anyone would pay AP for quotes.  There is some case law about the copyrightability of "news and news feeds"  so they may be going on that angle but AP usually does not "break" any news.