Messages

1006

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in Israel

« on: September 27, 2011, 12:20:44 AM »

If the photographer himself told you that the rights haven't been transferred to Getty or Marot, then nothing's going to come of this.
They're just "trolling" you, to try to make you settle foolishly.  Your story shows how important it is to check into every aspect of these claims.

You can either play the waiting game, or just tell them that you've busted them and the scam's over.
They'll probably go away unless they're incredibly stupid.

This is one of the worst things that I've heard in a while.
Companies that do these sorts of things get into quite a bit of trouble sooner or later.

I wonder if Israel has the legal equivalent of America's "barratry"
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jun/13/tea-party-group-sues-righthaven-denver-post-over-c/

Kindly keep us abreast of any future happenings.

S.G.

1007

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Website Traffic Statistics Trivia

« on: September 26, 2011, 11:13:09 PM »

Great info, Matt.  This is an immensely popular site.
Also, thanks to Matt, Oscar and Buddhapi for the huge amount of work they put into these efforts.

If you haven't done so already, I'd encourage everyone who's been assisted by their efforts to express their thanks as well!

S.G.

1008

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in Israel

« on: September 26, 2011, 11:09:08 PM »

I thought that the registration stayed in the original photog/artists name.
But, the "exclusive contract" would "transfer" the legal rights specified in the contract upon the third party (i.e Getty).
So, the registration wouldn't be changed with the Copyright Office.

I could be wrong; if so, then I've learned something.
Can anyone clarify this?

S.G.

1009

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in Israel

« on: September 26, 2011, 07:53:26 PM »

Good discussion here, and great links provided by Buddhapi.

Yes, the case in question would depend on your local laws.
But, it would be unwise to assume that the laws of the US have an exact counterpart in another country.

However, I do think that a situation wherein the original copyright owner has transferred all rights to Getty, but Getty then drafts an agreement with Marot giving them the right to litigate would be a "sketchy" situation indeed.

Perhaps, the lawsuit that you speak of is intended to simply force you to settle out of court?

I'd agree with Buddhapi that a consultation IP lawyer would be a good investment.
In any case, most companies will settle for a small fraction of their demand price in the end.

S.G.

1010

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need Help Regarding GI's Final Notice; From Philippines

« on: September 26, 2011, 12:19:04 PM »

Thank you for posting your story on the forum.

If you haven't received the emails that Getty claims that they sent, then I suspect that they may be attempting to make you panic and entice you to make a rash decision.
Getting a "final notice" the first time would rattle anyone.  In any case, check your email "spam" folder.  Threatening emails often get flagged as "spam".

The only way to "make it go away immediately" for certain is to make the best deal that you can with them and pay that.  But, there may be some good news here.

If Getty is contacting you by email, that probably means that they don't have your home address.
Be aware that email isn't a good way of notifying anyone of something.  The email address could be "dead", and nobody would ever know, or the email may now be used by somebody else.
So, if they're just emailing you, then you have "plausible denial" so long as you don't respond.
If you sign for a registered letter, a courier delivery, or accept a regular mailing without returning it within a certain time, then those would verify "delivery".

I think that the likelihood of a lawsuit in the Philippines is rather low.  The chances of collecting monies from a resident there is much lower than that of some other countries.
Getty doesn't file many lawsuits anywhere for that matter.

Naturally, it would be wrong to say "ignore it" completely.
But, you can play the waiting game for a while, and if there's no way of them contacting you "officially", then it might go away.
I hope that this eases your mind a bit.

S.G.

1011

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / "modern technology had created grey areas in copyright law and fair use"

« on: September 25, 2011, 11:49:00 AM »

"Righthaven’s legal problems are not limited to the contempt of court charge. The company, known for its frivolous lawsuits, will cease being a partner of MediaNews Group after the new CEO, John Paton, announced last week the non renewal of its contract with Righthaven by the end of September."

"Paton pointed out that some of the copyright issues raised by Righthaven had merits, but modern technology had created grey areas in copyright law and fair use."

http://gantdaily.com/2011/09/20/defendant-seeks-contempt-order-against-righthaven-for-non-payment-of-attorneys-fees/

Paton's been in damage control mode since the Righthaven fallout:

John Paton, also CEO of Digital First Media has been blogging about the company’s vision for surviving and thriving in the digital space. Last week he called for an end to paywalls and aggressive copyright enforcement: "Instead of paywalls, we see greater value creation in the open sharing of our content. Our approach is to treat content like an API – available to any who want it."

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/ashes-righthaven-promising-future-digital-media

S.G.

1012

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Actual Court Cases

« on: September 23, 2011, 05:10:32 PM »

Who's "they"?  Are you saying that Getty's sending examples of their litigations?
Keep in mind that even in the case of super-litigious MF, they file suits, but they give up on on four-fifths of those before they can be heard by a court.

Anyone can search for lawsuits brough by, or brought against Getty:
http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Getty+Images+(US)%2C+Inc.

For the incredible number of letters that Getty sends to alleged infringers, there haven't been many actual lawsuits thus far.

S.G.

1013

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: BuddhaPi has Officially Joined the ELI Defense Team!

« on: September 23, 2011, 01:12:45 PM »

Buddhapi is correct.
An offer of further participation was offered.
I didn't respond to this; I was caught off guard a bit, but very flattered.

While I consider my legal issues to be largely behind me, if I put my name "out there" at this time, it'll certainly ruffle a few feathers.
If things heat up again, that means that I'll have to come after those involved and make their existence a living hell.
That's lots of fun, but it's also a lot of work.

I also think that posting as "anon" allows some leeway to take things to the "next level" a bit.
Once one is a representative of an organization, the things that one says are taken to represent the views and attitudes of the said organization.

Becoming more involved means becoming more "attorney-like", I think.
That means that one must take a stance in most cases that's essentially more conservative.
Also, as one becomes aware of the personal stories of those involved, you begin to second-guess what you're saying publicly because most people want their info kept private.

But, there's some freedom to being "anon", but also benefits to being a formal part of the "team".
Maybe as things are, there's a good balance now?

S.G.


 

1014

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn and Evan Photoattorney

« on: September 21, 2011, 01:14:34 PM »

I'm familiar with it largely from my work on the Internet as a business person and a hobbyist.
But, you know how it is.  One would be considered an "expert" if he/she is a lawmaker, or a lawyer with trial experience in this regard.
Anything else might be considered "cursory" knowledge.

But, the DMCA is fairly mature, and has been tested.
So, there's lots of information about the law, and also actual court precedents too.
That way, with some research we can say things with some confidence if we can back up our statements with some useful evidence.

Readers should note that the DMCA is a US law.
In some cases, other countries make some analogies to this law, but the details are substantially different and are often untested.
Something that's unclear to me is whether or not one must register an agent with the copyright office to enjoy the benefits of the DMCA.

I found this Wikipedia article to be quite good.  Not everyone's a fan of wiki, but this is well-written I think.
The Youtube example can be understood by the layman:

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

Here's another article about registering an agent for DMCA purposes:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/04/04/designating-your-own-dmca-agent/

S.G.

1015

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn and Evan Photoattorney

« on: September 21, 2011, 12:28:17 PM »

If a visitor to the site uploaded the photo in question, it seems to me that "cspears2838" would have a defense under the DMCA.
He's already registered a DMCA agent for the site.

S.G.

1016

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators

« on: September 21, 2011, 12:15:32 PM »

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.

1017

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn and Evan Photoattorney

« on: September 20, 2011, 11:24:38 PM »

I like what mcfilms said.
We can all see how many unwitting people could be scammed.

S.G.

1018

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn and Evan Photoattorney

« on: September 20, 2011, 07:03:38 PM »

Sounds like a one-stop shop for copyright trolling.

S.G.

1019

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anybody mind?

« on: September 20, 2011, 07:02:04 PM »

Good point.
Are these guys scary or just posers?

S.G.

1020

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn and Evan Photoattorney

« on: September 20, 2011, 06:33:27 PM »

I heard that Ms Wright sends out demand letters on a contingency basis.
Can anyone verify this?

If so, can we safely assume that a plaintiff would have to pay her for her time if he/she wanted to litigate?

i.e. it's dirt cheap to threaten, but it's another matter to make it a court case?

S.G.