Messages

1021

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anybody mind?

« on: September 20, 2011, 04:01:34 PM »

They probably have "non-profit" status.
In that case, it would be "fair use".

(cool story, tho.)

S.G.

1022

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Previously posted my story....what do I do now?

« on: September 20, 2011, 12:00:11 PM »

Sorry to hear about your situation.
Also, I hope that folks don't mind if I hijack the thread for a moment.

Getty and their ilk make a lot of money through "third-party" situations like this.
They can pressure a web developer into settling, as the developer doesn't want to lose goodwill with their client(s).

If Getty is pursuing your client, then your client would have to retain Oscar's services.

S.G.

1023

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Righthaven Defendant Moves To Strip Firm’s Assets

« on: September 20, 2011, 11:37:36 AM »

Thanks for the post!!

The fast, easy money has always been in scaring people into paying.

Righthaven clearly illustrates how important actual copyright ownership is.
Additionally, these cases also show that an "exclusive agreement" on its own is not necessarily sufficient to enforce copyright standing.
The agreement must show that certain rights have been transferred.

It's interesting to see that the really aggressive entities such as Righthaven and Riddick have really failed at this juncture.
It makes one question whether making money through lawsuits or the prospect of lawsuits really has any future at all.

S.G.

1024

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What If Getty Decides to Sue Me?

« on: September 18, 2011, 11:46:34 AM »

Withholding as much information as possible is a standard tactic, intended to cause alleged infringers to make uninformed decisions.
Masterfile seems to be more cooperative in this regard, however.

I would say that if an entity won't give information about the infringement, then there's not much chance of a lawsuit at all.
If thousands of dollars are being demanded, it's reasonable to ask "who are you?", and "what right do you have to demand this payment?".

Getty would pretty much have to give you all the information before a litigation.
There's an onus on litigants to try to solve a dispute before heading off to court.
That includes an explanation of the dispute from Getty.

Imagine a session in court wherein the defendant said "They wouldn't tell me who they are, and why I owed this money.  I thought it was a scam".
That's a fast way for Getty to get into hot water in court.

In any case, I find it interesting that most people would be appalled if the gas company sent them a bill for $2500 for the month of June, and the gas company said "we'll explain our billing practice to you if we go to court".  I can't see how anyone tolerates this from Getty and some others.

S.G.

1025

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What If Getty Decides to Sue Me?

« on: September 17, 2011, 11:54:10 PM »

Just a few thoughts here.

Getty's already stated a value of $850 x3 for the images, so they're kind of stuck with that figure.
They could ask for more, but they've indicated that this figure is the value of the images.
In the event of a lawsuit, they could seek court costs in addition to the cost of the images.

If there was a lawsuit, I would imagine that they'd have to hire a lawyer close to your vicinity, with knowledge of your country's laws.
The costs of sending a lawyer from elsewhere would vastly eclipse any settlement value that they could hope to achieve.
I don't think that Getty could collect such costs even if they won, as these wouldn't be considered "reasonable attorney fees".

Yes, if Getty loses, you could get your court costs paid.

Getty images filed two lawsuits in Canada in 2008.  Both in Vancouver, but no other lawsuits since that time.
Neither lawsuit ever made it to court, so it would appear that either Getty dropped the suits, or the defendants paid a settlement.

Personally, I wouldn't pay anything to anybody unless they could provide proof that they owned the images, or could collect monies on behalf of the actual owner in the event of an infringement.  So, I'd need to see an actual document showing that they own the copyright, or an actual signed contract that shows that the photographer/artist has transferred his/her rights to Getty.

If Getty does decide to sue, you could pay them some sort of settlement to make it go away, you could fight them in court, or you could file a defence, sit tight and see if they actually go to court (or back out before the court date).

S.G.

1026

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

« on: September 17, 2011, 06:18:39 PM »

Thanks!!
By the way, can you look into my "avatar" issue, buddhapi?
(ha,ha!!)

S.G.

1027

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

« on: September 17, 2011, 01:54:58 PM »

Congrats buddhapi!!
You've put a lot of work into your many helpful posts, and we've learned a lot from you.

Thank you!!

S.G.

1028

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Righthaven Defendant Asks Judge Not To Let Company ‘Slither Away’

« on: September 16, 2011, 02:11:35 PM »

Thanks for the post.

Interestingly, Righthaven actually has very few assets.
It doesn't own the rights to any of the content that it's litigating over.
Who knows where they'll hide their cash, though?

Righthaven is quite the scumbag "company".  Sleazy as it gets.

There's some more tidbits in the following article; Righthaven's quite the whiny little kid:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110914/12452115958/righthaven-king-suing-without-notification-whines-to-judge-about-motions-filed-against-it-without-enough-notification.shtml

S.G.

1029

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I paid for the images before using but got a demand letter

« on: September 14, 2011, 11:59:08 PM »

Many people truly appreciate this forum that you have worked so hard to create and maintain Matt.
We also appreciate how much work Oscar has put into this.  A huge thank you!!

Your call email/call volume has probably gone up as people become aware of the site, and as the extortion letter efforts go into overdrive.
But, you already know that.

Yes, many of the same issues come up again and again that have been discussed previously.
So, visitors can find lots of info in past discussions in most cases.

Yeah, nobody's going to work for free.
I've chatted with colleagues looking for work, and I can't believe how many "employers" treat "job interviews" as free consultations with a professional.
Attitudes need to change.

S.G.

1030

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Righthaven says it might have to file for bankruptcy

« on: September 10, 2011, 06:35:48 PM »

Righthaven says it might have to file for bankruptcy

Despite its backing by the billionaire Warren Stephens family, Las Vegas copyright lawsuit filer Righthaven LLC warned today it may have to file for bankruptcy because of a series of setbacks in its litigation campaign.

While the Righthaven bankruptcy warning may sound ominous, a bankruptcy filing wouldn’t prevent Righthaven creditors from asking the bankruptcy court for permission to seize Righthaven’s assets. Such a filing also would require Righthaven to reveal detailed financial information that so far has been secret as it's a private company.

And Righthaven copyright lawsuit defendants considering countersuing Righthaven over what they call sham copyright claims would likely target not just Righthaven, but its deep-pocketed newspaper partners including the owners of the Review-Journal and the Post.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/sep/09/righthaven-says-it-might-have-file-bankruptcy/

S.G.

1031

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: collections

« on: September 09, 2011, 02:41:00 PM »

You make a very good point.

The issue that I have about communicating with the copyright trolls is that one could inadvertently say something that could be used in court.
The more that one communicates with them, the riskier it is.

I think that "Federal Rules of Evidence 408" prevents the trolls from using what you say against you.
But there's nothing to stop the alleged infringer from using his/her communications with the trolls as evidence.

So, while Getty (for example) couldn't use your communications with them against you, you could still bring up the fact that you made a settlement offer if necessary.
The worst that they could say about your offer is that "they didn't want it".

So, all bases are covered.

S.G.

1032

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Layoffs at Righthaven: A Copyright troll goes on life support

« on: September 09, 2011, 02:25:03 PM »

Layoffs at Righthaven: A Copyright troll goes on life support

The great experiment in copyright trolling that is Righthaven appears to be nearing an end.

Righthaven, which was founded more than a year ago to monetize print news content through copyright infringement lawsuits, has suffered a myriad of courtroom setbacks in recent months. Among them, it was sanctioned $5,000 for misleading a federal judge, ordered to pay $34,000 in opposing legal fees, and was told over and again by judges that it has no legal standing to even file the lawsuits.
 
With all those issues now on appeal, the litigation factory’s machinery is grinding to a halt. A review of court records shows Righthaven has not filed a new lawsuit in two months, after a flurry of about 275 lawsuits since its launch at the beginning of last year. A court filing indicates there have already been layoffs (PDF) at Righthaven’s Las Vegas headquarters, and even some already-filed lawsuits are falling by the wayside because Righthaven isn’t serving the defendants with the paperwork.
 
Righthaven’s chief executive, Steve Gibson, confirmed in a telephone interview that his company has stopped filing new lawsuits, pending appellate rulings that could take months or even years to matriculate through the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/copyright-troll-righthaven-goes-on-life-support.ars

S.G.

1033

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: MediaNews won't renew contract with "copyright enforcer" Righthaven

« on: September 09, 2011, 02:15:51 PM »

"It was a dumb idea": newspaper chain fires copyright troll Righthaven

The new chief executive of MediaNews Group, publisher of the Denver Post and 50 other newspapers, said it was “a dumb idea” for the nation’s second-largest newspaper chain to sign up with copyright troll Righthaven.

“The issues about copyright are real,” Paton told Wired.com in a telephone interview. “But the idea that you would hire someone on an—essentially—success fee to run around and sue people at will who may or may not have infringed as a way of protecting yourself... does not reflect how news is created and disseminated in the modern world."
 
“I come from the idea that it was a dumb idea from the start,” Paton added, noting that Righthaven was informed of the decision to end relations last month.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/it-was-a-dumb-idea-newspaper-chain-fires-copyright-troll-righthaven.ars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+Featured+Content%29

S.G.

1034

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: collections

« on: September 09, 2011, 01:19:15 PM »

They would have contacted you with a settlement offer regardless of whether you responded or not.
Even if you admitted using the images, and said that you'd pay it still wouldn't be something that could be sent to 'actual' collections.

In any case Mr Michelen mentioned that:

"You should condition that all your comments/discussion/etc are in the context of potential settlement and therefoer not admissible in federal court under Federal Rules of Evidence 408."

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2125.msg3012.html#msg3012

That's US law of course.  This disclaimer would keep your negotiations out of any potential future court processes.

S.G.

1035

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: collections

« on: September 08, 2011, 11:26:50 PM »

This would only occur through a business transaction, wherein goods/services were exchanged, you were invoiced and then you didn't pay.
Or, in the event of a loss in a court case wherein the court determined that you owed a settlement, and then you didn't pay.

If they hire a collections agency to hassle you otherwise, the agency can't really do much.  It's just an intimidation tactic.

One person from Canada who was being hassled by masterfile brought this up on the forum before.
Oddly, masterfile (a Canadian company) had a Florida collections agency contact him/her.
Which makes me suspect that it's illegal to do this in Canada.

If you're contacted by a collections agency, and there's no debt, respond to them in writing of such.

S.G.