Messages

1051

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 31, 2011, 02:10:18 PM »

I like it a lot too, and I'm quite glad that I found my bookmark for it.
I thought that I'd lost it.

I think that to make it legally binding, it would have to be signed like a contract.
Or, it would have to correspond to a "law" that exists on the books.
The other way is to take it to court to "test it".  A court victory would make it legally binding between the site owner and Getty/Picscout for example.
Then, any other site owner could hold this victory over Getty/Picscout.
Those are just my opinions.  I don't know if there's anyone who'd take the time or risk to test it.

I'm doing some research to figure out if Picscout is violating any laws.  I have some ideas, but I need to pin it down a bit more.
The approach is to find something that they're doing that breaches a law or convention, and that they don't need prior notification of their action to be held liable for their act.
But, again it probably wouldn't be a "criminal statute" sort of thing, so even if there's a 'violation' it would still be up to the 'victim' to prosecute.
However, if there's something in existing laws that apply, then we could say that a "win" is plausible, even if it's never guaranteed.

S.G.

1052

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 31, 2011, 10:55:10 AM »

Here's that link with a warning to Getty., Picscout, et al.
I thought that it was from  the Democratic Underground, but it's from DC Direct Action News.

http://dcdirectactionnews.wordpress.com/legal-notice-to-getty-images-scanning-robot-picscout-is-not-authorized-to-access-this-site/

It reads in part:

"LEGAL NOTICE TO PICSCOUT , GETTY IMAGES, PICSCOUT CLIENTS: You are prohibited from accessing this site.

1: Permission for the copyright scanning robot program known as Picscout to access this site is explicity denied.
All other robots which scan content for the purpose of any form of law enforcement, , criminal or civll, are also denied permission to access this site at any time.

2: Most of the photos here were taken by our own cameras.
They are licensed for all noncommercial reproduction EXCEPT by law enforcement,by Getty Images, or by any other corporation that has at least once filed a copyright infringment lawsuit against one or more online users of their content.
Use of any original DC Direct Action News story, photo, audio, or video recording for any propose by any entity which is a plainitiff in a copyright infringement case is hereby prohibited.

3: Getty Images is explicitly prohibited from using any image that originated in a DC Direct Action News camera for any propose.
It is up to Getty to guess which ones these are! These photos are released for not-for-profit use by the general public,their use for extortion by an external party claiming copyright against a third party downloader from THEIR site shall be treated as a copyright violation.
 
4: Notice concerning demands for damages originating from Getty Images or other  scanning robot users
 
We regard Getty Images as an organized crime entity engaged in extortion.
As such, all payment SHALL BE REFUSED if any threats of legal action are ever received from Getty Images or any other copyright holder engaging in extortion by demanding “damages” prior to sending DCMA takedown notifications.
Not only will we refuse to pay the funds you demand, we shall instead seek liquidated damages in the amount of $10,000 US per violation or our Terms of Service concerning image scanning robots."

S.G.

1053

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 31, 2011, 10:45:51 AM »

Hey, 'Mcfilms' yeah that zinger caught my eye too!

I found some more info that's interesting.

John Wood CEO of Arius3d resigned days after the Arius3d/MF proposal was inked:

"My personal and professional support of the Company is an expression of confidence in the extraordinary potential, which I believe the combined company can achieve," said Wood. "Now, my focus is on assisting the Company in raising the capital needed to close this acquisition and in developing new business for Arius3D. Therefore, I have informed the Arius3D Board of Directors of my resignation as CEO and as a director."

There's a lot of information about the financials there too, including:

"Arius3D has agreed to pay Masterfile a termination fee of $750,000 in certain circumstances, including if (i) Arius3D chooses not to complete the transaction if TSXV approval is not obtained or if Arius3D is not satisfied with the results of its due diligence investigation or (ii) Masterfile chooses not to complete the transaction if TSXV approval is not obtained, or if on or prior to the day which is 3 business days prior to the Closing Date written evidence is not provided to Masterfile that Arius3D has secured financing to enable it to pay the maximum amount of the cash portion of the purchase price, or if Arius3D does not provide funds to enable Masterfile to repay approximately $3 million of debt held by two lenders of Masterfile.

Arius3D has deposited an amount equal to the Termination Fee into an escrow account to secure the payment of the Termination Fee."

There's also this, which made me LOL:

"Arius3D will maintain the Masterfile brand and goodwill."

Read more here:

http://financial.tmcnet.com//expense-management/news/2011/08/24/5726176.htm

For those who don't know the "TXSV" is the Toronto Stock Venture Exchange.
It's for "emerging companies".  I've also seen companies on the regular exchange have their trading halted and put onto the TSXV when their market capitalization fell too low.

S.G.

1054

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Song

« on: August 30, 2011, 05:44:46 PM »

It took maybe 20 minutes to "write it".  But it was totally worth it.

Yeah, what the hell happened to my avatar?!!
Anyway, nobody complained to me about it.  And I don't have any money.  Just sayin'.

I still have the avatar, but maybe I'll make a new one...

I do see quite a bit of absurd humor in the whole situation.
But, I do realize that it's not funny for many people.

Hope that MF's lawyer sends a letter about the song.
So much win.  It's still free speech.

S.G.

1055

Getty Images Letter Forum / Copyright Troll Song

« on: August 30, 2011, 04:59:35 PM »

Copyright Troll Song

You have to sing it along with Beck's song "Loser" from  the album "Mellow Gold":

In the time of copyright I was a called a pirate
Downloading in my veins so I'm out to cut the DSL
With the plastic eyeballs, spray paint the vegetables
DMCA with the beefcake Berne
Kill the Righthaven and put it in neutral
Stock car flamin' with a loser and the Stephen’s
Getty's in Reno with the vitamin D
Got a couple of lawyers, sleep on the love seat
Someone keeps sayin I'm insane to complain
About a lawsuit filing and a stain on my shirt
Don't believe everything that you read
You get a statutory damage and a summons on your sleeve
So punch your face with some law in the dark
Savin' all your food stamps and burnin' down the trailer park

Yo, fight it.

Soy un perdedor
You’re trollin’ baby, so why don't you sue me?
(Double-barrel buckshot)
Soy un perdidor
You’re trollin’ baby, so why don't you sue me?

Forces of evil in a Masterfile nightmare
Banned all the images with a Corbis gas chamber
'Cause one's got a lawyer and the other's got a flag
One's got on the Web,  shove the other in a bag
With the rerun pics and the cocaine nose job
The low-res crap of a Hasselblad slob
He hung himself with a camera string

Slap the turkey neck and it's hangin from a "Pigeon" wing
You can't sue if you don’t really register
Trade the cash for the shit for the money for the hate
And my defense is a piece of wax, fallin' on a termite
That's chokin on the splinters

Soy un perdedor
You’re trollin’ baby, so why don't you sue me?
(Get crazy with the prices)
Soy un perdidor
You’re trollin’ baby, so why don't you sue me?
(Drive-by demand letter)

Yo bring it on down
Sooooooy...
(Soy un perdedor You’re trollin’ baby, so why don't you sue me? )
(I'm a fighter, I'm a winner; things are gonna change, I can feel it.)

Soy un perdidor

You’re trollin’ baby, so why don't you sue me?
(I can't believe you)
Soy un perdidor
You’re trollin’ baby, so why don't you sue me?
Soy un perdidor
You’re trollin’ baby, so why don't you sue me?
(Sprechen sie Deutches, baby)
Soy un perdidor
You’re trollin’ baby, so why don't you sue me?
Know what I'm sayin?)


S.G.

1056

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 30, 2011, 11:49:14 AM »

Here's an analysis of Arius3d's bid for Masterfile.
A few of the points have been mentioned on the forum already.
But, it's interesting nonetheless.  It does fail to mention that Arius3d will MF 750k if the deal falls through and that MF is a copyright trolling business.

http://photobizcoach.com/2011/08/25/in-the-case-of-masterfile-another-one-gets-bought/

Enjoy.

S.G.

1057

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible loophole in Getty and Masterfile Copyright Registrations?

« on: August 30, 2011, 11:19:08 AM »

Thanks for your comments.
I'll reserve my comments to a few of the issues, otherwise these posts become quite difficult to follow.

A formal proof of copyright registration is sufficient over here (US/Canada).
The originals rarely come into the picture.

The Berne Convention doesn't come up very often in these types of copyright disputes.

I think that your argument implies that artists/photogs needn't register their images to prove copyright in the US/Canada.
It's true that a work is "copyright" of the "artist" at the moment of creation. But, that concept is useless to protect an image or for litigation purposes here.
So, it's basically useless.  You can't do anything with it.  You won't be awarded much (if anything) by just having the "originals".

I also believe that there are those who wish to misinform people in order to scare them into paying when they don't have to.
Some photographers wish to disseminate the mistaken idea that they can successfully litigate over non-registered images in the US/Canada.
There's a multitude of evidence to the contrary, and people rarely fall for the scam these days.
Mind you, you could go to court to try to get money for non-registered images, but you'll lose and get fleeced.

I'm not really too concerned with UK issues, personally.  It's not that I don't care, it's just too time consuming to keep abreast of everything.

S.G.

1058

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible loophole in Getty and Masterfile Copyright Registrations?

« on: August 29, 2011, 01:06:33 PM »

I think that some aspects of the copyright laws of the UK and the US/Canada are being mashed together here.
Forum participant 'photographer' touched on it, but I think that it needs to be clarified.

The US and Canada (among others) recognize the "Berne Convention".
However, one must formally register their works in the US and Canada to be eligible for statutory damages in the event of an infringement in those countries.
This is not true of some of the other Berne member countries.  I think that's where the confusion comes in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

When Oscar says "having copyright", I think of the UK.
When he writes "having registered the images", I think of US/Canada.

As 'photographer' mentioned, "In all cases you should be looking for proof of copyright, not proof of registration.".  That's a UK concept.
In the US/Canada, the registration is the most important thing and without it, a litigant doesn't have much to go on.
Furthermore, the Muensch case clearly shows not only how important registration is, but how it must be done properly.
Muensch/Corbis would not have fared better in court had they brought in their original photos, instead of their registration.

Under the law, (proper) registration in the US and Canada proves copyright.
The statement "Again registration is only a US thing and in reality proves nothing", is factually incorrect and there are thousands of court cases to prove it.
Unless the statement implies "A US registration means nothing in the UK", which would be correct.

It hardly ever comes down to what entity holds the originals, negatives, or anything else in the US and Canada.
It's true that anyone could technically register something as 'copyrighted', even if it's not 'theirs'.
But, that's why people are urged to register their works promptly; once a work is 'out there' it becomes difficult to control if it hasn't been registered prior.
Register your works promptly; problem solved.

A note of interest to Canadian readers is that a copy of the material being registered is not required when applying for copyright.
In fact, the Canadian office will send your materials back to you if you submit them with your application.

I want to close by stating what a poor job the stock image industry has done in protecting its content.
Especially given the zeal with which they chase infringements.  It's rather baffling.
The same holds true for many photographers.

S.G.

1059

Getty Images Letter Forum / NY Court Holds Photo Site Photobucket Doesn't Need To Police For Infringements

« on: August 29, 2011, 11:07:28 AM »

NY Court Holds Photo Site Photobucket Doesn't Need To Police For Infringements

"Photobucket was sued by a visual artist who claimed that a number of her copyrighted images were uploaded to Photobucket without her consent.
She notified Photobucket, and some of her notices were compliant with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)."...

"The artist, convinced that more infringing photos remained in Photobucket, filed suit for copyright infringement, and a motion for a preliminary injunction.
On March 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied her motion, and held that Photobucket had no duty to ensure that photos on its website were non-infringing, even if it has received notice of infringement in the past."...

http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentid=34&itemid=4347

S.G.

1060

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar to ask Attorney Gen. of NY to investigate Masterfile. EVIDENCE AVAILABLE!

« on: August 28, 2011, 03:49:20 PM »

I heartily agree with Oscar's assertions:

"Barratry requires the litigant to have no claim - these companies do have a right to protect these images.  It is not harassment to try and collect for an infringement; it is their methods and demand amounts that are just overbearing and disturbing."

However, there are many times when these companies don't have the paperwork in order to show that they have a ligitimate claim (one that would hold up in court).
Look at Imageline/Riddick.  He authored the images, registered them, the whole bit.  But, the court found his "copyrights" to be invalid nontheless.

Therefore, it's my opinion there are times when these companies have no valid claim, like Riddick.
If there's no infringement (and they know it), then's it's just harassment, and well... barratry.

To say that 'barratry' doesn't occur, would be to assume that the companies are correct all of the time, never make mistakes, and are 100 percent honest.
I for one, (and I'm sure many others) find that argument rather hard to swallow.

We can also argue about whether Riddick is different from Righthaven and how they're different from Getty.
But, they're all governed by the same laws when it comes to the issues discussed here, and they're all trying to do the same thing even if the tactics vary slightly.

S.G.

1061

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 28, 2011, 11:58:18 AM »

I understand what an 'agent' is.

The "agent", and "exclusive agreement" thing has come up many, many times on this forum.  On its own, it could be a good basis to litigate an infringer.
However, there's a big problem.  MF and GI may have "exclusive agreements" in some cases with their artists, but then they bulk copyrighted the same content under their own names.
In addition, the artist has frequently copyrighted the same content on his/her own.
So, it's quite possible for the court to issue a summary dismissal of a case if "copyright standing" is so botched from the beginning.
One might say that the "exclusive agreement" takes precedence, but the law doesn't state that.
It would then be a simple matter to take the artist/agency to court for damages arising from a frivolous suit.
So, the artist/agency would owe their own legal fees (5k-10k), the defendant's legal fees (5k -10k) and whatever other fees arise from efforts to collect from the plaintiff.
You can then be sent to collections, have your credit thrashed, your assets seized, your wages garnished, etc. if you don't pay.
That's the risk of being in "maximum lawsuit mode".

However, to receive a big lump-sum payout for a photograph (which is a large part of what we're discussing here) the artist would likely have to sell the photo to a client outright.
That's pretty much what people are speaking of when they say, "I got $20,000" for my photo.  The other way is to auction limited or rare prints, but that' off topic, I guess.
We can surely all agree that people can make whatever contract they want with the client.

Mcfilms is right of course when he stated that, "You do realize that you are talking about images that are NOTHING like the images Getty is claiming to represent, don't you?".
I think that we've sort of mixed up outright "sales" with "agent/licensing".

Yes, it's probably pointless to just pick numbers out of the air; however, there was some discussion of how much photographs can fetch.
The two photographers posting on the forum here put the numbers out there, so that's where the figures are coming from.

One of the problems with seeking high punitive damages in court for a photo that has "exclusive rights" is as follows.
The photographer might say, "my client paid $20,000 for exclusive rights for the photo, and I'm therefore seeking $20,000 in punitive damages from the infringer".
The problem is that the court probably wouldn't award anywhere near that much, because the photographer couldn't have sold exclusive rights to anyone else, including the infringer.
Since the photo was already used by the client, the infringer didn't enjoy exclusive rights to the photo, and the photographer isn't entitled to that level of damages.
The court would be more likely to award a price that would be more in line with a simple rights-managed license of $1000 or $2000, such as what GI or MF pursues.
In addition, some photographers transfer so many of their rights in their exclusive license that the photographer has lost standing to litigate.

All this brought to mind the work of the late Kevin Carter, who took that Pulitzer Prize winning photo of the Sudanese girl and the vulture in 1993.
http://iconicimages.blogspot.com/2007/12/wanting-meal.html

He sold the photo to the New York Times in 1993.

"On 27 July 1994 Carter drove to the Braamfontein Spruit river, near the Field and Study Centre, an area where he used to play as a child, and took his own life by taping one end of a hose to his pickup truck’s exhaust pipe and running the other end to the passenger-side window. He died of carbon monoxide poisoning, aged 33. Portions of Carter's suicide note read:
 "I am depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners ... I have gone to join Ken [recently deceased colleague Ken Oosterbroek] if I am that lucky."  "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter

Here's a guy with a lot of demons; he saw many things that most of us never see.
But, this example pretty much destroys the myth that having a prize winning photo always equates to riches.

You can buy editorial rights to the photo from Corbis, whom now owns the image.

S.G.

1062

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 27, 2011, 08:09:38 PM »

Prices for photographic work have really come down due to the competition; everybody's in on the game.
Good equipment is much cheaper these days, too.

The top-end prices mentioned here are pretty rare.
The high-end is usually reserved for one-of-a kind news snaps that can be syndicated to all sorts of media outlets.
For example, if you had a photo of the Challenger Disaster, and nobody else had a good photo of it, then that would be worth a lot.
A photo isn't worth much if it's easily "repeatable", can be set up again, or if there are many photos in existence of the subject matter.

For most alleged infringements, you can divide the settlement demand by 30 or 40 to get the actual retail price.
So, a $20,000 "infringement" is probably a $500 dollar photo license.

Also, let's not confuse what a stock image company would pay a photographer for exclusive rights to a unique photo with what it would cost a customer to purchase a license to use it.
A photographer might get thousands on a good photo, but it can be licensed for use for much, much less.

However, I'm pretty sure that it's in the best interests of photographers who chase infringements to give the public a greatly inflated picture of what the prices are.

S.G.

1063

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 26, 2011, 06:32:20 PM »

I know that it won't happen.
However, I'd be interested to see some of the $10,000 photos that were infringed upon.
I'm honestly not being facetious; I do wish to understand the pricing levels.

While were speaking "photo contests" where the "copyright" becomes that of the company running the contest, does anyone remember the small print that Facebook had about it owning the copyrights to every photo uploaded to its site for perpetuity?

S.G.

1064

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 26, 2011, 11:24:39 AM »

In my professional experience with stock image companies, using an image in print media was not as expensive as using it on the web.
For example, we paid $2000 for exclusive use of an image for print, but it would have cost about $12,000 to use it anywhere on the web site.
This was a number of years ago, however.  I shy away from the stock image companies these days.

Let's all be honest with each other here.
The price demanded for infringements is designed specifically to be as high as possible while being low enough that it's cheaper to pay it than to hire legal representation.
It has little to do with the quality of the photograph, skill, equipment, or anything.  It's about money.
Riddick/Imageline wanted millions (literally) for complete garbage.

We mentioned Ford.  Can you imagine if Ford started threatening to litigate or began suing its customers?
The company wouldn't last a year, and there'd be no bailout.

S.G.

1065

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Judge again suggests Righthaven is practicing law without a license

« on: August 25, 2011, 04:10:32 PM »

That's a good one, buddhapi!!

I think that the Righthaven cases have weakened the concept that one cannot fight "exclusive agreements".

I could see a future litigant possibly using a defence against Getty or Masterfile as follows.
It wouldn't be too hard to show that these companies go after so many people for money that they probably survive only because of their demand letter programs.
Given that, I'd try to demonstrate that their "copyright assignments are really impermissible contingent-fee lawsuit representation contracts".
Some may say that this hasn't been tested in court, but I'd need only refer them to Righthaven via a Google search.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/aug/25/righthaven-says-foe-jeopardizing-its-due-process-r/

S.G.