Messages

1066

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Ending Copyright Extortion Forever -The Impossible Dream

« on: October 01, 2012, 09:45:49 PM »

Great song and I'll second the vote for making it the Eli theme!

1067

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lisa Willmer, Senior Director, Corporate Counsel at Getty Images

« on: October 01, 2012, 09:42:06 PM »

Great video as always Robert!

1068

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 24, 2012, 10:22:35 PM »

Wow! That is amazing on so many levels. First that he has the balls to say that you give me

A nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to....

on every item and then that people actually do it.

1069

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 24, 2012, 08:17:21 PM »

That was an interesting video and a good find thanks for sharing it!

1070

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 23, 2012, 11:08:03 PM »

I do not recommend talking to them on the phone as it will serve no purpose and my personal preference is to do it the old-fashioned way in writing and through the mail is that way I have copies of all correspondence and proof of everything that was said should it be needed.

I recommend continued reading of the forms and you may wish to consider posting a copy of your letter before you send and ask for comment.

1071

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is the domain owner liable or the company represented on the domain?

« on: September 23, 2012, 05:29:31 PM »

Thank you Mulligan but I can't take credit for the find, Matthew originally posted this back in May and I thought the article was so interesting that I saved the link as it is an admission by Getty that they are affecting over 40,000 people a year with their demand letter program. I like to think of it in these terms, if these numbers we're talking about were cases of swine flu or something similar then it would be labeled an epidemic and vast resources would be dedicated to putting a stop to it, yet because it's a business taking advantage of the copyright law to extort money from innocent and nonwillful infringers it goes unknown and unaddressed. I can say I had never heard about any of this until I had received my letter from Getty and went online to do some research about it. My goal is to raise the awareness factor through my letter writing campaign with agencies and lawmakers who are able to put pressure on Getty and make a change should they be so motivated or as Robert likes to say going "Greg Troy"on their asses .

Greg, thanks for the link to that 2009 article, which made for good reading. I admit to gagging when I read the last few sentences:

Getty's [Corporate Counsel Lisa] Willmer said it's a full-time job keeping up with copyright infringement in the age of the Internet.

"I liken it to the game Whac-A-Mole," she said.

That sentence reveals a great deal about lawyers like Lisa Willmer who profit so mightily from sending out threatening letters citing copyright statutes that are no longer fair or relevant in a digital world with an internet that contained over 40 BILLION images way back in 2008.

1072

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is the domain owner liable or the company represented on the domain?

« on: September 23, 2012, 12:36:17 PM »

I am sure that the practice will continue as Getty's books were opened to the buyers prior to purchase and they knew exactly what they were getting. I read an article in 2009 where at that time Getty admitted sending out approximately 40,000 of these letters every year and with technology increasing by leaps and bounds I am sure they have up that amount considerably by now. You have to realize that despite what Getty claims this is not about protecting the intellectual property rights of their artists, this is a business model plain and simple and is all about the money. If it were truly about protecting the intellectual property rights of their artists a simple cease and desist letter would suffice or if they still insisted on collecting damages they would ask for the de minimis amount of $200. What Getty is doing is exploiting the copyright law and trying to grab as much money as they can before public outcry, the courts and lawmakers slammed the door on this type of practice.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/13/business/fi-lazarus13

Thank you everyone for your well explained replies. I only wish it was one of my sites so I could go "Greg Troy" on 'em. You are all superb human beings to devote so much time to this providing much needed support to those in need.

If Getty has indeed been sold will the new owners continue this practice? With enough negative publicity no one will buy Getty Images and their entire business model will be based around extortion! Nice. BTW I have recently discovered fotalia.com who has great images and a very sensible policy for purchasing. I purchased an image for the website in question, exactly the same content - for $3 lifetime license!

1073

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What exact IS Google's DMCA policy?

« on: September 23, 2012, 09:51:10 AM »

Very good points SG and I agree.  This is an interesting thread.

It's always about the money.

How many hits has the video gotten..?  Nearly 5 million?
That's a lot of hits... and advertizing revenue for YouTube.

I also think that people in the acting field should have clauses in their contracts that their appearance can't be edited to appear "obscene, defamatory", etc.
Even stock image companies have such clauses. A hard lesson in this case.

S.G.

1074

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Judge revives action in forgotten Righthaven case

« on: September 22, 2012, 09:42:43 PM »

Good article and thanks for posting it Robert! It gets better and better because after reading the article I see that the EFF has joined in the fight on the side of the defendants.

A federal judge is refusing to let Righthaven LLC off the hook, reviving action in one of its cases Tuesday after saying it "fell through the cracks."

The revival of the suit poses a problem for Righthaven and its CEO, Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson, because when Leen last addressed the case she had hit Righthaven with an order to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of court for failing to produce financial information to attorneys for DiBiase.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/sep/19/judge-revives-action-forgotten-righthaven-case/?aff=mynews3

1075

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is the domain owner liable or the company represented on the domain?

« on: September 22, 2012, 09:38:09 PM »

Just call me ELI freak extraordinaire

Information on how to go "Greg Troy"on their asses as well as copies of my letters if you are interested can be found at the following link:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

If ever there was a reason for a complaint being filed with the attorney general, this would be it! If I were you I'd be going "Greg Troy" on their asses and firing off letters everywhere!

1076

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 22, 2012, 09:32:21 PM »

SG and Moe, I understand with you are saying and agree with your definition of a "live" site. A good example of what I was saying was shortly after I purchased my domain name of www.yeahwedothat.biz I had placed a park page at that address stating stay tuned for our website to go to live shortly. There were no links or any way to navigate off of that page. Behind the scenes I was constructing the website and while it could've been accessed by bots the website was not active nor was I conducting any business or making any money on the site. The way that I read the OP's initial message it sounded like he had something similar and that the template he was using had an image in it picked up by Pic-Scout. What I was telling the OP was that by what Jonathan Klein had said in the interview he and Getty were fine with an image being used this way upto the point that the site is being used to make money and that this could be one of the defenses he can use should he choose to reply to Getty's letter.

I just enjoy taking any opportunity I can to point out when Getty speaks out of both sides of their mouth, in the interview Jonathan Klein says it's okay and in the letter they say it's not. It's just like the current Rock Photo lawsuit against Getty where Getty claims that if they are using any of rock photos images it was unintentional an innocent infringement and therefore they should not have to pay, yet when anyone that receives one of their extortion demand letters says the same thing Getty says that it doesn't matter you are guilty and must pay.

1077

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Attorney J. Stephen Street Extortion Letter: Hawaiian Art Network/Vincent Tylor

« on: September 22, 2012, 09:15:28 PM »

This is the kind of BS that really ticks me off, when I see these demand letters accusing people of willfully stealing the images and altering the image to remove copyrighted information it gets me as worked up as when I got my Getty letter.

I can't tell you how glad it makes me to know that Aloha Plastic Surgery has countersued them in is getting ready to take them to court and put a serious but heard on them.

1078

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty images Demand Letter and ELI search story

« on: September 21, 2012, 06:48:48 PM »

Another great video Robert!

1079

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers

« on: September 21, 2012, 07:55:38 AM »

Don't know how I miised that, thanks SG!

Check out the real estate listing that I posted earlier if you want more info on the house...

S.G.

1080

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers

« on: September 20, 2012, 11:10:02 PM »

Looked up the pic of the house, very nice with a pool and tennis court.

http://i47.tinypic.com/30jli07.jpg