Messages

1066

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

« on: August 25, 2011, 04:01:37 PM »

Possible loophole in Getty and Masterfile Copyright Registrations?

Much has been made about “exclusive agreements”, and I think that several Righthaven cases show that not all “exclusive agreements” are made equal.

But, aside from that, I think that we can all agree that many images are copyrighted by the artist, but also in a bulk form by the stock image company (Getty or Masterfile).
The stock image company will have an agreement of some sort with the artist (exclusive or otherwise).
But, I wonder if a situation wherein two different parties (the stock image company, and the artist) have both copyrighted the same image independently could enable a defendant to contest that the stock image company (or either party) has standing to sue.
While we could say that an exclusive agreement assigns rights to the stock image company, this may not negate the fact that two separate entities have formally applied a copyright registration to the same image.

Now, some could contest that both the artist and stock image company could agree in principle that the stock image company has standing to file suit.
However, that still wouldn’t prevent the defendant from contesting copyright standing.  
While the artist and the stock image company may come to an agreement and clear up the discrepancy before a potential court foray, but an actual litigation would only be concerned with the agreements that were in force at the time of the alleged  infringement.
In addition, there is no provision in the laws that deal with with “exclusive agreements” that would easily clear up a disputed copyright standing between two separate parties, that I know of.

S.G.

1067

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

« on: August 25, 2011, 01:08:42 PM »

Judge again suggests Righthaven is practicing law without a license

"A federal judge today suggested for a second time that Las Vegas copyright lawsuit filer Righthaven LLC has been involved in the unauthorized practice of law."

"The case at issue Wednesday is the Righthaven lawsuit against the Democratic Underground, which remains active despite Righthaven’s dismissal from the suit so the Democratic Underground can pursue its counterclaim against Stephens Media LLC, owner of the Review-Journal."

"Righthaven wants to intervene in the case to protect its interests. Democratic Underground attorneys, however, say Stephens Media has always been the true copyright holder and Righthaven’s lawsuit and its effort to re-enter the case are a sham"

"The court is dubious as to whether Righthaven can essentially create standing in the middle of a case so as to either prosecute the case independently or intervene. Further, the court questions whether Righthaven can even have a legitimate interest under any agreement (no matter the rights purportedly transferred) because Stephens Media and Righthaven’s arrangement seems very much like a contingency fee arrangement with an entity unauthorized to practice law," Hunt wrote in his order Wednesday."

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/aug/24/judge-again-suggests-righthaven-practicing-law-wit/

S.G.

1068

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile people responsible for your miseries

« on: August 24, 2011, 06:02:41 PM »

Kristen Sams

http://www.yatedo.com/s/companyname%3A(Masterfile)



Another forum participant said that Ms Sams was party to a phony DMCA complaint which took down his site.
I wonder how she would hold up in court if the web site owner litigated?

S.G.

1069

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

« on: August 24, 2011, 11:27:32 AM »

You could have a problem with this clause:

504 (3) (A) In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.

You make an excellent point here, 'Newzshooter".

However, a "shell corporation" service has a secretary that handles phone calls, and mailboxes so that the corporations can get mail.
So long as a response can be made by the corporation to verify the contact info, everything is ok.
Indeed, we needn't register our web site(s) to our hosue or apartment address; often it's our registered place of business.

Again, shell corporations aren't illegal in most places, and my suggestion isn't intended to invent a scheme wherein wilful infringements could be made.

I think that the 'rebuttable' provision of the statute implies that whether or not the infringement was 'wilfil' or not would have to be argued in court; only a judge could interpret 'intent'.
In any case, the photographer or stock image company will say that the intent was wilful regardless of the circumstances.
But, by the time it could reach 'court', the web registration would be updated, and the infringing content removed.

I must say that if a site of mine was shut down for any reason, the parties involved would have to show cause for doing so, as I'd file a lawsuit to collect damages as soon as possible.
Some people have sites that generate hundreds of thousands of dollars daily; shutting a site like this down could be quite expensive if the other party doesn't have 'cause'.
Riddick/Imageline damaged Bernina's business, and now he's in quite a bit of trouble.

"GoDaddy" is afraid to get in the middle of any of this.  They're a bit too quick to pull the plug on any complaint.  So, they're one to avoid in my opinion.

Anyone who's very active on the 'web such as 'buddhapi' with many domains is at great risk for copyright trolling activities.
Most of the trolling is simply threats with no substance.

It would be great to keep the 'noise' down to a minimum.

S.G.

1070

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

« on: August 24, 2011, 12:16:40 AM »

I'm sure that it's Thursday on some proxy somewhere.
But, yes.  You've made an impression.

S.G.

1071

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

« on: August 24, 2011, 12:14:53 AM »

These are interesting ideas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that "The Democratic Underground" had quite an impressive warning to Righthaven that they weren't legally allowed to spider the site.
It was pretty clever.  I'm trying to find that page; if anyone else knows of it, please post the link.  I wonder what became of it?

In any case, Righthaven lost to "The Democratic Underground".
Righthaven didn't own the copyrights and couldn't sue on behalf of the actual copyright owner.
Getty and Masterfile victims take note here.  Being an exclusive agent doesn't transfer copyright.

By the way, proxies and caches can be cleared out without much problem on a regular basis.

Has anyone considered keeping their corporation as usual, but having a second corporation (with no assets or property) "publish" the sites?
You could have the crap sued out of you, but you could just close the corporation that publishes the web stuff (but has no assets).
I don't know that this could work; I'm just throwing it out there.  But, this is essentially what I'm going to try to make happen.
It'll cost some fees to lawyers and also administrative fees, etc.  But for me personally, it would be worth it.
In addition, there are businesses that cater to the demand for "shell corporations", which are often simply housed in non-descript houses/buildings with hundreds of mailboxes inside and a secretary.  There's a good one in Montana, if I'm not mistaken.
By the way, before anyone says that it's illegal, it isn't.  Cheeky monkey.
I should mention that I'm not intending to do anything that would infringe on anyone, etc.  It's just "insurance".

S.G.

1072

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 23, 2011, 11:52:07 PM »

I've made an argument here that I'm satisfied with, and readers can even find out more information through links that I've provided.
I don't feel that it's necessary to debate further, and dilute what I feel is quite a strong defense.

There's many posters on the forum, and the opinions run the gamut from "never, ever pay anything" all the way to "you can't fight then not matter what and you have to pay".
The truth is often somewhere in the middle.  But, I tend toward relying on court precedents and not necessarily what Getty writes in it's threatening letters.

I get the points that you're making in your last posting.  If I may:
"Hurry up and pay out.  It takes time to do fact-finding plus research, and you may accrue interest while you're doing that.  So pay up fast, don't negotiate."
"Don't ask questions of the demand letter sender, because you'll get charged for every phone call and email that it takes for them to convince you to pay."
"Lawyers are 'bad' because they make a living defending people from Righthaven, Riddick/Imageline, MF and Getty Images."
"Furthermore, lawyers cost a lot of money, so it's much cheaper to just pay those who send demand letters. It's too expensive to fight them."
"The lowly photographer gets screwed in the end, regardless."
Thanks for your opinions.  I don't entirely agree with you, but perhaps I've helped to clarify where you stand?

Thanks once again for calling me "Charming", Helpi.

"Nice S.G. Very charming."

Source:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php?topic=2141.30

But, as they say, "I ain't even mad".

S.G.

1073

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

« on: August 23, 2011, 03:46:33 PM »

The two companies will become a new entity.
This has been described as a 'merge', however it does appear that Arius will purchase masterfile.

It's not a done deal as yet:

"Arius3D, which has been trading on the venture exchange under the ticker LZR since last February, expects the deal to close by Halloween 2011. Should the deal fail to close or gain necessary approvals by October 31, Arius has agreed to pay Masterfile $750,000 in termination fees."

http://www.cbc.ca/fp/story/2011/08/22/5290109.html

I mentioned a potential lawsuit between MF and Arius if this doesn't work out.
Anyone who thinks that it couldn't happen if the deal goes sour is out of touch with reality.

All rights will transferred from MF to Arius3D.

"The Company intends to raise the funds necessary to satisfy the cash portion of the purchase price through an agreement with an arm's length entity ("Financing Partner"). The Company is currently negotiating an agreement with Financing Partner pursuant to which (i) Financing Partner will acquire Masterfile's contractual rights to the pictures and images currently (and to be) licensed by Masterfile (the "Masterfile Library") for $20 million in cash, (ii) Masterfile will provide distribution services to Financing Partner and (iii) Masterfile and/or Arius3D will receive a participation interest in the net profits (after the payment of applicable royalties to the respective artists/licensors) to be obtained from Financing Partner in connection with the Masterfile Library."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/arius3d-to-acquire-masterfile-2011-08-19

But the problem remains that the photographers/artists still hold the copyrights of individual images and not MF in many cases.
So, they're really back to square one like Getty and Righthaven.  Attempting to transfer the right to litigate without transferring the actual copyright is moot.

It's standard practice in the business world these days to paint aquisitions as a "merger of equals".
It's also standard practice for companies to publicly state that nobody will be fired.  But, neither of these are true in most cases.
These statements are simply public relations intended to keep things stable as much as possible.

Sounds like Pigeon's probably ready to retire.
He's likely staying on for now; that keeps the illusion of 'stability' going.
He'll probably become a consultant to the company, and then retire.

"I'm 60 years old. I can't do this forever," says Masterfile CEO and largest shareholder Steve Pigeon of his decision to sell the agency."

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/3-D-Imaging-Company--3436.shtml

Pigeon also sent a shot across the bow of the competition.  But's kind of like trying to say that Jeffery Dahmer is better than Ted Bundy:

"Masterfile's contributing photographers are also "heaving a sigh of relief we didn't sell out to Corbis or Getty," Pigeon says. Those agencies have imposed less favorable terms on contributors to agencies they have purchased in the past."

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/3-D-Imaging-Company--3436.shtml

The future of the extortion letter scheme is uncertain in my opinion.
Many uninformed people paid through the nose for a while, but people are getting more educated these days.
The only thing that really makes people pay is court or the prospect of court.
Despite what some people who earn a living from these scams will tell you on this forum, the court challenges haven't been all that successful for the copyright trolls.

Anyone elese notice that 'photographer' aka 'helpi' is "off" on Tuesdays?
Also, inb4 "libel".  Come at me, bro.

S.G.

1074

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

« on: August 23, 2011, 01:57:55 PM »

Agreed.

By the way, what happens if this merged company can't make enough money?
Are we going to see a whole new wave of demand letters to generate revenue?

It could be real mess.  Maybe MF can sue their new partner if things don't go as planned?

oh, and Getty Images is doing the same thing as Righthaven.
Righthaven pursues settlements over content that it doesn't own copyrights for.
Getty pursues settlements over content that it doesn't own copyrights for, either.
Good luck with that.

S.G.

1075

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

« on: August 23, 2011, 11:38:38 AM »

I visited the Arius3D Corp website.
What's with that crappy website?  LOL.
Has anyone else checked it out?

I thought that perhaps it wasn't functioning correctly along with my proxy.
But, I don't think that's case.

If you visited that website, would you want to buy anything, or even know what product you wanted?

It's rather strange.

S.G.

1076

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

« on: August 23, 2011, 11:13:06 AM »

Great info by 'mcfilms'; I hadn't thought of that.

'Bekka', offering MF some content as a settlement seems like a good idea.
The problem is that MF probably doesn't really 'sell' much to actual customers anymore.
So, they'd have to wait for someone to 'infringe' on what you provide to them in order to make any money.

S.G.

1077

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Shuts Down Server without DMCA Complaint

« on: August 23, 2011, 11:10:03 AM »

Thanks for the extra information.  Pretty interesting stuff.  But, kind of chilling.

There's something definitely 'wrong' going on over there at masterfile.
They've gone from being really litigious to what many would call fraud.

The "we do everything in-house" sounds like just another way of manufacturing copyright standing.
It's simply baffling why so few companies/people copyright their content properly.

Kindly Keep us posted on this.

S.G.

1078

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Shuts Down Server without DMCA Complaint

« on: August 23, 2011, 12:31:58 AM »

Thanks very much for posting your story here.

I haven't heard of anything like this before on this forum.
I'm not sure what to make of it just yet.

I would imagine that GoDaddy is quick to shut down sites allegedly infringing so as to protect themselves from the trolls.
Were you given any warning by Masterfile before the site(s) were taken down?
Did GoDaddy reinstate your site(s) once you removed the allegedly offending content?

Usually, the copyright trolls simply go after a settlement, and the end user simply removes any allegedly infringing content.
The DMCA take-down notice seems a bit malicious if you were given no prior warning.

Yes, my colleagues and I are quite convinced that several of these stock image companies are running scams, pure and simple.
From some postings made on here, I also feel that some photographers/artists are in on the game.

Has anyone else here realized the risks that Masterfile may have exposed themselves to?
If Masterfile didn't own the copyrights to the material allegedly infringed upon, they could be sued by ever site owner that lost business due to their sites being shut down.
One day, they'll slip up.

I'm surprised that masterfile didn't simply merge with a law firm.

Thanks again,

S.G.

1079

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

« on: August 22, 2011, 11:19:00 PM »

I'll tell you what I'm thinking.

The purchaser is publicly-traded.  If the demand-letter schemes continue, we'll get some interesting info publicly released about the extortion activities.

If the demand letter schemes are abandoned, the many people who comprise the "MF copyright troll team" will be let go.

S.G.

1080

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 22, 2011, 11:13:37 PM »

Libel, bro?  Seriously?
Keep bringing the LOL's.

'photographer' (helpi) if you're good at photography, please stick to that.

S.G.