1081
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: damages
« on: March 07, 2009, 08:56:29 PM »
good info thanks
| Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program | |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1082
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / My Position on the Riddick/Imageline Issue (Oscar Michelen)
« on: March 07, 2009, 08:55:42 PM »
Introduction
I thought it was time I responded to some of the concerns and posts on the Imageline issue. I want to make clear that this post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is different and needs to be analyzed on an independent basis. First of all, all sides need to keep a more civil tongue. Name calling, labeling, insults, etc, have no place in this matter and we should try to address these issues in a careful and considered manner. I for one will not engage in this behavior nor try to keep up with Mr. Riddick's tactics. He has made many derogatory comments about me and Matthew Chan on posts on this site and in private emails to us. He has questioned my abilities and my motivations and I will not grace his comments with a similar reply. My reputation speaks for itself and the scores and scores of people we have helped in the digital image arena for very little money are enough testament to my motivations. In fact, my motivations for being involved in this are spelled out on the home page of this website. In repeated emails to those who he believes infringed on his intellectual property, he often talks about how much intellectual property lawyers cost and how expensive it would be to litigate these matters or try to get a lawyer to even respond to his claims. So how would I, a partner in a litigation boutique in NYC, be in this for money by charging $150 for a letter and $150 per hour for litigation? Just google my name and you will see some of the high-profile cases I have been involved in all areas of litigation. It makes no sense to claim that this is a money-making scheme on my part. It makes even less sense to claim that money somehow motivates Mr. Chan, who created and moderates this site. He gets no portion of the $150 clients pay me for a letter to Getty and we just recently put up a paypal donation button (at the suggestion of one of the folks who posted I might add) which helps defray the costs of maintaining the site. Matt should be given credit for creating a forum for discussion of an issue that is of critical importance in the digital millennium and for giving information on that and other topics. Rather than attack him on his motives, point out if he (or I for that matter) has stated anything in error or falsely accused anyone of any impropriety. Lets try and stick to facts.
A brief summary of Riddick's claims
Riddick is the CEO of Imageline, a Virgina corporation that apparently owns the copyright to a collection of clip art and graphic images. He has begun a campaign, similar to Getty's, of sending out notices to people whom he believes infringed on his intellectual property by digitizing the images into embroidery designs. Some of these folks then sell these designs and some people give the designs out for free on websites. He demands very high amounts for settlement and often asks the alleged infringer to sign over the designs to him for which he will "credit" them against their claim. I have seen emails where he offers to give a $200 credit per design for example. He seems to rely on strong language and on the copyright law's allowance of up to $150,000 per infringement in statutory damages along with attorneys fees and costs. The effect of the email is to make the receiver feel as if they have very little option because the law is so cut and dried. From the numerous posts and emails Matt and I have been receiving, it appears that many people are agreeing to his demands and that many are also very concerned about their businesses and their exposure.
Is Imageline correct?
Yes and no. Let's assume for the moment that Imageline has registered the clip art that someone has used to create a digital embroidery design. That use would infringe on Imageline's intellectual property. It would not be a defense to the claim that the design was a simple one that anyone could have come up with independently (though his claim to owning flag designs needs to be examined more closely as flags are generally not subject to copyright, though a particular stylized version of a flag may be). It would also not be a defense that the infringer did not know the design was copyrighted either because it did not contain a watermark or copyright notice or because the infringer paid fair market value to another entity for the design. The Copyright Act of 1976 does allow a registered copyright holder to collect statutory damages and attorney's fees as well as litigation costs in successful copyright lawsuits. The law does allow up to $150,000 in damages per infringement. That's the "Yes" part
The "No" part is that it is highly unlikely that a court will award that level of damage in most of the cases I have seen. The users ceased and desisted in using the image once notified, did not make huge amounts of money off of the image and were "innocent infringers." Innocence plays a role in the damages portion of any copyright lawsuit. First of all, courts take that into consideration when assessing statutory damages. Second of all, the copyright law allows judges to reduce ALL statutory damages to $200 per infringement in cases of innocent infringement. Courts often do that. In fact , courts have repeatedly done so in lawsuits brought by the RIAA over illegal downloading of songs. Any certainly people are more aware that music is copyrighted than they are aware that clip art is copyrighted. It should also be made clear that Imageline could not get both statutory damages and its actual damages. It must choose one over the other. If it chooses its actual damages then it would be entitled to receive the fair market value of a license for the use of the image PLUS recovery of the actual profits the user made off of the image. It could not receive attorneys fees and costs as part of actual damages.
Of course, in any lawsuit, the alleged infringer could implead (bring into the lawsuit) the entity that sold it the offending image as being responsible for causing the alleged infringement.
In any lawsuit brought by Imageline, it would first have to prove its ownership of the image (easy if it has registered it) and that the design involved actually came from that image or substantially came from that image.
What should one do if they receive an Imageline claim?
First, evaluate if the image they claim you used infringes on the image they claim they own. Is it substantially similar, Did they send you proof of registration of the image?
Second, figure out how, when and from where you acquired the image you used for your design. Contact that entity and forward them a copy of Riddick's communication asking them.
Third, ascertain how many times the design was used, sold given away.
Fourth, contact an IP attorney. Don't just rely on the information provided here. Have a trained set of eyes review Riddick's claim against you. Call a local IP lawyer and ask what his/her consultation rate is (many are free) You can find one by using your local bar association for a referral or by going on Avvo.com or lawyers.com. I will agree to extend my Getty rate ($150 per hour) to this matter and will accept a four hour retainer to start).
Fifth, send an email back to Riddick advising him that you are evaluating his claim and considering retaining counsel. If you hire an attorney he can no longer contact you directly. Do not engage in a nasty back and forth with him as it will get you nowhere.
Will he sue?
There is no way to predict what a person will do. If it is true as has been posted here by others that his corporation is in default on some issues, then he will have to correct those issues before he can sue. He will generally have to sue you in your home state as it might be difficult for him to get jurisdiction against you in his home state. The suit would be brought in Federal court.
If you don't want to get a lawyer, the law allows you to represent yourself.
Conclusion
The best approach for anyone receiving one of these claims is to review the posts on this site and familiarize yourself with the issues. Refrain from a back-and-forth with Riddick and get some legal advice from a qualified practitioner in your area.
I will be glad to address new posts on this and I will be emailing this directly to Mr Riddick as well to give him an opportunity to respond
I thought it was time I responded to some of the concerns and posts on the Imageline issue. I want to make clear that this post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is different and needs to be analyzed on an independent basis. First of all, all sides need to keep a more civil tongue. Name calling, labeling, insults, etc, have no place in this matter and we should try to address these issues in a careful and considered manner. I for one will not engage in this behavior nor try to keep up with Mr. Riddick's tactics. He has made many derogatory comments about me and Matthew Chan on posts on this site and in private emails to us. He has questioned my abilities and my motivations and I will not grace his comments with a similar reply. My reputation speaks for itself and the scores and scores of people we have helped in the digital image arena for very little money are enough testament to my motivations. In fact, my motivations for being involved in this are spelled out on the home page of this website. In repeated emails to those who he believes infringed on his intellectual property, he often talks about how much intellectual property lawyers cost and how expensive it would be to litigate these matters or try to get a lawyer to even respond to his claims. So how would I, a partner in a litigation boutique in NYC, be in this for money by charging $150 for a letter and $150 per hour for litigation? Just google my name and you will see some of the high-profile cases I have been involved in all areas of litigation. It makes no sense to claim that this is a money-making scheme on my part. It makes even less sense to claim that money somehow motivates Mr. Chan, who created and moderates this site. He gets no portion of the $150 clients pay me for a letter to Getty and we just recently put up a paypal donation button (at the suggestion of one of the folks who posted I might add) which helps defray the costs of maintaining the site. Matt should be given credit for creating a forum for discussion of an issue that is of critical importance in the digital millennium and for giving information on that and other topics. Rather than attack him on his motives, point out if he (or I for that matter) has stated anything in error or falsely accused anyone of any impropriety. Lets try and stick to facts.
A brief summary of Riddick's claims
Riddick is the CEO of Imageline, a Virgina corporation that apparently owns the copyright to a collection of clip art and graphic images. He has begun a campaign, similar to Getty's, of sending out notices to people whom he believes infringed on his intellectual property by digitizing the images into embroidery designs. Some of these folks then sell these designs and some people give the designs out for free on websites. He demands very high amounts for settlement and often asks the alleged infringer to sign over the designs to him for which he will "credit" them against their claim. I have seen emails where he offers to give a $200 credit per design for example. He seems to rely on strong language and on the copyright law's allowance of up to $150,000 per infringement in statutory damages along with attorneys fees and costs. The effect of the email is to make the receiver feel as if they have very little option because the law is so cut and dried. From the numerous posts and emails Matt and I have been receiving, it appears that many people are agreeing to his demands and that many are also very concerned about their businesses and their exposure.
Is Imageline correct?
Yes and no. Let's assume for the moment that Imageline has registered the clip art that someone has used to create a digital embroidery design. That use would infringe on Imageline's intellectual property. It would not be a defense to the claim that the design was a simple one that anyone could have come up with independently (though his claim to owning flag designs needs to be examined more closely as flags are generally not subject to copyright, though a particular stylized version of a flag may be). It would also not be a defense that the infringer did not know the design was copyrighted either because it did not contain a watermark or copyright notice or because the infringer paid fair market value to another entity for the design. The Copyright Act of 1976 does allow a registered copyright holder to collect statutory damages and attorney's fees as well as litigation costs in successful copyright lawsuits. The law does allow up to $150,000 in damages per infringement. That's the "Yes" part
The "No" part is that it is highly unlikely that a court will award that level of damage in most of the cases I have seen. The users ceased and desisted in using the image once notified, did not make huge amounts of money off of the image and were "innocent infringers." Innocence plays a role in the damages portion of any copyright lawsuit. First of all, courts take that into consideration when assessing statutory damages. Second of all, the copyright law allows judges to reduce ALL statutory damages to $200 per infringement in cases of innocent infringement. Courts often do that. In fact , courts have repeatedly done so in lawsuits brought by the RIAA over illegal downloading of songs. Any certainly people are more aware that music is copyrighted than they are aware that clip art is copyrighted. It should also be made clear that Imageline could not get both statutory damages and its actual damages. It must choose one over the other. If it chooses its actual damages then it would be entitled to receive the fair market value of a license for the use of the image PLUS recovery of the actual profits the user made off of the image. It could not receive attorneys fees and costs as part of actual damages.
Of course, in any lawsuit, the alleged infringer could implead (bring into the lawsuit) the entity that sold it the offending image as being responsible for causing the alleged infringement.
In any lawsuit brought by Imageline, it would first have to prove its ownership of the image (easy if it has registered it) and that the design involved actually came from that image or substantially came from that image.
What should one do if they receive an Imageline claim?
First, evaluate if the image they claim you used infringes on the image they claim they own. Is it substantially similar, Did they send you proof of registration of the image?
Second, figure out how, when and from where you acquired the image you used for your design. Contact that entity and forward them a copy of Riddick's communication asking them.
Third, ascertain how many times the design was used, sold given away.
Fourth, contact an IP attorney. Don't just rely on the information provided here. Have a trained set of eyes review Riddick's claim against you. Call a local IP lawyer and ask what his/her consultation rate is (many are free) You can find one by using your local bar association for a referral or by going on Avvo.com or lawyers.com. I will agree to extend my Getty rate ($150 per hour) to this matter and will accept a four hour retainer to start).
Fifth, send an email back to Riddick advising him that you are evaluating his claim and considering retaining counsel. If you hire an attorney he can no longer contact you directly. Do not engage in a nasty back and forth with him as it will get you nowhere.
Will he sue?
There is no way to predict what a person will do. If it is true as has been posted here by others that his corporation is in default on some issues, then he will have to correct those issues before he can sue. He will generally have to sue you in your home state as it might be difficult for him to get jurisdiction against you in his home state. The suit would be brought in Federal court.
If you don't want to get a lawyer, the law allows you to represent yourself.
Conclusion
The best approach for anyone receiving one of these claims is to review the posts on this site and familiarize yourself with the issues. Refrain from a back-and-forth with Riddick and get some legal advice from a qualified practitioner in your area.
I will be glad to address new posts on this and I will be emailing this directly to Mr Riddick as well to give him an opportunity to respond
1083
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Looking for your assistance
« on: March 07, 2009, 07:18:43 PM »
I attached the wrong email address it is xxx
1084
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty HAS filed a Complaint
« on: March 07, 2009, 06:17:41 PM »
I am glad you posted this as I was planning on updating the website with this info this weekend. I have found about a dozen or so instances of Getty filing complaints. Some date back to 2005, some as recently as the end of 2008. All of them involve sites that used more than 20 or so images. Interestingly, from the ones that I found, it seems that no defendant ever really contested the issue. They either settled right away or they defaulted. I contacted one lawyer who represented a small bank in Long Island who had been sued. Form my discussion with him, it seemed the bank just wanted to get the case over with so he settled. He recognized that he had some valid defenses that could have been raised -particularly on the issue of damages - but the bank was not interested in a drawn out court case so he got the best number he could get from Getty and he settled.
I have found the same result with Masterfile -which sues much more frequently than Getty.
I have found the same result with Masterfile -which sues much more frequently than Getty.
1085
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: New Getty CLONE Hits Embroidery Community
« on: March 01, 2009, 06:15:52 PM »
thanks for the info
1086
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: A Clear Message
« on: March 01, 2009, 06:15:14 PM »
There are growing concerns about securing rights for digital images when you are not even sure where the company you obtained the images from got their images from. The problem is the US law does not sufficiently protect innocent infringers - all it does is allow a judge to lower statutory damages down to $200 per infraction; it does not address what happens when the person suing is looking for actual damages because the "work" was not registered at the time of the infringement. It needs to model UK law which says in all cases that a copyright holder is entitled to NO damages in cases of innocent infringement. This recognizes that copyright is not some iron-clad right but is in many ways intended to be somewhat "porous" as many Federal court decisions indicate. While infringement is taken seriously, so is artistic expression and the need to build on earlier ideas. Like all law, copyright law seeks to strike a balance between two competing interests - the right of the creator of intellectual property to protect his work and the right of society to the free flow of ideas and artistic expression.
1087
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: George Riddick of ImageLine Inc. Contacts ExtortionLetterInfo.com
« on: March 01, 2009, 06:05:16 PM »
Look for more on this topic soon right here on our website
1088
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: George P. Riddick III Chairman/CEO Imageline, Inc.
« on: March 01, 2009, 06:01:06 PM »
Look to the site for more info on this soon
1089
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Looking for your assistance
« on: March 01, 2009, 06:00:36 PM »
I would be delighted to help you - email me at xxx or call me at my office after 1030am at 1-800-640-2000
1090
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: New CLONE Hits Embroidery Community
« on: February 25, 2009, 07:54:17 PM »
We absolutely will extend our letter program to Riddick and may even consider trying to help those who have already settled if there's a way to do so. In the meantime DO NOT SETTLE. Look for an update on this very soon I have already begun to receive much info on this.
1091
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: George Riddick III Imageline
« on: February 25, 2009, 07:51:13 PM »
This guy is much worse and even way more off line than Getty. Matt and I are preparing a major post on his efforts. Bottom line is DON'T SETTLE. Gather the information, we will extend our letter program to him as well. after I review everything i will put up a summary on the issue the way we did with Getty. Thanks for alerting Matt and me to this issue
1092
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Corporation
« on: February 20, 2009, 05:13:32 PM »
Masterfile does negotiate and depending on the circumstances may offer a payment plan.
1093
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Famous letter in.... the Netherlands!
« on: February 19, 2009, 09:36:06 PM »
I answered most of these questions on your other post Nelis. I cannot handle a Dutch case unfortunately, but you are in a stronger position than in the US. Innocent infringement is a case by case issue, Why should someone not believe their web developer when they prepare their site for them? If you downloaded it from some site that claimed they were free and public, then you are innocent as well.
1094
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What happened after late '07/early '08?
« on: February 19, 2009, 09:33:13 PM »
Well, Nelis, this weblog has been very active in 2008 and up to now. Getty filed a few lawsuits in early 2008 against businesses that had over 20 images. The defendants apparently settled very quickly and did not really contest the issue. I spoke to one defense lawyer (who was not really an intellectual property litigator) and he said he did not raise some of the issues I raise on this site and that his client (a bank) wanted to get the matter over with quickly so they settled.
With us, we now represent over 80 businesses on this issue and we are in discussions with Getty's corporate counsel as we speak, trying to see if we can get some agreement. You have accurately described Getty's pattern of behavior, they have alot of activity then they drop away.
With us, we now represent over 80 businesses on this issue and we are in discussions with Getty's corporate counsel as we speak, trying to see if we can get some agreement. You have accurately described Getty's pattern of behavior, they have alot of activity then they drop away.
1095
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Famous letter in.... the Netherlands!
« on: February 17, 2009, 03:00:21 PM »
So far Getty has filed a few lawsuits here in the States for sites that had over 20 images. It looks like the defendants did not contest them and settled right away. So we don't know if any of the issues we raise here were raised in court there, not likely. Copyright is granted automatically in countries such as the Netherlands that have signed the Berne Convention, meaning as soon as a person creates a work, it is covered by copyright. This means that technically it is not necessary to include copyright indicators such as "copyright © 2006."You need to look up Dutch law to see if it follows the UK law (no damages at all for innocent infringement) or if it follows US law (allowing damages even for innocent infringement)
Official ELI Help Options |
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |