Messages

1111

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Alaska Stock - Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

« on: October 17, 2012, 07:15:56 PM »

I regret to inform everyone that we got the facts wrong.  To our knowledge, Alaska Stock has never filed bankruptcy. In the conversation in which we thought Alaska Stock filed bankruptcy, it was, in fact, their legal opponent, Houghton Mifflin that filed bankruptcy for the purpose of restructuring their large amounts of debt.  Houghton Mifflin was in bankruptcy only for a short amount of time.

As it now stands, it is up to Alaska Stock to determine if they wish to once again file an appeal against the dismissal ruling that was granted to Houghton Mifflin.  As far as we can tell, Alaska Stock stands defeated because of their sloppy copyright registrations.  More than likely, they followed the shoddy copyright registration advice given by PACA lawyer Nancy Wolff.

There are now at least two stock photo companies in recent months (Alaska Stock & "Masterfail") who have been shown the door for trying to short-cut the copyright registration process.

I apologize to everyone for not doing a better job in rechecking certain statements before "going public" with it. 

1112

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I am getting slammed by photographers

« on: October 16, 2012, 12:27:23 AM »

Our own Oscar Michelen jumped into the fray on Ryan Healy's blog. I would provide a link if I could to Oscar's specific comments. However, since there is no apparent way for me to link directly to Oscar's comments, I will copy and paste Oscar's comments here.  I am fairly certain that Oscar will be okay if I ENTIRELY copy and paste his comments here on the ELI Forums.

Don: You make many valid points about the worth of a digital image and the need for enforcement of infringement but fail to realize what I am talking about by referring to Getty’s tactics as extortionate. Making legal demands in a letter that you are not entitled to (statutory costs and legal fees for example) and calling folks “thieves” when they hired a third party web developer to create a site for them or when they even have a receipt from their developer for the purchase of the image is simply not fair. Getty’s heavy-handed tactics and those of their enforcers are well documented on the ELI site. As for the site – you ask “Have they ever had a victory?” and then say you could not find evidence of one. Well, we founded the site over four years ago. The site now receives about 11,000 unique visitors a month the vast majority of whom (99.9%) do not pay me to write them a letter. Why? Because the point of the site was never to make money but to educate the public about this issue. The site was the first one to take this issue head on , provide solutions and offer advice FOR FREE. We have helped people from all over the world learn about digital imagery and the rights of photographers and how to properly place images on one’s website. Of the 850 folks who have decide to use the letter program, none has ever been sued and Getty has stopped communicating with them. You can insult me all you like by calling my $195 letter a $4 letter, but take a look at my credentials and just like there are stock photos worth $6,000 and stock photos worth $6.00, a letter from me to Getty is lengthy and thorough and worth every bit of $195. I am personally responsible for the content of each and every letter and am proud that it has allowed many folks to rest easier after receiving Getty’s communications. If all of that isn’t enough to have you declare the ELI site an unqualified success, then look at the recent case I handled in California Masterfile v. Chaga International where I obtained an important decision from the Federal Court in California regarding the proper method of registering digital images. I would probably be able to show more examples of court victories except that Getty does not go to court over these cases, so them leaving my clients alone is going to have to do for a “win.” I encourage you to spend some time visiting the site before attacking it.

Another reply by Oscar:

Harry: Demand letters are usually not sent initially by Getty’s lawyers but by Getty itself – through a mechanized process that costs them next to nothing. So “attorney’s costs” are not the reasons for the high demand – looking to scare folks into paying more than the image is worth is the reason. But let me say that I have proposed on my blog, a system for registering photographs by individual photographers in groups that would allow those photographers to obtain copyright protection without having to register each individual photograph separately. As someone who represents photographers as well, it is difficult to enforce infringement for small thumbnail images with low value. You can;t go to small claims because all copyright claims must be brought in Federal court and small claims or even full State courts do not have any jurisdiction over copyright. So if that’s been done by anyone successfully, their adversary was ignorant of some basic law. But digital imagery is worth protecting and on my site we tell people all the time how to legally acquire imagery for their websites. We constantly tell them that even if their web developer got them their images the end user is also responsible and can be held liable. We have promoted proper use of digital images just as much as we have decried Getty’s methodology. With respect to your and Don’s issue that I have earned $160K in defending against Getty claims over 4 years – both of you have decided to ignore the hundreds if not thousands of hours over the 4 years of free advice, videos, free letters to non-profits, veteran groups, knitting bees, etc, blog posts, commentary, review of issues for folks, which when put into the calculation means I would have probably made more per hour managing a McDonalds over the same time period. “Stealing” implies intent but the vast majority of my clients employed and paid third parties to set up their sites and were not web or copyright law savvy. They made a mistake – they were willing to pay a fair amount for that mistake. Before signing on as a client of mine I have advised every single letter recipient I have represented to offer $200 to Getty for the image before paying me my letter fee. Believe me Getty paid $20 Million for PicScout because it is a huge moneymaker for them and they don’t need to address my clients because the folks I represent are less than 1% of the folks receiving letters. They are sending out countless letters per week.

On the issue of Masterfile v. Chaga do some research. My client had settled a claim over these same images for a substantial amount of money. Why? Because I recommended they settle as the images appeared to be registered with the Copyright Office and their developer used MF’s registered images improperly. MF later claimed they found the same images on deadlinked pages from the site. We argued that any claims over these images were settled and no additional new use was made of them. MF disagreed and filed suit. Copyright law and registration is very exact and must be followed to the letter. They didn’t do that I moved to dismiss and it was granted. But even if this “technical” argument did not win the day (and all law is technical so I don’t know why “technical” arguments have less value than non-technical ones”) we had many other substantive defenses to MF’s claims. But you asked me for a win and I gave you one. There are many others from all over the country. Copyright law is national so I don’t need to know each individual states law and I can therefore write on behalf of clients everywhere (just like when Getty’s uses lawyers they are based in Seattle but write letters all across the country). But if a case goes to litigation, I have the client retain local counsel who moves my admission into that State. I have done so in California, Georgia and Texas. So please don;t worry about my ethics and my clients. I am more open and above board than any other lawyer I know – look I volunteered how many letters I have written and here I am still having to defend myself against representing small business owners against a giant company on some blog I have no connection to, on a Sunday afternoon with the Yankees and Giants on TV. So that’s it. I have made my last comment on this issue. If you want to continue the discussion, come on over to the ELI forum and post there. We welcome all opinions and have frank and open dialogue on this topic all the time.

1113

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Jonathan Klein and Getty Images, a history of questionable business practices?

« on: October 15, 2012, 02:03:30 AM »

This is some intense findings you have dug up.

For what its worth, I found evidence in Google that Getty's extortion letter program was operating in 2006 time-frame.  However, the program may go back even further. I cannot recall exactly since it has been 4+ years since I tried to trace the beginnings of the first complaints of Getty extortion letters.

My impression is that the Getty's Extortion Letter program was well under way before Getty went private again.

However, I would tend to agree Getty being a private company vs. a public company makes them a bit less vulnerable to public scrutiny.  There is more freedom in how you can operate a business by going private however sleazy the business tactics might be.

1114

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I'm done worrying about it.

« on: October 13, 2012, 01:49:52 AM »

I have absolute faith they will swoop around and make another pass at you.  These guys are very persistent because persistence often works on many people.

There are a lot of merits and upsides to simply laying low. However, for others such as myself who have a significant web/online business presence, it really isn't possible.

It's been about three months, I haven't responded to the first letter and so far have not heard a peep out of Getty. My strategy is to do nothing and see what happens. I'll stop back in about 6 months and let you know how that strategy is working for me.

1115

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My proposed Getty letter response and settlement offer

« on: October 13, 2012, 01:46:31 AM »

Don't be foolish as other ELI visitors have done and adopt another person's letter that the copyright extortionists realize you didn't really write it.  Remember, ELI is required reading by all the copyright extortionists.  I have the web stats/logs to prove Getty, Masterfail, etc. all come to ELI to get the latest information and gossip.

I posted my own response letters years ago simply to share my story and how I dealt with it.  However, quite a number of people "adopted" too much of my letter without adding their own original thought, wording, tone, and circumstance that many of the copyright extortionists simply call them out on their so-called response letter. I know many of them laugh at some of the letters they receive.

I have no problems people using my or another person's letter as a source of and ideas for your own letter.  But don't make yourself look like a plagiarizer by copying phrases, paragraphs, sentences, etc. It doesn't help your case at all.

Use your own words, phrases, tone, and circumstances to get your communication across if you want to be taken seriously.

TimTime, I am wondering if I can use your letter. I would, of course edit to fit my own situation. I am also wondering about the outcome in your case. Did they fire another letter back yet?  Thank you.

1116

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I am getting slammed by photographers

« on: October 13, 2012, 01:31:21 AM »

Absolutely agree here.  I try to take most of my photos if possible. However, I have also hired a professional photographer on a work-for-hire.  I pay them to use their expertise/camera/equipment to take good digital shots. 

But those digital image files get delivered to me to be used/modified/edited/transformed wherever I want, whenever I want, however I want.  If they can't agree to that then I find another photographer to work with or I find an alternative to a photo.

There are still a number of photographers who think they are so uniquely qualified (some might bet), that they can command control of the images their employers/clients spend money for them to take.

Wedding photographers come to mind....  You spend all that money to have them take photos but then they decide how many copies you can make and what you can do with them?  GMAFB.

I no longer buy images from Getty, Istock and others. I buy photos directly from photogs or hire my favorite photog, Dave Sizer, to shoot content for me. I want the photog to get a fair fee that he or she negotiates with me directly.

1117

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I am getting slammed by photographers

« on: October 13, 2012, 01:24:12 AM »

Ryan,

Glad to have you join us here on the ELI Forums. I have no problems you asking for ELI Community help. You have done a great service in using your platform in getting the word out. Thanks for referring people to ELI to get help.

The reason why they are picking on you is that you are the sole blogger of your website.  They figure they can badger and insult you there. They figure they can gang up on you.  The truth of the matter is that you really hold all the cards on anything anyone posts on YOUR blog/website.

We don't see many of those big-mouth photographers come here running their traps. There are too many equally big-mouthed "friendlies" here to counter them. Plus we don't put up with a lot of their propaganda BS here.

As a fellow blogger, I believe that when people post comments, they need to be mindful of where they are and who they speak to.  Remember, it is YOUR website and your HOME.  Don't let anyone shit in (or on) you or your house.

I have no problems with people disagreeing with me as long as they are respectful.  But if they decided to cross the line, I will not hesitate to "evict" them pronto. I suggest you do the same.

You don't have to defend yourself on your own blog/website.  It is YOUR article and YOUR opinion.  It is YOUR platform they are using to attack you with.  You don't have to be "attacked" by freaks that have really nothing with the main subject matter of your blog which is copywriting.

These people can piss and moan all they want.  If they are upset, they can launch their own blog/website and vent all they want instead of using the bandwidth of well-established blogs/websites such as yours and mine here.

As you can see, I am not very patronizing and have little tolerance for disrespect.

Hey Guys,

My first post in these forums...

I've gotten three settlement demand letters from Getty. I then hired Matthew for a 30-minute call over the summer, which was super helpful. At that time I told him I would right an expose on my blog about Getty's unethical actions.

Well, I finally got around to publishing my expose earlier this week -- with links back to ELI for anybody facing a similar situation.

At first, my readers were sympathetic, and I expected most people would be sympathetic. But now I'm getting slammed with comments from photographers about how I should quit whining and just pay up. (!!!)

I'm responding to their comments as best I can, but my responses carry less weight since I'm defending myself.

Anyway, if you'd like to respond to any of the crazy comments I'm getting (or just see how people respond to this issue), feel free to do so here:

http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/

And if posting this link is not appropriate, feel free to delete it. Thanks.

Ryan

1118

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Images Extortion Office Building Photos

« on: October 08, 2012, 12:52:10 PM »

A Seattle informant submitted 2 photos of the infamous address listed on every Getty Images Extortion Letter. (601 N 34th St. Seattle, WA 98103)

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.417017191685369.99591.168381253215632&type=3

To get a better perspective view, there is an older photo in Google Maps Street View from 2008 that shows the surrounding area.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=601+n+34th+st,+seattle,+wa&hl=en&ll=47.649742,-122.350273&spn=0.004965,0.008122&sll=47.649574,-122.350352&layer=c&cbp=13,195.05,,0,-4.29&cbll=47.64967,-122.350362&hnear=601+N+34th+St,+Seattle,+Washington+98103&t=m&z=17&panoid=8XCwuHwbQkW2nJlEo5mO1g

1119

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

« on: September 30, 2012, 12:22:16 PM »

This is one of my favorite songs rendered by Elvis Presley.  It seems that those of us in the ELI Community have a similar "impossible dream" to put an end to copyright extortion tactics.

You might relate to the lyrics of this song. Fits pretty well to what we do.  ELI might unofficially adopt this song as our anthem.

1120

Getty Images Letter Forum / Alaska Stock - Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

« on: September 30, 2012, 12:10:39 PM »

I've been informed by Oscar that a lawsuit involving Alaska Stock has now been tied up due to Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

I need help from the ELI Community. I want to find and publish information concerning the assets, liabilities, and other inside information that would be filed with their bankruptcy filings.  Normally, I am pretty good about finding such things but for the moment, I am a bit stumped but also very busy with my other business interests.

As a general rule, Chapter 7 & Chapter 13 bankruptcies are a matter of public record and can be found in PACER. However, I do not know where Chapter 11 bankruptcy information is located online.

I think getting this information about Alaska Stock's bankruptcy will be tremendously valuable to understanding the inner works of stock photo companies and could potentially be revealing.

Let the investigations begin.

1121

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

« on: September 22, 2012, 02:28:11 PM »

Who is making the copyright infringement claim?  Getty Images?  Masterfail? Some collections attorney?

1122

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

« on: September 22, 2012, 02:04:08 PM »

Most of the copyright extortionists don't really care where they spray their letters as long as someone pays up.  That is why letter victims need to get educated on the relevant issues so they know how to respond and don't get unnecessarily hassled.

The fact that you "want" ownership to take that on and the other party doesn't is being used against both of you to put the heat and stress on to "force" a payment.

1123

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

« on: September 22, 2012, 01:31:06 PM »

When people buy a new car with financing, the buyer/owner does not actually get the physical title.  The title is held by the lender/lienholder. Although the lender holds the physical title, it is understood that the buyer/borrower is the "owner" albeit encumbered with a secured loan. They are the "owner" by virtue of having equitable title.

In real estate with investment properties, many professional investors (including myself) often hold property in other entities or corporate structures (for asset protection or tax reasons). Do "I" own it?  In a sense I do and in another sense I don't.

When investors sell property and carry the financing, equitable title can be transferred but the actual title can be held by the investor providing the financing.  Nevertheless, the person with equitable title would be considered the "owner".

For example, "Matthew Chan" actually owns very few meaningful assets but Matthew Chan does control more assets than is shown in public through trusts and corporate entities. Suing "Matthew Chan" would result in very little reward.

Coming full circle, I have held names for others.  I did it simply because at the time they did not know how to register their own domain and I "held" it for them.  The website content would clearly reflect someone else's business, not mine.

Although not a clean answer, given that the concept of "equitable title" exists elsewhere, I would say a case could be made that I wasn't the true owner even if my name was in the administrative/technical contacts.  It would all come down to the actual content and use of that content in question.

Having said all that, most people in the copyright extortion industry would not even be able to understand most of what I just wrote much less accept your argument that a domain is in your name but you don't "own" it.  It is entirely possible, though not likely as a practical matter. It would happen in rare circumstances as in what I have done as a favor for people I have known.

1124

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

« on: September 21, 2012, 11:57:42 AM »

After an extended silence, Hawaiian Art Network & Vincent K. Tylor are back once again with a brand-new extortion letter by none other than Attorney J. Stephen Street himself.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106569880/J-Stephen-Street-Settlement-Demand-Letter-Hawaiian-Art-Network-Vincent-K-Tylor

For those of you who don't know, J. Stephen Street is Hawaiian Art Network's attorney on recent lawsuit complaints filed on 4 Hawaiian businesses. However, 3 of them were dropped presumably because they settled.

This extortion letter is interesting because Street spends time on Section 1202 of the DMCA. Additionally, he takes infringements of 2 photos and pumps them up to "18 uses".

Of course, the point of quoting all that verbiage is to overwhelm the legally ignorant into paying up by sheer intimidation.

I guess it's time to find out more J. Stephen Street, his staff, the size of his operation, how he operates, etc.

1125

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Dan B. Levine from Copyright Defense League

« on: September 19, 2012, 05:35:41 PM »

The beatings on Dan B. Levine continues. Read this article where Levine is further "outed" for trying to rally more collection attorneys.

http://gigaom.com/2012/09/19/copyright-trolls-2-0-image-sites-embrace-righthaven-tactics/