Messages

1111

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm

« on: August 04, 2011, 11:49:51 PM »

With regard to finding images on the copyright database, the system seems to be hit-and-miss.
Sometimes, it's easy to find things, other times, it's difficult to find documents unless one knows exactly what to search for.
Sometimes, documents are "pending", and aren't listed as yet.

Oscar mentioned in one of his postings that those sending the demands don't have an obligation to forward the copyright information.  That's true of course.
I'd like to add that there is an expectation that the parties involved will make all reasonable attempts to settle their issues before going to court.
That would include the exchange factual information that would facilitate a fair settlement.

So, you should ask for actual proof of the copyright information if that will help you deal with the issues at hand.
Should they withhold such information, it could very well hurt their chances in court, if they choose to go that route.
So, they do have an interest in proving their case.  It's not just about the demand letter recipient proving his/her innocence.
No counsel for the plaintiff wants to hear that the issue could have been settled amicably outside of court if only they had cooperated with the defendant.

I only mention "court" here, as demand letters always make the threat of "court", whether or not it's practical.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Furthermore, I have viewed collections of images registered in bulk on the database.  Each image had a separate document and number, within the collection itself.
But, I'm wondering if this is always the case?  Are collections sometimes registered in bulk, but without documents or descriptors for each of the individual images in the collection?

Thanks in advance.

S.G.

1112

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer responded to my email ....

« on: August 04, 2011, 12:26:19 PM »

Recent reports indicate that Google "search by image" is more effective than TinEye.
Go to Google Image Search, and click on the little camera icon just to the right of the where you'd type your search criteria.
Now, you can upload an image to search for, enter an url of an image, and even search for similar images.

I think that some photogs such as Ryan McGinnis may be using these free tools to troll for infringements.
Why pay PicScout?  I was going to mention this before, but I didn't want to give "ideas" to the trolls out there.
But, it's out now anyway.  New free tools may soon render PicScout redundant, unless it adds other value-added services.

Let's all keep in mind that no matter what tools we use, none of them can guarantee whether an image is free for use.
They only show us where a given image appears on the web.  Indeed, even the Copyright Office doesn't guarantee that just because something isn't listed that it isn't copyrighted.

I read a posting recently by an attorney that said that recent changes to copyright procedures make "copyrighted status" valid upon submission of an application.
Not just when the application is finally processed.  So, images having been copyrighted may not appear in the database immediately.

Posting by Daniel Nathan Ballard in part:

"I write only to note a very recent -- and fundamental -- change in the law regarding the copyright registration requirement.
 
The rule that most courts used to follow [at least in the Ninth Circuit] was that a copyright owner had to actually register his or her copyright with the Copyright Office before a court would even consider the question of whether the copyright was infringed.
 
In short, the mere filing of an application to register the copyright was not enough -- the Copyright Office had to actually issue the registration [often a 24 month process] before the court would hear the infringement case.
 
That rule changed last week when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued its decision in Cosmetic Ideas v. IAC/Interactive Corp. [see http://j.mp/aPJ1L1 ]. The new rule is that a court MUST consider the infringement case so long as the copyright owner has merely applied to register its copyright with the Copyright Office."...

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/copyright-infringement--innocent-infringement-278743.html

buddhapi's suggestions are great.  Let's all keep our receipts when we purchase our images, too!!

S.G.

1113

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm

« on: August 03, 2011, 11:46:18 PM »

Nice work by MikeD.  Well done indeed!

This is why everyone who receives a demand letter should check all the facts carefully.

Even if you receive a demand letter from a well-known and respected attorney, do your research.
I'm not implying that attorney Wright was aware of the online existence of the unwatermarked photo, mind you.

But, people make mistakes, people won't tell you everything, and a demand letter is just a "letter".
It's not a court document wherein testimony is "sworn".

I also find it interesting how forum participant "sumtime" mentioned (above) that he/she didn't crop the photos in their case either.

I know that Mr McGinnis has some copyrighted photos.
Now, it's time to really find out if this photo is legitimately copyrighted.

S.G.

1114

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm

« on: August 03, 2011, 06:58:32 PM »

Anyone here know any details about Ryan McGinnis?
Is there anything novel in his approach?
Or, is he just another "Getty Clone"? 

Thanks,

S.G.

1115

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Seems they've lowered the demand amount

« on: August 03, 2011, 01:05:12 PM »

In a nutshell, Getty hasn't sued many people at all.  Least of which for only one image.  It would be difficult for Getty to find any attorney to litigate for such a small amount as this.

These "bulk copyright" collections are very weak in the eyes of the courts.  It's a form of "phantom copyright"; strong enough to convince those not in the "know", but practically useless in court.

The DMCA wouldn't be useful here; it's intended to protect ISP's from the atctions of their subscribers, or Google images search, etc.

Getty will probably send more letters to you; they're just killing forests for the paper.  "Collections" doesn't mean anything because it's not an actual debt.

This is what we mean by "copyright trolling" on this forum.

S.G.

1116

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Just got my letter - I'm a fighter

« on: August 03, 2011, 10:19:27 AM »

Actually Matt, the idea of another site is great.

Helpi could set up his own site.  Something like, "You Gotta Pay or Else - dot - com".
It could be a hive of fake lawyers, wanna-be law students, and disgruntled photogs who didn't get rich by taking snaps of their pet hamster.
You know, they could copy and paste snippets of copyright law, paste examples of unrelated cases wherein high amounts were paid, general scaremongering and mayhem.

Except that it would get no traffic.  Nobody's interested in hearing about how they "have to pay", and reading about what the "maximum penalties are", and how it's "strict liability".
Nobody gives a rat's ass.  Because Getty rarely sues anyone.

I can't speak for Oscar, but my best guess is that he isn't interested debating copyright law with some troll sitting in his mom's basement.

The only thing good about Helpi's posts here is that it makes Getty Images look even more like a bag of dicks.

S.G.

1117

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer responded to my email ....

« on: August 02, 2011, 06:03:22 PM »

Matt,

This "Helpi" guy called me a "douche".  He even spelled it wrong.  But, seriously, I don't really care.  "Feels good man".


Katerina,

Country cycling lost on a default judgment.  They didn't show, so it was pretty much hopeless for them.

I wouldn't worry too much about what was hidden on the contract.  If it was anything that would help their case, they would have left it in.

I was going to wait for somebody to argue with me.  I honestly wanted to fight some more about how "exclusive agreements = assignment of copyright".  But, I'm busy.
So, I'll just mention it now.  Masterfile's trying to do what Righthaven/Stevens Media were trying to do.
Righthaven sues, and Stevens Media holds the copyright.  It isn't working out too well for them is it?
Same as Masterfile sues, and the photographer holds the copyright.
You can't transfer the right to sue according to the courts.

Yesterday, a federal judge tossed the case. This has been a pattern of late; Righthaven's agreement with the Review-Journal's owner didn't actually assign the story copyright to Righthaven, instead granting a bare right to sue over the story. But such a right doesn't exist, and only the copyright holder or exclusive licensee can bring a suit.

"Since the right to sue is not one of the exclusive rights [under copyright law], transfer solely of the right to sue does not confer standing on the assignee," wrote Judge Kent Dawson of Nevada. 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/lessons-in-retroactivity-righthaven-cant-change-the-facts-after-it-suesrighthaven-learning-it-cant-change-the-facts-after-it-sues.ars

By the way, Getty does the same thing.

S.G.

1118

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Beware of some individual(s) posting a "Attorneys" and "Lawyers" in this forum

« on: August 02, 2011, 04:33:08 PM »

"Speak of the devil and out he comes."

S.G.

1119

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer responded to my email ....

« on: August 02, 2011, 04:32:00 PM »

Good post by Katrina here.

Surely we can all agree that we must check all of the relevant documentation and evidence before making decisions about settlements, etc.
Do not assume anything.

"Armchair attorney" Helpi and I actually agree on his statement, "You can't make any of these "determinations" without examining the relevant documentation."  Amen.

My "case" is long gone, and I didn't pay anything.  So, fight if you can.
I could have bought a really nice car with the kind of money that was demanded from me.
In fact... Damn, that leather feels great on my ass. I don't like Bose audio stuff usually, but they make a decent car stereo.

Something else just occurred to me about what Katrina said.  It's really key.  Get this.  Wait for it...
Masterfile has the right to sue...  etc, etc... scary legal stuff.
BUT, if the artist retains the copyright, then Masterfile cannot get statutory damages in court.  Just the retail purchase price of the image.

S.G.

1120

Getty Images Letter Forum / Beware of some individual(s) posting a "Attorneys" and "Lawyers" in this forum

« on: August 02, 2011, 01:42:59 PM »

Hi All,

Just a quick note to advise the audience here of a potential hazard in these forums.
Oscar would have to post this in any event, I think.  I'll just save him the trouble.

There may be people or organizations posting on these forums from time to time who claim that they are "lawyers" "attorneys" or "solicitors".
Be very aware that some individuals/organizations may not be who they say that they are.
They may, in fact, not have your best interests at heart.  There are many who make money from "extortion letters".
They want you to pay.  They may also say things on this forum that will encourage you to do so without proper knowledge.

So, use caution.
Anyone who claims to be a law professional, and doesn't post their contact info and credentials is likely not a law professional.
In addition, a real law professional will post a disclaimer with their postings.

A gentle reminder needs to be made that it's a serious offence to impersonate a law professional and give bogus legal advice.
Yes, this is the Internet, and people aren't likely to be "caught".  However, persons who cause damages to other parties through impersonating an attorney could be held responsible (including financial damages) for their actions.

As far as I can tell, Oscar is the only licensed law professional that posts here.  We'll all glad of it.
He doesn't need a disclaimer every time that he posts, as this site has terms of use.
You'll also notice how careful and even he is in his responses.

S.G.

1121

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Just got my letter - I'm a fighter

« on: August 02, 2011, 01:29:20 PM »

None of what you just said proves that everthing that Getty has is copyrighted.
Nice try.

Lame troll is lame.

S.G.

1122

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer responded to my email ....

« on: August 02, 2011, 01:27:12 PM »

I'm not trying to misstate your views; I wasn't responding to one of your posts.
You're entitled to your views.

A transfer of copyright ownership can be an exclusive license.  In some cases.

An exclusive license doesn't necessarily include a transfer of copyright ownership.
An exclusive license can be any document that provides "exclusivity" in some area of business.
As you can see from "grafiti"'s post, Getty doesn't own the copyright, although the photographer has an exclusive agreement to only sell through Getty's channels.
Unless you're saying that "grafiti"'s lying, and the photographer is lying.

Are you really an attorney?
Or are you trying to tell the readers here that Getty has copyright standing no matter what?
If you are an attorney, you should be putting some sort of disclaimer in your posts that you're not giving specific legal advice and that a posting to the author in a thread doesn't constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Guess you missed the ethics course at the Correspondence Law School.

S.G.

1123

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer responded to my email ....

« on: August 01, 2011, 05:35:55 PM »

Thanks a lot for your post.
It's surely of great interest to readers here.

That email from the photographer is probably your ticket out of trouble.

What most people worry about in these situations are court and the possibility of statutory damages being awarded to Getty (which could be many times the actual retail value of the image).
Since Getty doesn't own the copyright, they couldn't pursue statutory damages in court.
They could attempt to pursue a case over the retail price of the image in court, but that value would be so low as to make the prospect of court a near impossibility.
In any case, I haven't heard of Getty going to court over only one image.

If you wanted to be fair, and put an end to harassing letters, etc, you could determine what the price of the image would be over the length of time that you used the image and offer that payment to Getty.
Hopefully the photographer would get some of that, but who knows?
You might choose to ignore the problem, and they'd likely never formally pursue you.  But, you'll still get threatening letters for a while.

I never believed that everything sold by Getty was actually "copyright getty images".
I find your case especially interesting, as it seems to blow the "exclusive agreement = transfer of copyright" concept out of the water (there was some person making noises about this very issue on the forum).
If Getty told you that they own the copyright and they don't, then it indicates a moral/ethical problem with Getty Images and its management.
I'm sure that sort of thing is what made Matt and Oscar decide to create this forum.

S.G.

1124

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Lawsuits Filed

« on: August 01, 2011, 01:57:39 PM »

Generally speaking, a default judgment can occur at the request of a plaintiff if a defendant has been sued, the defendant has been served, and the defendant doesn't file a defence within the specified period.
In addition, default judgment can occur at the request of a plaintiff in the event that the defendant has been served a court summons, but doesn't appear for a scheduled court date.

A default judgment isn't "automatically" granted.  This is decided by a judge.  But, it's usually granted when a defendant doesn't comply.

Yes, many plaintiffs such as MF know that the average person isn't knowledgeable in legal matters and/or doesn't have the resources to hire an attorney.
This is part of their tactics; it's often easier for some to just pay to make the whole mess go away.

Some people represent themselves in these cases.  I'm not sure how effective it is.

It's not really a good idea for defendants to risk a default judgment. 

Again, I'm not an attorney.  But, this is how I've seen things go in cases that I've followed online.

S.G.

1125

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is is smart to contact the photographer about letters?

« on: August 01, 2011, 10:56:16 AM »

Helpi,

Thanks, I know all of that.

My point was simply that Getty doesn't have exclusive rights in every instance.
When multiple stock image companies are selling the same photo (in addition to Getty), that might show that Getty doesn't own it exclusively.
In fact, Oscar said that Getty sheepishly admitted that they didn't have exclusive rights to the image, and backed off.

If you feel that Getty has exclusive rights in every single instance, that's your opinion.
It's just so unfortunate that you've told the readers here that you're an attorney to imply that you're an expert, in order to advise readers of the forum to pay Getty without questioning anything.  It's a shame.

S.G.