1126
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Different Strategy
« on: August 01, 2011, 12:22:12 AM »
Oscar, at this rate, "Helpi" will make "partner" in no time.
S.G.
S.G.
| 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.
1127
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Just got my letter - I'm a fighter
« on: August 01, 2011, 12:18:20 AM »
Helpi, you're an "attorney".
You're supposed to know this stuff.
S.G.
You're supposed to know this stuff.
S.G.
1128
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is is smart to contact the photographer about letters?
« on: August 01, 2011, 12:11:32 AM »
Helpi,
I don't have any legal issues. I cleared it up myself a while ago.
It didn't cost me anything, but I sent a few buck's Matt's way to help support the forum.
People are starting to see that you aren't who you say that you are, Helpi. You're not an attorney.
I noticed how Oscar had to explain to you that you cannot collect statutory damages for unregistered images in this thread as follows:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2139.0.html
"Helpi - you only get atty's fees if the work was registered prior to infringement. But if the work was registered, then attorneys fees are a real deterrent."
So, please don't assume that I require, or even desire your "legal advice" here.
Buy the way, the word is "douche". It's French for "shower".
S.G.
I don't have any legal issues. I cleared it up myself a while ago.
It didn't cost me anything, but I sent a few buck's Matt's way to help support the forum.
People are starting to see that you aren't who you say that you are, Helpi. You're not an attorney.
I noticed how Oscar had to explain to you that you cannot collect statutory damages for unregistered images in this thread as follows:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2139.0.html
"Helpi - you only get atty's fees if the work was registered prior to infringement. But if the work was registered, then attorneys fees are a real deterrent."
So, please don't assume that I require, or even desire your "legal advice" here.
Buy the way, the word is "douche". It's French for "shower".
S.G.
1129
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is is smart to contact the photographer about letters?
« on: July 31, 2011, 07:10:52 PM »
Hi Oscar,
Thanks so much for spending a good chunk of your busy Sunday answering questions and commenting on the forum.
Most people would agree that Getty has many exclusive agreements with photographers/artists.
However, I recently read a thread on the forum where "Getty Letter recipient" discovered that the image in question appeared on three other stock image sites as well.
Wouldn't this imply that Getty doesn't always have exclusivity in these matters, and that it's useful to check into these things before paying?
Or, have I misunderstood your point about "exclusive rights"?
Thanks,
S.G.
Thanks so much for spending a good chunk of your busy Sunday answering questions and commenting on the forum.
Most people would agree that Getty has many exclusive agreements with photographers/artists.
However, I recently read a thread on the forum where "Getty Letter recipient" discovered that the image in question appeared on three other stock image sites as well.
Wouldn't this imply that Getty doesn't always have exclusivity in these matters, and that it's useful to check into these things before paying?
Or, have I misunderstood your point about "exclusive rights"?
Thanks,
S.G.
1130
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm
« on: July 31, 2011, 04:35:29 PM »
mcfilms,
Thanks for your post.
Let me ask you...
...do you believe that "Helpi" is who he's made himself out to be?
S.G.
Thanks for your post.
Let me ask you...
...do you believe that "Helpi" is who he's made himself out to be?
S.G.
1131
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: yet another copyright troll
« on: July 31, 2011, 11:21:07 AM »
Thanks for your post, buddhapi.
You made some great points.
I never thought that this Helpi character was an attorney.
He used that to try raise his stature to that of Oscar.
So, he's basically a write-off. You can't believe anything he says.
I can't even be bothered to read his posts anymore.
So, here's how much I care:
S.G.
You made some great points.
I never thought that this Helpi character was an attorney.
He used that to try raise his stature to that of Oscar.
So, he's basically a write-off. You can't believe anything he says.
I can't even be bothered to read his posts anymore.
So, here's how much I care:
S.G.
1132
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: yet another copyright troll
« on: July 31, 2011, 01:29:36 AM »
Thanks for your post.
I'm not taking anyone's images without paying.
I would never encourage anyone to do such a thing, either.
So, I don't need to change my mind set.
Of course, people can sue for anything at any time.
However, a plaintiff who is infringed upon won't have much hope of a worthwhile financial award without the proper registration.
Nothing much seems to happen in this world without a financial reward or at least the potential for one.
There's a problem with your statement that "Registration is 100% not required for copyright protection", I think.
Without registration, there's no record of who created what, or who owns what. If we don't have registrations, anyone at any time could say that they own something that they do not.
In addition, the actual owner could not prove his/her rights to the material.
The worst case is that all this could lead to a free-for-all of threatening demand letters and lawsuits - anyone could attack any other party claiming that a piece of content is theirs. Even worse than it is now.
Most works are considered "copyright of the creator" at the moment of "creation".
I call this concept "phantom copyright"; it doesn't have much substance, and many people don't believe in it. Ok, I'm making an attempt at humor here. But, you heard the term here first, I think.
But, seriously, this concept doesn't have much traction in the legal system wherein people want to get monetary settlements.
That's all that people care about in this issue; the money.
I highly doubt that Oscar has the time to defend your point of view, even if he agrees with you.
I can't speak for Oscar, but I doubt that he's interested in admonishing people whom you disagree with in this forum.
Yes, attorneys are expensive. Expensive for both sides of a litigation.
The only good thing about the expense is that it tends to keep frivolous cases out of the court system to some extent.
Certainly, images aren't worthless. But, the amounts demanded often far exceed the actual damages caused by an infringement.
There's so much competition in the Stock Image market these days. It's brought prices way down.
But, the likes of Getty and Masterfile shouldn't try to make up for the monetary shortfall in the manner that they are doing.
The general direction of your post seems to be that you feel that you (and other artists/photogs) should not be burdened with registering. But, you expect the benefits that registration provides nonetheless.
Registering is certainly a burden, a pain even. But, it's the best system that we have. But, registration isn't mandatory. So, if you don't want to, then don't.
But, you'd give up a lot of future legal recourse in the event of a copyright dispute by doing so.
I see a similarity between Getty and Righthaven in that they both send demand letters seeking redress over content owned by another party.
If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please post it.
S.G.
I'm not taking anyone's images without paying.
I would never encourage anyone to do such a thing, either.
So, I don't need to change my mind set.
Of course, people can sue for anything at any time.
However, a plaintiff who is infringed upon won't have much hope of a worthwhile financial award without the proper registration.
Nothing much seems to happen in this world without a financial reward or at least the potential for one.
There's a problem with your statement that "Registration is 100% not required for copyright protection", I think.
Without registration, there's no record of who created what, or who owns what. If we don't have registrations, anyone at any time could say that they own something that they do not.
In addition, the actual owner could not prove his/her rights to the material.
The worst case is that all this could lead to a free-for-all of threatening demand letters and lawsuits - anyone could attack any other party claiming that a piece of content is theirs. Even worse than it is now.
Most works are considered "copyright of the creator" at the moment of "creation".
I call this concept "phantom copyright"; it doesn't have much substance, and many people don't believe in it. Ok, I'm making an attempt at humor here. But, you heard the term here first, I think.
But, seriously, this concept doesn't have much traction in the legal system wherein people want to get monetary settlements.
That's all that people care about in this issue; the money.
I highly doubt that Oscar has the time to defend your point of view, even if he agrees with you.
I can't speak for Oscar, but I doubt that he's interested in admonishing people whom you disagree with in this forum.
Yes, attorneys are expensive. Expensive for both sides of a litigation.
The only good thing about the expense is that it tends to keep frivolous cases out of the court system to some extent.
Certainly, images aren't worthless. But, the amounts demanded often far exceed the actual damages caused by an infringement.
There's so much competition in the Stock Image market these days. It's brought prices way down.
But, the likes of Getty and Masterfile shouldn't try to make up for the monetary shortfall in the manner that they are doing.
The general direction of your post seems to be that you feel that you (and other artists/photogs) should not be burdened with registering. But, you expect the benefits that registration provides nonetheless.
Registering is certainly a burden, a pain even. But, it's the best system that we have. But, registration isn't mandatory. So, if you don't want to, then don't.
But, you'd give up a lot of future legal recourse in the event of a copyright dispute by doing so.
I see a similarity between Getty and Righthaven in that they both send demand letters seeking redress over content owned by another party.
If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please post it.
S.G.
1133
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Bernina Asking For $146,727.53 In Judgement Against George P Riddick
« on: July 30, 2011, 04:29:35 PM »
It sounds like George Riddick's bankrupt.
Is this correct?
I hate to say this, but he has many enemies who are probably rejoicing right now.
S.G.
Is this correct?
I hate to say this, but he has many enemies who are probably rejoicing right now.
S.G.
1134
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Many of Masterfile CD's with images at US Library of Congress are corrupted
« on: July 30, 2011, 04:28:13 PM »
What an interesting little tidbit this is. Thanks a lot for posting.
This is why it's important to check the small details. Who knows what this could mean for a legal dispute?
Time for John L MacDougall of MF to send some threatening letters the Library of Congress.
I mean, that's his job right?
S.G.
This is why it's important to check the small details. Who knows what this could mean for a legal dispute?
Time for John L MacDougall of MF to send some threatening letters the Library of Congress.
I mean, that's his job right?
S.G.
1135
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm
« on: July 29, 2011, 11:43:05 PM »
Getty gets exclusive licenses?
Only sometimes. Unless you can prove that all their contracts are exclusive.
Can you prove it, other than some 'boilerplate form' that you found on the back '40 of the 'web?
So, you're saying that people should just pay whatever Getty wants like a sap?
Nice one Helpi.
Getty is just like Righthaven in that it attempts to manufacture standing for content that it doesn't own and cannot successfully litigate over.
While you're at it, tell us more about those new scary "Internet Laws" that are going to get us all.
Don't make me laugh.
Getty should fire your ass, because you aren't getting them much revenue by posting here.
But, nice try copyright troll.
S.G.
p.s. here's your official "Copyright Troll Trophy"; enjoy.
Only sometimes. Unless you can prove that all their contracts are exclusive.
Can you prove it, other than some 'boilerplate form' that you found on the back '40 of the 'web?
So, you're saying that people should just pay whatever Getty wants like a sap?
Nice one Helpi.
Getty is just like Righthaven in that it attempts to manufacture standing for content that it doesn't own and cannot successfully litigate over.
While you're at it, tell us more about those new scary "Internet Laws" that are going to get us all.
Don't make me laugh.
Getty should fire your ass, because you aren't getting them much revenue by posting here.
But, nice try copyright troll.
S.G.
p.s. here's your official "Copyright Troll Trophy"; enjoy.
1136
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm
« on: July 29, 2011, 04:57:51 PM »
I think that the "copyright trolling" that Matt refers to is simply the act/process that Getty, Masterfile, and others employ to get money that they aren't entitled to.
The "trolling" part is when they make it appear that they actually own the rights to the image(s) when they clearly do not in order to demand large amounts of money that they aren't owed.
That's "trolling": simply finding suckers en-masse who aren't informed and will pay up without much fight. They're "trolling" for suckers... simple as that.
If you pay when you don't have to, then you've been "copyright trolled".
The concept that, "I sell that image, so I have copyright standing" is such a bunch of bullshite.
Here's an analogy that'll help even novices:
Once John McCain used the song, "Pink Houses" by John Mellencamp in his campaign without permission.
So, Mellencamp sued McCain. Mellencamp could do that because he owned the rights to the song.
But, you didn't see Wal-Mart or iTunes suing John McCain, even though they may also sell that song.
They're just retailers; they don't own the copyright and cannot sue for damages.
The same thing applies to Masterfile, Getty and others when they don't own the copyrights to an image.
Or, when they didn't register the image properly.
Helpi, most of your arguments here on this board amount to "they might have copyright standing, so better pay up without a challenge", and "somebody somewhere when to court and lost an IP fight".
But, those positions don't address the trolling methods that Getty and Masterfile employ.
S.G.
The "trolling" part is when they make it appear that they actually own the rights to the image(s) when they clearly do not in order to demand large amounts of money that they aren't owed.
That's "trolling": simply finding suckers en-masse who aren't informed and will pay up without much fight. They're "trolling" for suckers... simple as that.
If you pay when you don't have to, then you've been "copyright trolled".
The concept that, "I sell that image, so I have copyright standing" is such a bunch of bullshite.
Here's an analogy that'll help even novices:
Once John McCain used the song, "Pink Houses" by John Mellencamp in his campaign without permission.
So, Mellencamp sued McCain. Mellencamp could do that because he owned the rights to the song.
But, you didn't see Wal-Mart or iTunes suing John McCain, even though they may also sell that song.
They're just retailers; they don't own the copyright and cannot sue for damages.
The same thing applies to Masterfile, Getty and others when they don't own the copyrights to an image.
Or, when they didn't register the image properly.
Helpi, most of your arguments here on this board amount to "they might have copyright standing, so better pay up without a challenge", and "somebody somewhere when to court and lost an IP fight".
But, those positions don't address the trolling methods that Getty and Masterfile employ.
S.G.
1137
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: yet another copyright troll
« on: July 29, 2011, 04:28:14 PM »
What could ultimately 'stop' Getty, Masterfile and others from doing what they are doing are the actions organizations/people such as Riddick/Imageline and Righthaven/Stevens.
The precidents set in these cases involving Imageline, Righthaven, (and others) is what will begin to hurt the other 'copyright trolls'.
We have seen that the judges are getting wise to these business plans and lawsuits.
Who knows? Getty, Masterfile, or another may slip up, and it could be all over for them. Riddick pushed it too far. Now look at him.
Anyway, people won't give in and pay so quickly as they become aware of these bad practices, and it'll become harder and harder to win settlements in court.
When copyright trolling is not as profitable, it'll sort of fade away somewhat.
In the age of the Internet, and even in print before this, there was never really anything that "protected/protects" content like images.
There's only deterrents like copyright notices and the ability to sue and attempt to collect damages.
What would be 'fair' is to try to educate people about the issues, ensure that images are protected by proper registration, and file lawsuits only as a last resort, with only fair settlements sought.
It bothers me that these companies harass and sue people over images that they don't even own and ask for 100X what the image is worth.
That is not fair.
Yes, Getty and Masterfile take the tact that if something was used, then it's like a "sale" and they must be paid.
But, these incidents can't be treated like a sale was made, an invoice was sent and payment can be expected in net 30 days.
Taking this attitude is just their way of implying that no proof is required, you can't negotiate, and you have to pay whatever they demand.
None of these is true.
The stock image business is shite right now, in my opinion. The business is getting such a bad reputation.
Artists are getting paid less than ever before (cameras are better, cheaper and easier to use, software can make average photos look great, etc. so even kids can take great photos).
Furthermore, there's more places for stock image companies to license content from such as Flickr.
Heck, there's more free stuff than ever before. All this has brought prices down so much that I'm sure that it would be harder than ever to make a good living in this field.
Those are just my thoughts.
S.G.
The precidents set in these cases involving Imageline, Righthaven, (and others) is what will begin to hurt the other 'copyright trolls'.
We have seen that the judges are getting wise to these business plans and lawsuits.
Who knows? Getty, Masterfile, or another may slip up, and it could be all over for them. Riddick pushed it too far. Now look at him.
Anyway, people won't give in and pay so quickly as they become aware of these bad practices, and it'll become harder and harder to win settlements in court.
When copyright trolling is not as profitable, it'll sort of fade away somewhat.
In the age of the Internet, and even in print before this, there was never really anything that "protected/protects" content like images.
There's only deterrents like copyright notices and the ability to sue and attempt to collect damages.
What would be 'fair' is to try to educate people about the issues, ensure that images are protected by proper registration, and file lawsuits only as a last resort, with only fair settlements sought.
It bothers me that these companies harass and sue people over images that they don't even own and ask for 100X what the image is worth.
That is not fair.
Yes, Getty and Masterfile take the tact that if something was used, then it's like a "sale" and they must be paid.
But, these incidents can't be treated like a sale was made, an invoice was sent and payment can be expected in net 30 days.
Taking this attitude is just their way of implying that no proof is required, you can't negotiate, and you have to pay whatever they demand.
None of these is true.
The stock image business is shite right now, in my opinion. The business is getting such a bad reputation.
Artists are getting paid less than ever before (cameras are better, cheaper and easier to use, software can make average photos look great, etc. so even kids can take great photos).
Furthermore, there's more places for stock image companies to license content from such as Flickr.
Heck, there's more free stuff than ever before. All this has brought prices down so much that I'm sure that it would be harder than ever to make a good living in this field.
Those are just my thoughts.
S.G.
1138
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm
« on: July 29, 2011, 03:26:05 PM »
Unless you've signed a confidentiality agreement, then you are not bound to keep the information confidential.
They just don't want people to know what they're doing and how they're doing as it hurts their business in the long run.
S.G.
They just don't want people to know what they're doing and how they're doing as it hurts their business in the long run.
S.G.
1139
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: yet another copyright troll
« on: July 29, 2011, 11:50:23 AM »
Thanks for a great post.
I'm confident that over time, laws and opinions will change in order to subvert these schemes which are essentially mass extortion.
I think that the method of collecting IP addreses has so little legal weight that the idea should have died long ago.
Even now, many providers use dynamic IP addresses. So, a user is assigned a different IP every time he/she logs on.
Sophisticated police investigations often can gain information of value. But, novices rarely get enough info that could consititute legal "proof" of anything.
In any case, the police don't investigate civil cases.
In addition, really hard-core people on the Internet sometimes use schemes that most others have never even heard of such as TOR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)
Ultimately, the burden of proof needed to win a settlement, and even the evidence required to start a court action in cases of alleged infringement is becoming higer and higher.
S.G.
I'm confident that over time, laws and opinions will change in order to subvert these schemes which are essentially mass extortion.
I think that the method of collecting IP addreses has so little legal weight that the idea should have died long ago.
Even now, many providers use dynamic IP addresses. So, a user is assigned a different IP every time he/she logs on.
Sophisticated police investigations often can gain information of value. But, novices rarely get enough info that could consititute legal "proof" of anything.
In any case, the police don't investigate civil cases.
In addition, really hard-core people on the Internet sometimes use schemes that most others have never even heard of such as TOR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)
Ultimately, the burden of proof needed to win a settlement, and even the evidence required to start a court action in cases of alleged infringement is becoming higer and higher.
S.G.
1140
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Steven Weinberg contacts ELI on behalf of John MacDougall of Masterfile
« on: July 28, 2011, 11:31:08 PM »
Man, is this ever sweet.
Thanks Digitizer3k!!
Also, thanks for the figures, Matt.
I did some math in a previous posting.
Here's an excerpt of a the posting that I made on May 22, 2011:
----
As we know, masterfile's private.
I would imagine that they keep their info closely guarded.
If it could be actually proven that they continue to exist because of copyright extortion, a savvy person could argue that they have purposely encouraged it.
Another poster on this forum did mention previously that MF gets 85 percent of its revenue from the extortion scheme.
If you type "masterfile revenue" into google, that post comes up first or second in the listing. Fun times!
Another report estimates revenue of 6.2 million per annum for MF.
MF's president, Steve Pigeon mentioned in one of his troll rants that his company pursues over 7000 cases of infringement a year.
So, let's do the math. 85% of $6.2 million is $5,270,000.
Let's assume that only half of the people pay up... 7000/2 = 3500.
How much would each person have to pay up on average to make the 5.27 million in revenue?
ummm... $5,270,000 / 3500 = $1505.71.
MF would incur some expenses to find and pressure their victims, of course.
---
Just some food for thought.
S.G.
Thanks Digitizer3k!!
Also, thanks for the figures, Matt.
I did some math in a previous posting.
Here's an excerpt of a the posting that I made on May 22, 2011:
----
As we know, masterfile's private.
I would imagine that they keep their info closely guarded.
If it could be actually proven that they continue to exist because of copyright extortion, a savvy person could argue that they have purposely encouraged it.
Another poster on this forum did mention previously that MF gets 85 percent of its revenue from the extortion scheme.
If you type "masterfile revenue" into google, that post comes up first or second in the listing. Fun times!
Another report estimates revenue of 6.2 million per annum for MF.
MF's president, Steve Pigeon mentioned in one of his troll rants that his company pursues over 7000 cases of infringement a year.
So, let's do the math. 85% of $6.2 million is $5,270,000.
Let's assume that only half of the people pay up... 7000/2 = 3500.
How much would each person have to pay up on average to make the 5.27 million in revenue?
ummm... $5,270,000 / 3500 = $1505.71.
MF would incur some expenses to find and pressure their victims, of course.
---
Just some food for thought.
S.G.
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. |