Messages

1141

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Steven Weinberg contacts ELI on behalf of John MacDougall of Masterfile

« on: July 28, 2011, 07:48:25 PM »

Hey Matt,

I think that the data came from one of my posts on this forum.

MF president Steve Pigeon did an interview with a stock-art related magazine (applied arts online) and mentioned some stats.
http://www.petebarrett.com/blog/?p=709
He sounds like a complete copyright troll in the interview.

In addition there was an MF employee who posted a profile on LInkedIN, where he/she stated how many cases he/she would pursue yearly.
Name was "Shahadyda Babb".  I remembered the name, because it rhymes with "Blab".
This profile has since been removed, but the data's probably still valid

I don't have a crystal ball, but I surmise that MF is going to milk this for all it's worth until the legal/business climate turns against copyright trolling.
Then the scraps will be sold off to the likes of Getty.
The management at MF doesn't appear to be able to get the traction that Getty has in other more lucrative areas that generate revenue conventionally.
The execs at MF either don't have the talent, resources, or they're just concentrating on trolling for a quick buck.  Or, all three.

Regards,

S.G.

1142

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Bernina Asking For $146,727.53 In Judgement Against George P Riddick

« on: July 28, 2011, 02:31:31 PM »

Good post, and great research.
This case really dispels the myth that people can't fight the copyright trolls.

He didn't put up much of a court fight.
So, perhaps, his legal bills for himself wouldn't be very high.

It appears that Riddick's liquidating his assets before a court judgment can be made.
Then, hide the money.


Thanks.

S.G.

1143

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

« on: July 28, 2011, 02:28:13 PM »

Good discussion here.

It may well be that the "$9000 image" is correctly registered.
However, it's prudent to take a few minutes and make a call/email the attorney involved in order to simply get the copyright registration number of the image.
If they cannot provide the info, then you've got your answer... it's a scam.

When one receives a letter from an attorney, it doesn't necessarily mean that the complaint has any merit, even if the attorney has a good reputation.
Attorneys are skilled in their respected areas of litigation, but they are simply paid to represent their client's point of view and interests.
I could pick out any image on the internet, call an attorney and have them send a demand letter to somebody.
I could be making the whole thing up; who knows?  Maybe some sucker will get scared into paying?
Now, it's not my intention to make light of the skills or ethics that attorneys must possess, which are indeed higher than that of many other professions.  But, it's a 'job'.

We may recall that Riddick of Imageline sent phony correspondence with an attorney's name on it.
The attorney in question didn't even know who Riddick was when inquiries were made.

Now, everything may be perfectly legitimate here.  I don't know.
If it's legit, then there's a good chance that a fair out-of-court settlement is the best response.

But, there's a whole industry built around the copyright settlement demand letter scheme and a significant percentage of them have no legal basis.
People need to protect themselves by doing research before making a settlement, or paying large legal fees.
Don't be so naive as to think that there aren't scammers who'll do anything to take your money.
My main concern with this entire situation is that the more that people pay when they do not need to, the more the dark side of this industry grows.

S.G.

1144

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

« on: July 28, 2011, 10:28:57 AM »

Hi All,

I respectfully diagree with the statement that, "I also believe the image in question is registered with the US Copyright Office, or they wouldn't be asking for so much. My thinking is the price goes up on any registered images, cause they have much more leeway."

People ask for as much money as they can, regardless of copyright standing.  I's dangerous to equate greed with standing, as every copyright troll would raise their demands in order to look "legitimate".

I always get a laugh when I see the strongly-worded legal demands that quote broad sections of the Copyright Act.  All the legal standing that CTRL-C and CTRL-P can muster.  After all the threatening legal boilerplate?  Nothing.  No proof of copyright.

No proof means that you don't pay.

S.G.

1145

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Template Monster and Getty - my story

« on: July 27, 2011, 11:47:56 PM »

Great and helpful story from gettyvictim120.

I know that one cannot record phone conversations and use them in court in most jurisdictions.
But, if gettyvictim120 had a copy of that conversation with Getty that was 'admissible", it's possible that he could have used that against them, I think.

If Getty admitted that he/she wasn't at fault (and he/she could prove that Getty said that), and they came after this person anyway, wouldn't that be a case of criminal fraud?
In addition, if they perpetuate a fraud by sending correspondence between states by mail, isn't that federal offense, with possible felony consequences?

At the very least, it would be great to get some police reports going, then post them online.

I can see why some of the principals involved in these schemes want to hide in the shadows.
They'll slip up eventually, and the people who made a "brand" for themselves in the industry could be on the other side of this.

S.G.

1146

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Steven Weinberg contacts ELI on behalf of John MacDougall of Masterfile

« on: July 27, 2011, 12:34:00 AM »

Matt,

Thanks for posting the correspondence between you, Oscar and Mr Weinberg.

Basically all of this is just posturing and bullying.
I like how respectful you are in your conversations with Mr Weinberg.
However, he sounds like he needs a little less starch in his collar.

I've followed some actual Internet defamation cases.
It required the US Secret Service (I assume that's the CIA?) in at least one case to determine who was behind some defamatory postings on USENET (there were thousands of postings over many months).
They practically have their man, but it's still difficult to prove.  It may never, ever come to anything and that's with the CIA looking into it.
In the case that I'm speaking of, it's a criminal matter and the plaintiff cannot collect damages under the law.
I could go on and on here, but everyone gets the idea.

I'd like to see Mr Weinberg and Mr MacDougall recruit the vast resources of the CIA in their quest to keep Mr MacDougall's reputation untarnished.
Weinberg and MacDougall shouldn't flatter themselves; nobody cares about this petty BS in the courts.  Masterfile, MacDougall, and this industry just aren't that important.
People can criticize the President, and this sort of thing never happens.  Mr MacDougall; "here's your crown, Your Majesty!!"
The stuff that "dontgivein" posted wouldn't even make it to court.

Yes, most people don't use their real names here.
That's because they don't want to be bullied by masterfile and its attorneys who have nothing better to do than threaten people to get money, or to shut people up.
It seems that masterfile is really entering into new arenas wherein they will not be able to win in court, nor survive as a company if the damage is bad enough.
Are we to believe that masterfile is really that powerful or influential on an international scale that people will be sued if somebody's called a name that's fit for the schoolyard?
Masterfile is a company that hasn't even properly registered many of its images with the Copyright Office.  Need help tying your shoes, too?  Get a grip.

This whole thing is getting to be more and more newsworthy every day.
When it gets bad enough, and it hits the news, masterfile and Mr Weinberg et al can waste more paper threatening the news stations and newspapers.
Go ahead and get laughed at.  It's funny as hell right now.
This is the funniest thing I have seen in many, many months.

S.G.

1147

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

« on: July 26, 2011, 11:31:37 PM »

I guess that it shouldn't surprise anyone that the copyright troll phenomenon is expanding.

That law firm should copyright the letter that you posted.  That way they can charge royalties if Brandon Sand uses it.
I don't think that any professional should post their work on Flickr, as it's like an invitation for people to just grab photos as clip-art.
Although we all all know that's not a defense.

The photo looks like shite, and it's hardly worth $9000.  Love that 'historic concrete' with it's lovely grey patina.

The one thing in common with most other demand letters, it doesn't list anything (that I could see) about copyright registration.
So, it's basically a joke.

S.G.

1148

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

« on: July 26, 2011, 01:09:00 AM »

Matt,

Thanks a lot for your well-thought-out comments.

I agree that these "defamation" things can be tough to litigate unless the activities were were quite severe.
If a person of some stature said something about another who is a private citizen that was untrue, and actual damages could be shown, then it's a different story.
For example, if a newspaper editor or noted author said something, it would carry more weight than "anonymous person x" on the internet.

Another interesting aspect is that the more that a person puts him or herself "out there" whether in a positive or negative way, that person will eventually garner attention.
If John becomes the "poster boy" for the issues at hand by his own actions in his chosen profession (and that may be happening), there won't be much to actually stop people from calling him schoolyard names.
Even if it does sting a bit.  Don’t like it?  Change professions.  The courts won’t be his personal army, though.
If I said something about Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook for example, nothing would likely happen; he's a public figure.  I'm not.
But, you guys are doing the right thing by taking the high road, no question.

I've seen a certain value in this thread.
You get to see a side of the people involved that one might not otherwise observe.
It's like pouring water down some ground-hog holes, just to see if anyone's home.  This time, John was home.
For some of these folks such as John, there's the thrill of the "catch", like deep-sea fishing.  They get really jazzed if they think that they've landed a "big one".
Some get a bit arrogant; they get a sense of power in thinking that they can bully others.
I do think that there's probably a hint of fear at work here too.  Some sociopaths have all three traits, but experience no guilt or regret.
It's gone from "some company's sending me these letters" to "just who the hell are these people?"  That was a very good question.
Now, we know a little more about them.

I also suspect that John's fairly "driven".  I'll tell you why.  He used to head up the MF office in the US.
Now he works in Canada as the copyright infringement guy.  He's surely trying to get back "up there", although they've already filled the executive positions recently.
So, he's either really good at what he does (and he's staying there because of that), or there may be other reasons.
Is everything in the demand letters true?  That's like asking if they've registered all of their images.

Now, they could try to find "anon" people on the Internet who say something about them or their people.
But, it's really, really difficult.  I mean difficult proving it, especially.  They could even know who it is, but it's not so simple to get the legal access to documentation that would prove it.
They'd never, ever get a court order to find out an ISP address over anything that's been said here, and then go to an ISP with a court order to find out who it was.  Then have to make a winnable case out of it.
This reminds me of a picture that I saw the other day that jokingly said, "Come get me, I'm behind seven proxies!"
Furthermore, if any readers have the mistaken impression that going after someone for slander on the Web is easy, you need only to look at the case of "Sloan vs Truong".
MF's thinly veiled threat of litigation is the polar opposite of marketing.  So, it's going to hurt their sales.

The fact that things have been so civil here so far is that you and Oscar have garnered a lot of respect.  It's not that people are so worried about these companies and their "image".
I actually hope that MF tries to do such things in the future; track people down who say anything about them.
They'll appear to be like a certain church that goes after anyone who says anything negative about it.
Each letter, each phone call, each lawsuit; sliding a little closer each time to the point where they just go too far.

Anyway, at the very least it's surely been amusing for many.
For others, it's probably been quite enlightening.

S.G.

1149

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

« on: July 25, 2011, 06:53:03 PM »

I'd like to reiterate once again what a great site this is.
I know that it's much work.  But, a valuable work it is.

I'm sure that everyone here appreciates mr w's letter.
It's so much "win" and "shite was so cash" as the "infringers" sometimes say.
But, I don't see how these kind of litigious threats make any money for MF.

Not to worry.
The best course of action may be to copyright the names and photographs of key MF employees.
Then, copyright the word "deleted".  Don't copyright in bulk, though.  That's weak.
Make sure that the rights are also purchased from the original photographer and your momma who named you.

These efforts will protect you from those who disagree with you, and will surely keep you out of that place called G*tty.
MF can send their threatening mails to: "Copyright Trolls, C/O Who Gives a Crap, P.O. Box Your Momma, LOL4LOL"

Thank you for your time.

S.G.

1150

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

« on: July 23, 2011, 07:20:32 PM »

Here's some more names from their head office:

Yvonne Mitchell - Copyright Compliance Officer
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/yvonne-mitchell/4/a44/706

Also, there is/was a person by the name of "Shahadyda Babb" there as well.
This person may have removed his/her info from LinkedIN.
Maybe the Masterfile stress was too much.

Publicly available info.
Have any readers had any run-ins with these folks?

S.G.

1151

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice

« on: July 23, 2011, 07:05:38 PM »

I don't feel that a weak or invalid copyright registration would relate directly to "fair use".  "Fair use" guidelines are usually rather specific.
If MF's registration is weak, then you could make a defence on that basis.

---

If you choose to fight this, I have provided some interesting links below.
These relate to actual, recent court decisions that show certain types of "bulk registrations for copyright" to be invalid.
There's lots of info on the 'net about this, and I think that there's been some other examples since then.
You could also get the actual court transcripts from Pacer for a small fee.
Study these, and then you may choose to remind masterfile how weak their case is.  They might back off.

http://thewla.org/blog/?p=120

http://www.ppa.com/ppa-today-blog/copyright-alert/member-alert-do-you-have-image.php

http://www.ppa.com/ppa-today-blog/copyright-alert/corbis-responds-to-bulk-regist.php

I would also want an affidavit from Mr Ertman to indicate that he hasn't rescinded his agreement from over a decade ago.

---

Again, there are some risks to a court fight.
The worst case is that you could lose, owe MF the money, and have to pay your attorney fees and also their attorney fees.
The worst case for masterfile is that they could lose, they'd have pay their attorney fees, pay your attorney fees and get nothing for their efforts.

In case you've heard that MF is a nice organization is to deal with, I can refer you to the case below.

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2166-09

The last entry reads: "Writ of Seizure and sale directed to the Sheriff of city of Abbotsford, Fraser Valley Regional District, BC issued on 24-MAR-2011".
So, I would imagine that a lien was put on this person's house or car or something when he lost the case (he didn't show up for court), and then didn't pay.

---

As for MF's "actual" damages.  You could compare their figures to other previous court cases/awards to see if they're reasonable.
This is probably what a judge would do in a smaller case such as this.

---

I hope that I have illustrated how you may have a basis for a defence, while also showing the risks involved.
Best of luck, and let us know how everything goes.

S.G.

1152

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Australian Victim

« on: July 23, 2011, 11:19:38 AM »

The 7-year limit probably refers to documentation for tax purposes.

Normally, the time limit is according to your local laws.
Many US states have a 4-year limit to bring a civil suit to court, for example.
But, it varies.  Check your local statutes.

If a plaintiff takes a long time to file suit, it can sometimes weaken their case.
A plaintiff can look 'negligent' in some situations if they didn't call attention to a situation in a reasonable time frame.

S.G.

1153

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Does copyright infringement have a time limit?

« on: July 23, 2011, 11:17:10 AM »

Normally, the time limit is according to your local laws.
Many US states have a 4-year limit to bring a civil suit to court, for example.
But, it varies.

If a plaintiff takes a long time to file suit, it can sometimes weaken their case.
A plaintiff can look 'negligent' in some situations if they didn't call attention to a situation in a reasonable time frame.

Having said all that, if you were never 'caught' infringing, and you've removed the images, then you should be ok.
You did the right thing.

S.G.

1154

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

« on: July 22, 2011, 04:50:53 PM »

Of course I respect Oscar's wishes, and his mission.
Matt and Oscar have done a stellar job here!!

It's quite interesting to myself (and I'm sure many others) the reaction that the picture has garnered.
The responses here are a real "barometer" as to the feelings of those who are concerned about the issues at hand.

It's no secret that companies such as MF, Getty, and Brandon "Gimme-Ten-Grand" Sand and their attorneys disseminate misleading communications on a large scale in order to get money.
These communications may not be something that one could take action over.
But, there's an issue of morals and ethics.

Personally, if I was signing my name to hundreds of threatening letters, I wouldn't put my photo out on the Internet.
But, somebody, somewhere was going to become the "face" of the Internet "demand letter".
Before anyone goes off the deep end here about this, I'm just stating common sense.

S.G.

1155

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicScout is possibly flawed

« on: July 22, 2011, 11:09:18 AM »

Interesting post by buddhapi.
A flaw within picscount could be causing it to flag multiple images that look similar as "infringed".
There may also be a more sinister aspect to this....
Is the entire system becoming automated?
Computers spewing letters and alleged "screen shots"; who knows if a human even looks at these before they're stuffed into envelopes?
I'm surprised that they haven't outsourced to a developing country in order to to stuff their envelopes.

S.G.