Click Official ELI Links
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.


Messages - SoylentGreen

Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 84
1156
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Australian Victim
« on: July 22, 2011, 11:04:21 AM »
Three years is quite a long time.
I don't know anything about the Australian court system.
However, after three years, I suspect that any option of 'court' has run out or is running out.
Maybe Getty's just phishing?

S.G.


1157
Yes, post more MF and Getty personalities.
It's great to know who we're dealing with!!

S.G.

1158
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice
« on: July 22, 2011, 12:19:18 AM »
Miles Ertman... Miles Ertman...
I knew that this name sounded familiar.

His was one of the images allegedly infringed upon in the MF vs Country Cycling case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38990144/Masterfile-vs-Country-Cycling-030807-12-4#

You'll notice in the linked document that the corporate template is dated.
But there's no date where the parties concerned signed (I made a note of this here previously).
Seems like a pretty serious oversight.  Unless it was intended to be intentionally misleading.

S.G.


1159
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Lawsuits Filed
« on: July 20, 2011, 11:44:56 PM »
I've been in the business for a while, and I dislike the "demand letter" activity of MF and Getty equally.

It's just a lot easier to follow the Canadian lawsuits because much more is freely available.
MF's quite active in Canada, however Getty hasn't filed anything since '08.

My impression is that MF is pursuing both the US and Canadian markets rather equally.
That's just my opinion.

S.G.


1160
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lets fightback
« on: July 20, 2011, 11:40:28 PM »
Thanks for this interesting link.

It's proposed, so it's not "law" as yet.
Lobby groups can throw whatever mud they want at the wall, and see what sticks, I guess.
But, I guess that I'm stating the obvious.

There's are many problems with laws such as this.

Although it is certainly advantageous for some corporations to enjoy laws such as this (because it's a great deterrent), it's not good for society as it attempts to raise the alleged theft of content (some worth no more than 99 cents) to a level of a felony.  You won't see this happen.  Some might say, "thousands of people *probably* downloaded this from you", but now you'd have to prove it.

If the transfer of streaming content is made a felony, this means that the police and the criminal justice system would have to police it directly, collect evidence and make actual arrests.  Now we need prosecutors to finish the job.  Those arrested would have to be held in a facility at least temporarily.  We don't have debtor's prisons; we're not going to see "downloader's prisons".  It would all cost  many hundreds of billions of dollars.

If such acts are raised to the "felony" level, the level of the "burden of proof" needed (whether copyright, proof of action or even intent) to make a "conviction" would be much, much higher.  There'd be actually be less people held accountable for downloading/sharing.

An individual could be charged or convicted of a felony.  But that does not necessarily translate into a single cent of direct profit for the copyright holder.

It would be difficult to apply this scheme to images on the Internet.  I'm not buying an argument that 1/3 of all americans are actually felons.
For example, if you used a picture from anything, whether a magazine, the web, a tv show, mailed a copyrighted comic strip your buddy then you're a felon by this yardstick.
Sorry, it'll never happen.

S.G.




1161
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:49:45 PM »
If the image in question is in fact legitimately owned and copyrighted by MF, then they could prevail if they decided to take this to court.

I'm making the assumption that you're posting here because you do not wish to settle unless you have to.

I'd check to be sure that the agreement(s)/copyright in question were in place at the time of the infringement.  They'd have to legally own the content at that time.
If the image was copyrighted as part of a "collection", their standing would be a bit weaker.
Copyrighting many images as a "catalog" (ie. "The Best of Masterfile", "The Picture Show", etc.) is weaker still.
One can copyright a catalog of images; but some or all of the artists in question may still own the actual copyright to the individual images.
I can say with certainty that using a collection of images to prove standing has not met with great success for some plaintiffs recently.

When I say "weak" or "weaker", I mean that you can use these as a possible deterrent to them suing you if you don't pay.
Such a strategy sometimes compels them to go after "softer targets".
In addition, "weak" or "weaker" copyright standing means that you would have something to argue in court if it came to that.
Of course these are aggressive postures that carry no guarantees; you'd have to assess how much risk and stress you can handle.
In litigation, decisions (and the amount of awards) based on "grey areas"  in law really come down to a judges' opinion (interpretation of the law).

Some people with only one or two alleged infringements simply wait it out.
That is, they take the chance that they won't be one of those who gets sued, and it comes to nothing.
Or, they may even get sued, but the suit is dropped before it ever gets to court; sometimes higher priority cases arise and are pursued instead.
They (MF, Getty) threaten everyone that they can; but they simply cannot sue everyone.
A lawsuit over one or two images doesn't occur very frequently.
They'll harass you for about a year to a year-and-a-half regardless.
Again, this is an aggressive posture that carries no guarantee; you'd have to assess how much risk and stress you can handle.

Some who play the waiting game, and are sued, and then find that a court hearing is imminent may choose to settle at that time.
That makes it go away.  However, in such a situation, the defendant may be in a weak position.
Those such as MF often attempt to raise the price at this time, and the victim may be compelled to pay this higher price just to get it over with.
However, some people employ the "let's see if they actually sue" strategy in situations wherein the amount demanded is very high.
When I say "very high", I mean that the stakes are high enough that attorney fees seem small in terms of the demanded settlement amount.
These sorts of people may be prepared to call the bluff of their adversary and head to court.

I'm not an attorney, but those are my feelings.  Yes, I'm a bit of a fighter.
Each person must balance their evidence, risk tolerance, budget, and yes even fortitude in order to decide what to do.
There are people out there that they do not want to mess with.  Literally.
Others make their best deal and are done with it.
Both types are happy in their own way.

Best of luck

S.G.

1162
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice
« on: July 20, 2011, 03:21:28 PM »
Was your husband's business was a corporation?
If yes, and the business has been shut down, then masterfile is out of luck.

S.G.


1163
Hey Mastrik,

Thanks for posting your experiences here.

Don't rush out and pay an attorney.
You're pretty much safe now.

You have the documentation that you purchased the content in good faith.
So, this has become a true innocent infringement case.
Masterfile wouldn't be able to get much money from you in a court (if any at all).
So, you'll never end up in court.

More importantly, TemplateMonster is willing to work with them.
Therefore, you could meet any court action against you with a request for summary dismissal.
That is, you could ask the court to reject the case immediately.
You can do that because MF must sue the correct party involved (not you).

Furthermore, it's important to note that courts are only concerned with making a wronged party "whole".
If a fair settlement offer is made, then the wronged party is made "whole".
The courts have no interest in malicious lawsuits.

MF has a lot of gall asking for so much money from you.
Their reputation in the industry is pretty much trashed these days.

Thanks for the updates.

S.G.

1164
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lets fightback
« on: July 19, 2011, 06:06:44 PM »
I'm waiting.  What are the new laws?
The silence here after my previous question reminds me of Getty's silence when one asks for proof of their copyright ownership(s).

I'd just love to see the alleged new "Internet laws" that'll make all the small business owners and housewives pay a huge ransom for what amounts to web-sh*t for the most part.

Troll harder bro.

S.G.



1165
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Lawsuits Filed
« on: July 19, 2011, 12:30:01 AM »
It's easy to check on Canadian info (where masterfile's from).
Most of the cases are dropped and nothing happens.

S.G.


1166
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lets fightback
« on: July 19, 2011, 12:25:41 AM »
What are the new laws that address Internet-related infringements?

S.G.


1167
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Brandon Sand Extortion Letter
« on: July 05, 2011, 02:08:48 PM »
All this is really amusing.
Thanks for posting the info.

This is the kind of sleazy business that Mr Sand has associated himself with.
But, he wants to hide what he's doing? Good luck.

Keep posting the LOL's guys.


S.G.



1168
You can click on the blue linked text "RE" next to each docket entry.
This pulls up the "Recorded Entry" information.

Each case on the docket will be at a different stage of the process.
The newest entries will simply have the date that the suit was filed, the parties involved, and that the court fee was paid.
You'll notice that the older entries have been "closed".
That is, a settlement has been made, or the Plaintiff has rescinded its lawsuit (usually called a "discontinuance").

The docket will state whether or not a trial date has been set by the court.
The court will set a date for trial after the plaintiff and defendant have submitted the proper paperwork as follows:
Firstly, the plaintiff will file a claim; it's $50 for a "simplified action".  That's for cases involving under $50k.
It's $150 for an "ordinary action". That's a more complicated process for claims over $50k.  You can tell which are the "big" lawsuits this way.
Then, the claim must be delivered to the defendant, the defendant must file a defense, next, the plaintiff can go ahead with the case if it chooses.
At each stage, there's a window of time within each party must respond.
MF will often really take its time at each stage to make the process as painful as possible; make people pay just to get it over with.

A plaintiff can back out of a lawsuit at anytime.  Or, the suit may simply expire when it's been on the docket too long.
So, a lawsuit is sometimes a bluff to scare people; it only costs $50 to file it, plus a nominal legal fee for boilerplate legal papers.
Obviously, a lawsuit is usually sufficient to make a person call a lawyer.
Some give in and pay when they find out that the hourly cost is of a lawyer is high, and a retainer is required.
You can see the strategy here.

It's interesting reading the court dockets online, but sometimes it's a bit cryptic.
The court normally only posts the final judgments that are of greater interest to the public.
But, you can often tell by reading the dockets who has prevailed in each case.
The kind of hearings that we're concerned with here usually only last 5 minutes to one day, and often don't involve large settlements.
So, the court usually doesn't give much detail as to what was awarded (if anything).
Sometimes, MF gets the details of a settlement 'sealed'.
Note that you can order detailed records from the court by fax at 40 cents a page.

It looks like MF has currently has 6 cases active now.
They seem to like to have about 4 -6 lawsuits going at any one time.

Masterfile does sue sometimes.  They're unpredictable in whom they go after, to make everyone think that they might be "next".
If they sue and you produce a really solid defense, there's a chance that they'll drop the suit before it ever goes before a judge.
They won't go through with it just to lose and have to pay your legal fees.
Obviously, if they have everything in order and one doesn't have a strong defense, then it's probably cheaper make deal and settle out of court.
It's quite a cat and mouse game.

One thing that I should mention here is that some folks don't appear for court a scheduled court date, and that's a bad idea as they'll lose immediately.
This constitutes a number of MF court victories.

I just hate to see people pay them money when they don't need to, which happens a lot.
I'm very glad if I have helped you.

S.G.









1169
They have sued some Canadians for 1 or 2 images.
It's not very lucrative for them to do so, of course.
I imagine that it's intended to scare others into paying.
But, it doesn't happen very often that they pursue such cases through to actual court.

There's a couple on the docket now regarding real-estate people.
I'm not sure what the deal is with them pursuing real-estate folks recently.
One is going to court in September, I think.
Unless there's a settlement, or masterfile backs out before then.
The other one has been sitting there stagnating on the docket for ages.
Search "masterfile" on the Canadian Federal Court website.

Strange that you'd receive something from a collection agency in Florida.
Seems like that would be a waste of time.

S.G.




1170
Here's my opinion of masterfile's copyright registration efforts.

Masterfile makes it appear that it owns the copyright of all of its images by registering said content in very large compilations.
Each are usually called "the best of masterfile 'x'", etc.
Closer inspection shows that while these compilations are 'registered', the copyright of some of the individual images are still held by the original photographer/artist.

Registering copyrights in this manner could be seen as a way of "manufacturing standing" in order to sue.
The recent Righthaven court loss shows us that a when a third-party company (like masterfile) sues on behalf of a copyright owner (the photographer/artist), it can end in a loss (with damages awarded to the defendant).

So, determine who owns each individual image in question before making big payouts to MF.

S.G.





Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 84
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.