Messages

1171

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: INteresting Friday nugget

« on: August 17, 2012, 10:38:18 AM »

I can't see the copyright trolls wanting to use this logo as it could work against them. It certainly would not be good if they are displaying the seal and sending out demand letters but still refusing reasonable requests for proof. If that got back to the FBI the investigations might be reversed.

The more I think about it I doubt they would even display the seal as most people like myself respect intellectual property rights and would not take an image known to be copyrighted or belonging to someone else. The trolls need the free sites in the flood of unwatered marked images to stay in business and using the seal would most likely put an end to their trolling unless they are just going to add the seal to their demand letters as an additional layer of fear factor to try to get people to pay before researching their situation.

It will be interesting to see who starts using the seal and what the results are. This is a good find and thanks for sharing it with us Robert.

1172

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Registering blog posts: Individual? Collective? What?

« on: August 17, 2012, 12:43:59 AM »

I don't think you need to apologize and I do think you have every right to be upset. All of your points are valid and legitimate.

1173

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Sold!

« on: August 17, 2012, 12:36:59 AM »

If CG is used to the government contracts paying $500 for a single hammer they certainly must like the idea of $500 for single image. While my comment of CG buying Getty as a tax loss was made in jest I do feel along the same lines as Matthew, that unless the stock image companies radically change their operations they are doomed to failure just as the dinosaurs were doomed. The days of people willing to pay $500 for an image they can get on I-stock for just a few dollars are pretty much over.

As others have said and I agree with them, the photographers will need to change as well. It used to be you had to know what you are doing to take and develop professional photographs but the technology has changed such that even people like myself that know absolutely nothing about photography can now take very nice pictures. I recently purchased a very nice digital camera to take pictures of my remodels to post on my website and when I go back and compare older photographs I have taken with some of my recent pictures the difference in quality is amazing. So the photographers will need to understand and change with the times as well.

1174

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Sold!

« on: August 15, 2012, 11:07:36 PM »

Maybe they were just looking for a tax loss

1175

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Registering blog posts: Individual? Collective? What?

« on: August 14, 2012, 05:11:18 PM »

Excellent! 

He's stopped now.

1176

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 14, 2012, 12:12:22 AM »

 lucia,

that is too funny and where did you find that picture at?

1177

Legal Controversies Forum / This is getting out of hand.

« on: August 13, 2012, 11:45:22 PM »

I found this article over on the EFF website and it has just left me shaking my head. Hours after the recent NASA Curiosity Rover landed on Mars NASA uploaded a video about it and containing the first pictures on YouTube. An automated infringement bot for a local Scripps news station saw the video and recognized it as something carried on the station and sent a DMCA takedown request and had NASA's video removed from YouTube.

Due to the volume of content on the web I understand why companies and individuals would employ an automated bot to search for infringing material however when material is found I think it should be kicked to a human to view and determine whether a DMCA takedown request is required. I am totally against the automation of takedown requests for reasons such as this.

Here is a link to the article if you're interested in reading it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/mars-landing-videos-and-other-casualties-robot-wars

1178

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 13, 2012, 11:36:36 PM »

lucia,

I clicked the link that you provided and saw your message pop up before I was redirected and I think that was awesome! I especially like how you redirected back to your site. Great work!

Well... someone using a bot was copying my blog. 
http://www.newsblur.com/site/1100897/

(I should mention, I also blogged about the event.)
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/newsblur-a-modest-proposal/

1179

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: August 13, 2012, 09:41:16 PM »

The original message is now up to date will all complaints, responses and replies so you do not have to search the entire thread for them.

1180

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court

« on: August 13, 2012, 08:28:26 PM »

Well said Matthew and thank you Oscar for all you do even though we make you "cringe" from time to time. 

I believe Oscar has said that ELI is a "rough and tumble" environment. We can engage in an ELI Happy Dance if we want to although it would be unseemly in lawyer circles.

ELI makes no bones about being anything closes to a "lawyerly" forum. Having said that, we take victories wherever we can.  And in this case, if that means a legal victory, we can savor in it.

Remember folks, fighting on the legal front is certainly an important one.  Unquestionably and undeniably, that is headed up by Oscar. He may not be here on a daily basis but make no mistake his presence continues to resonate throughout nearly all of ELI's activities. Likewise, the ELI Community can continue to assist him "on the ground" by gathering and reporting on new extortion letters.

Don't ever let the copyright extortionists lure you into the trap of arguing/fighting on their terms even if by chance they manage to score some kind of legal victory. I know I won't.

1181

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: August 13, 2012, 04:37:27 PM »

Today I received a response to my complaint letter to the Federal Trade Commission. It is much like the Atty. Gen.'s office and the Better Business Bureau where they will not take on individual cases but keep the file to look for trends. I am posting the link to the response letter if anyone is interested.

https://www.scribd.com/collections/3777301/Complaint-letters-filed-against-Getty-Images

I am also going to go and edit my first post in this thread and add in all of the responses and replies to date so they can be found in one message since this thread is starting to get along.

1182

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter, now what???

« on: August 12, 2012, 09:56:15 PM »

Robert is absolutely correct, the time limit is an artificial deadline designed to scare you and think you have to act in pay before you have a chance to research and find out the full situation. You must do what you think is best for you but I would not pay Getty a penny. I assure you the situation is nowhere near as dire as Getty makes it sound. You have a couple of options available to you the first as you and Robert both mentioned is the Eli support phone call with Matthew. This is a good option if you do not care to take the time to go through the forums as Matthew can bring you up to speed very quickly. Your other option is to read the forums and handle Getty yourself. The forums contain pretty much all the information you will need to deal with your situation and will walk you through the process of what to expect.

Welcome to the forums and please let us know what you decide to do and keep us posted with your situation.

1183

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 12, 2012, 08:39:18 AM »

Thanks for posting this SG, I will read them over when I get home from work this afternoon

ok... as per Greg's request for citation, here's the lawsuit over a bogus DMCA takedown that I was referring to:

http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/files/Lenz.2.25.order.pdf

With some analysis:

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/02/standards_for_5.htm

"Judge Fogel has defined some standards for computing damages in a 17 USC 512(f) case, which creates a cause of action for sending certain types of bogus copyright takedown notices. I can't recall another case discussing the damages requirements of a 512(f) claim"...

In short, legal fees were awarded to the plaintiff because the DMCA notice was bogus.

---

I can see that this is relatively new legal ground, akin to how the legal status of online infringements remained until very recently.
I see the whole DMCA legal issue as being quite "loose" (for lack of a better term), because many of the concepts haven't been rigorously tested in the courts.
I have no doubt that things will "tighten up" up a lot after a few legal battles, especially in terms of what constitutes proof or due process.
All this is beginning to heat up...

S.G.

1184

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court

« on: August 12, 2012, 08:36:48 AM »

Thanks for sharing these with us Matthew.  This is good stuff and I agree with you about the stock photo industry not getting it, there day of reckoning is coming very soon.

1185

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: What is Glen Carner's Official Position on Vincent K. Tylor?

« on: August 11, 2012, 08:39:10 PM »

You're right peeved I think that does apply and you have a great memory I had forgotten about that one