Messages

121

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: HAN v Moku'Aina Properties LLC

« on: April 14, 2012, 09:34:03 PM »

pure speculation on my part, but if we don't hear HAN gloat a number, I would think that would mean a win for our side (as in maybe HAN dropped the suit with stipulation that Moku'Aina not disclose details, so that they can move on to easier targets)?

122

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the letter ....A question and my plan....

« on: April 14, 2012, 08:53:44 PM »

Peeved,  I do agree that under most circumstances using our own images is very low risk.  By the way here is an example of one that went the other way ... it is a US case that Getty won (in a big way) when they got sued for infringement. 
http://www.photosource.com/cpyright/cpysep04.html

123

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the letter ....A question and my plan....

« on: April 14, 2012, 11:52:31 AM »

You are correct.  I actuall used another site as well to check.  I had 1 image from some other Getty like site, I removed that one as well.  After looking at the images that are listed in these companies you get a good feel if you think it is an image that would be on Getty or a Getty like sight.  But I always check now.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to be an ass hat, but I think you missed my main point.. just because one of these sites did not find an image, doesn't get you in the clear, the ONLY way to be 100% certain is to have paperwork or create the images yourself. I suggest you might read the hawaiian art network posts, in regards to "free" wallpaper images.. there are also single photographers that track back their images and send out nasty grams.. I guess it comes down to if you want to gamble or not. I have since stopped using images unless I create them.

Well ... you can approach 100% certainty if you are careful, but I dont think you can ever be 100% certain.
I doubt Getty does much due dilegence to make sure their contributors are posting original material.  If someone sees their work on your website, they could come after you.  If one is taking comfort in the fact that you have Getty license receipts, then one should study the idemnity clauses in the license contract.  I think the sense of comfort would evaporate.
Not even taking your own pictures is 100% certain. There have been cases of people losing lawsuits in which their own photo (that they took themselves) looked too much like a Getty photo.  Here's a UK case I remembered:
http://www.epuk.org/News/233/getty-images-wins-plagiarism-appeal
I think you can even find some cases where photographers have gotten into trouble for photographing copyrighted works of art.

So, yes, if you are careful, taking your own photos is low risk in my opinion.  I don't think it's ever 100% certain though.

Copyright law is outdated, lobbied and legislated to the point of insanity, and in severe need of reform, in my opinion.

124

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Hypocrite of the Century!

« on: April 05, 2012, 05:50:57 PM »

Great find Buddhapi.  Actually I'm glad to hear him go on the record like that. 
I would think that would be very good supporting information for an "implied license" defense should one wind up in court.  It appears to me that he is clearly implying a free license for all Getty images, up to a point anyway.  I'm not even sure "implied license" would be the right term . . . sounds explicit to me!

125

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a letter, stressed

« on: April 04, 2012, 11:23:41 AM »

There are no guarantees, but I really don't think you have much to worry about.   My case involved a single image.  I hired Oscar to write a letter and I never heard anything from them again.  It has been well over three years for me since I got the letter so I consider the matter closed since the three year statute of limitations has passed.

126

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Another Pinterest update, they seem to be scrambling

« on: April 03, 2012, 07:52:15 PM »

Pinterest actually storing the images on their server is a big problem.
Of course, PicScout is just as guilty of that sort of thing...

S.G.

Hmmm ... you really got me to thinking with this one, SG.  Suppose someone had their own copyright registered images on their own website when it got snooped by Getty.  Is it possible for picscout to do their comparisons without copying your copyright material . . .  whether a copy to memory or to their server?  Would this not be a copyright infringement commited by picscout?
Is just presenting proof that they snooped your website (web logs) enough to sue them for copyright infringement?  I think it doesnt matter that they didn't display the copy ... just that they copied it.  Also with registered images the fact that they did no damage to you is irrelevant (statutory damages).  Even if the judge lowered it to the minimum $200 (or whatever it is) statutory damages, I would think that this would be a major blow to picscout/Getty.  Multiply that $200 by every image they snoop.
Someone with enough time on their hands might be able to meticulously register hundreds of images one at a time, put them on a website, then wait for picscout to show up . . . talk about a taste of their own medicine!
 just a thought.

127

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My Story

« on: April 02, 2012, 05:37:31 PM »

Personally, I think you need to do more to hold your web designer accountable.  If it were me, I think I would likely:

1) demand any fees back that I paid him for the website.
2) offer to let him negotiate/settle with Getty directly
3) let him know in the event you pay any damages or legal fees related to the matter that you would sue him for the appropriate amounts.

some of the "web designers" out there really really irk me.  Sorry you had the misfortune of getting mixed up with this clown.

128

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Pinning Down The Pinterest Puzzle

« on: April 02, 2012, 08:09:02 AM »

Good summary buddhapi.  My bottom line take-away from all this is that I will steer clear of pinterest.

As a side note, they seem awful reckless to me.  I would think that in their shoes, I would be worried about being persued for vicarious copyright infringement (or something similar).  Perhaps their company assets are low enough that they could just fold up thier tents and walk away happy if that happens?  Personally, I really don't like the fact that they might be putting technically unsophisticated internet users (who don't have the luxury of a coporate shield) at risk of a nasty and expensive surprise . . . disturbing behavior if you ask me.

I wonder if web site admins even realize that this is a potential issue, and I also wonder if a letter to seemingly reputable sites with "pin me" buttons (marthastewart.com?) with a very short description of possible ramifications for end users would result in the button going away.

I mean, when you get right down to it, what's the difference in a "pin me" button and a caption underneath similar to "be sure to right click save this image so that you can repost!"?

129

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??

« on: April 01, 2012, 11:48:05 AM »

. . .
Does this constitute reasonable doubt that the image was ever on Joe's website at all?

I think it's important to remember that the large majority (almost all?) of these cases are civil.  That means that the standard of proof required is not "Reasonable Doubt", but rather "Preponderance of Evidence" which loosely means "more likely to be true".  Also you can be compelled to testify against your own interests.

Assuming that you did indeed have the image on your website, I really think that insisting that they provide more proof that the image was on your website is a waste of time, with the possible exception of cases where the image was hotlinked and you can provide reasonable proof of that.

I agree with SG, and I think that other defenses (lack of standing, amount of demand, SOL, etc) would be a better focus of time and resources.

I'm no lawyer, thats just my layman's understanding.

130

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??

« on: April 01, 2012, 09:32:17 AM »

. . . Otherwise they can't demonstrate the image was hosted by the person they are suing . . .

I think that this would be easily accomplished by asking that person under oath (deposition or trial). In most cases where infringing pictures were used in a website design, anyway.  You might have a few that honestly don't know, but  even then, I think an "I don't know" answer would raise a few eyebrows to say the least.  If it was indeed hotlinked and you know it, thats another story . . . in which case I think it would become important that Getty could not prove otherwise.

131

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??

« on: March 30, 2012, 04:33:26 PM »

This comes up in various forms here from time to time. I have to say that I disagree.  If it made it to court, I think you would undoubtedly be asked under oath at some point if indeed the picture in question was displayed on your website.  I'm pretty sure you can't plead the 5th since you wouldn't be admitting an actual crime.  So that leaves you with how comfortable you would be perjuring yourself in federal court.  Personally I wouldn't dream of doing it.  Nor would I recommend anyone else doing it. 
I know that no one is suggesting perjury ... and I don't think anyone here really would consider it (I hope), which is why I don't think there is much help from the strategy of insisting that they provide another form of proof besides the screenshot.  All they have to do is ask you under oath, and that is thier proof.
Their are too many other good defenses to use to waste time with this one IMO.

132

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Roll the Dice? - Is Getty likely to win an award GREATER than initial demand?

« on: March 29, 2012, 06:29:56 PM »

If I understand it correctly:  Copyright law itself allow awarding of legal fees to ONLY (albiet not necessarily) the prevailing party.  Apparently, some defendants have had luck with "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68" in recouping their legal costs, even in copyright infringement cases where the defendant actually lost the case (because the pre trial settelment offer was greater than the award to the plaintiff).  I think Rule 68 is what McFilms was alluding to.  However, I don't think Rule 68 is by any means a guarantee of recouping your legal fees if your offer is greater than the ultimate award.  A very good write-up regarding rule 68 and when it might apply can be found here:

http://www.lucascavalier.com/publications/offer_of_judgement.html

133

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: FUTURE DEMANDS - Getty Outrageous prices

« on: March 01, 2012, 03:07:38 PM »

Let's not forget that letter that GETTY published that explained why low resolution web based usage of stock photography isn't worth more than $49.  At least that's the way I read it.  I'd say the letter would be pretty good supporting information in assessing actual damages for low resolution web based usage.

http://www.abouttheimage.com/2858/getty_answers_critics_of_the_49_web_use_product/author3/

The letter was back in 2007, but in my opinion, the fair market value would have went down rather than up considering the state of the economy post 2007.

134

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: Steele-Hansmeier Settlement Demand Letters

« on: February 04, 2012, 07:49:39 AM »

Is this the same Steele mentioned here: ?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110430/00274114096/judge-slams-copyright-troll-lawyer-john-steeles-latest-fishing-expedition.shtml

I particularly liked the following quote from the judge that I think fits many of the stock photo situations:

". . . The embarrassment of public exposure might be too great, the legal system too daunting and expensive, for some to ask whether VPR has competent evidence to prove its case . . ."

135

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Corbis & Superstock being sued...a MUST read!

« on: February 03, 2012, 02:29:09 PM »

Interesting. Well I'll have to redact what I stated earlier. I'm curious how an American Express, McGraw-Hill, or such company got hold of such an image. Was it through the stock footage agency? Once one of these suits was filed, why would the company continue to sell it?

And although taking one's own picture always seems to be the answer for avoiding buying stock, there are clearly other landmines. Taking a picture of a sculpture, work of art or a public structure could land you in court. Using a trademarked icon or logo could land you in court.

That does it. From now I am illustrating all my blogs with stick figures and pictures of myself.

just make sure you're wearing clothing you made yourself that doesnt remotely resemble anything off the rack.  and sign a model release in case you change your mind later. Also get proper permissions from S-F-M. LOL
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i1569