Messages

121

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Files 3 New Lawsuits over Single Images

« on: January 26, 2014, 10:22:43 AM »

Rumor has it these were served through 3rd party registered agents, which makes it easy to get served. Not all companies set those up. Possibly most don't.  When a company doesn't set up a 3rd party registered agent, it's a bit more difficulty to serve those companies.

Does anyone know if it's true they were served that way? 

122

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Question about precedent

« on: January 23, 2014, 11:35:24 PM »

DBA?  Does that mean something is incorporated? Or not? All the case above appear to be corporations: that is something that literally incorporated having filed paper work.

(a) If the site was "owned" by a corporation but your corporation has no assets, keep the corporation in place.  Getty can sue it, win and collect nothing because they can't get $$ out of a corporation with no assets.

(b) If the site is owned by something that is not a corporation but by you as a person, at least for now it looks like Getty hasn't filed against any individual for 1 images. That can change, but that's how it looks. 

123

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty filed a lawsuit against me

« on: January 23, 2014, 05:32:43 PM »

That makes sense. It's best for you to be relatively quite. I am hoping Robert shows us documents from Pacer, but 'in the fullness of time' would be fine with me!

124

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Question about precedent

« on: January 23, 2014, 01:32:20 PM »

For what it's worth: I may be mistaken, but all four cases seem to involve honest to goodness companies that incorported (as opposed to hobby bloggers, students working on school projects and so forth.)

125

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Question about precedent

« on: January 23, 2014, 12:26:44 PM »

Florida
Logistics Company
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-damages-getty-images-us-10259/

This filing is recent. If we examine information about the image, it falls in the class of images that I would consider to be 'most likely to sue' here's why:

1) It appears the photographer himself registered copyright on this image.  Sea Logistics appears to have posted in image in 2013.  The filing states

The photographic image described in the preceding paragraph is the subject of
copyright Certificate of Registration VAu 967-849 (dated December 18, 2007). Attached as
Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Certificate of Registration.

If we look up VAu 967-849 we find
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=vau000967849&Search_Code=REGS&PID=WTOW7ObkakMt608q3uJlx7oVttGV&SEQ=20140123120656&CNT=25&HIST=1

Type of Work:    Visual Material
Registration Number / Date:    VAu000967849 / 2007-12-18
Application Title:    Agency Collection Volume 4.
Title:    Agency Collection Volume 4.
Description:    CD-ROM & 8 pgs of contact sheets.
Copyright Claimant:    Greg Pease, 1948- . Address: 23 E. 22nd Street, Baltimore, MD, 21218
Date of Creation:    2007
Authorship on Application:    Greg Pease, 1948- ; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: Photograph.
   
Names:    Pease, Greg, 1948-

So Greg Pease actually spends money to register.


2) It appears the photographer himself regularly registers his images and has been doing so since 2002. See this:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Pease%2C%20Greg%2C%201948-&PID=9X0nThk7D-OFQUt2F4IsUZfWKNbJ&BROWSE=1&HC=15&SID=4

The fact that the photographer himself regularly spends money to register his images means that it's quite likely he is an honest to goodness professional photographer who has actual honest to goodness customers who pay for his images.  Generally speaking, people who can't or don't sell lots of photos don't spend the money or go to the trouble to register their photos.  This Greg Pease guy does. 

The issue of licensing will still come up in court.  But based on the photographer's behavior, this would appear to be a "marketable" image (even if I personally, would never buy it!)

126

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Question about precedent

« on: January 22, 2014, 05:28:39 PM »

Really, what's reasonable for an image depends on the image.  $1,800 is unreasonable for the overwhelming majority of Getty's images. But remember: They do have some celebrity images. That number might not be unreasonable for a celebrity image especially a good one.  They also have some sports images-- and those are sometimes (though not always) worth a decent licensing fee. Occasionally, they have some one of a kind images.

People do sometimes need to think about what kind of image in addition to the number.

127

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty filed a lawsuit against me

« on: January 22, 2014, 11:13:49 AM »

I also think posting what GI has sent would in no way violate an attorney/client privilege. GI has lurked around for years by encouraging people to keep things quite. So maybe I am a little suspicious of a first-time poster suggesting otherwise.

I think if a suit has been filed, the record of the suit being filed should be public. So, we should be able to see court documents filed by Getty. If there is a link to that, that would be great.  Revealing that can't violate attorney/client privilege because it's public regardless.

Other info that I'm pretty sure can't be 'private' are:
1) Court where suit is filed.  (Which county/state etc.)
2) Exact name of plaintiff/defendant.

Would this be on Pacer? Is there info that would help the people with Pacer accounts find the filing so we can follow along.

128

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: stockfood.com extortion letter- getty images? what to do- any help appreciated:)

« on: January 21, 2014, 12:24:12 PM »

Interesting stuff concerning Canada (I don't know if it's correct info, but it's worth looking for wat we find.)

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/if-a-non-us-resident-provides-web-service-with-cop-510039.html

If a non-US resident provides web service with copyrighted material in the US, are they required to follow the DMCA?
Asked over 2 years ago - Elizabeth, NJ
Flag

    Business
    Copyright
    DMCA

If a web hosting provider uses Canadian IP space and is a Canadian resident, but they colocate their servers in the US, are they required to adhere to DMCA policies? If so, how can someone have the infringed material removed, if the host refuses to do anything about it?
Save
Attorney answers (1)

    Mitchell Paul Goldstein
    Mitchell Goldstein
    Bankruptcy Attorney - Glen Allen, VA
    Contributor Level 20

    Answered 2 years ago. The American host has to follow it. You can follow the providers upstream until you reach a U.S. host. Foreign companies are not subject to U.S. law, though they may have their own.

My take on this is that 'Mitchell Paul Goldstein' who seems to work on bankruptcy not copyright says that DMCA wouldn't apply to the Canadian company.  That might suggest that US copyright won't apply to you or your company as you are Canadian.  It could apply to your hosting company, but that only means that the copyright owner can write the hosting company to get your material removed.  But your probably taking it down anyway, so that's not really a big deal. Writing the hosting company to take it down is nothing like suing you.


Anyway: if this is correct, that looks like any suit might need to be in Canada and Canadian law would apply. Oscar will know if there is any US law hook. 

 

129

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: stockfood.com extortion letter- getty images? what to do- any help appreciated:)

« on: January 21, 2014, 12:16:27 PM »

Do I ignore the barrage of calls/emails to come?  The company is in the states, my webhosting company is in the states.  I live in Canada.  My business is in Canada. 

Interesting. I'd say first figure out whether US copyright law applies to your case.  I don't know if the hosting company being in the States is enough to make it apply. (Maybe it does; maybe it doesn't. )

If US copyright law does apply, it would presumably apply in the state where your hosting company sits?   But we need to figure that out.

With respect to any debt collection calls: such calls would be illegal in the US. You would simply tell them that this is not a debt, it is a legal claim which has neither been filed nor adjudicated.  Then tell them to stop calling your you will report them.   I don't know what happens in Canada.  But this might be useful:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/h_ca02149.html

If you owe money to a company or a supplier and have not recently sent in your payment, that company or supplier can turn your file over to a collection agency. Here are some useful tips:

    You must be notified in writing that your file has been given to a collection agency. Don't panic. The agency is trying to recover the money you owe its client.

The link contains other useful information. But basically: before a debt collection agency can call, they would need to notify you in writing that the debt was transferred to the collection agency.  If you've received no such letter, they can't call. If you received such a letter, presumably it will tell you why they believe this is a debt and not just a demand. 

But definitely: try to figure out if US copyright applies to your case at all. It may or may not. You'll want to proceed knowing which law applies.
 

130

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Here I am... 2nd GettyImages letter

« on: January 21, 2014, 12:04:59 PM »

well, we did a lot of research on the net, and the majority of people/articles about GettyImages are talking about a "legal scam" so they advise to write a  letter that say something like this: "I assure you that if the alleged copyright infringement did take place, that it was entirely innocent and unwilling. As a good-faith gesture, and until this matter is definitively resolved, I have removed The Image entirely from website";  We also found this, pertaining to the amount of $ they demanded: "Please show in an itemized and auditable manner, how the amount requested for the image in question was calculated. To put it differently, please show that you are asking for a reasonable compensation for the specific  image, within the time frame that  this  image have been used, and are not asking for exorbitant, unreasonable amounts of money under the circumstances."
We are just considering other options..

Change "As a good-faith gesture, and until this matter is definitively resolved, I have removed The Image entirely from website"" to " As a good-faith gesture,  I have modified the website to ensure  The Image does not display and verified that no copies of the image are hosted on servers under my control."

This language leaves open the possibility that the image was never hosted on your website and that it only displayed.  This is important because hotlinking has been deemed "not copying" under at least 2 district courts. (One dealt with images-- that's Amazon v. Perfect 10. The other dealt with.. something else. I need to look that up. These cases did not get to the US Supreme court because the loser did not appeal/)

BTW: Make you you know whether the images was hosted on your server. If it was never hosted on your server, then even if Getty sues, they cannot win. If it was hosted, don't volunteer that information. Let them do the work to discover that. (If they've modified the procedures Picscout uses, they will know.  But you don't need to volunteer that.)

With respect to your "until this is resolved", I would write:  "I consider this matter resolved."

They won't consider it resolved and will likely send you a response. But you can still express your opinion.

If you wish after telling them you consider it resolved you could add something like:

"If you do not consider this resolved, please provide me all the following information which I require to negotiate a resolution that satisfies both parties:

The US copyright office registration number for this image.
The license agreement between the copyright owner and getty images.
The history of licensing fees paid by customers who used this image.
If the images contains a person, request a form indicating their is a model release.

"

Getty will refuse to give these things and say that they would supply them during discovery. But "discovery" goes both ways. If they sue you, you would have a period during which you can request this from them and they are required to give it to you. Likewise, they can ask things of you and you would need to give it to them.  But saying material will only be provided during discovery goes both ways: you don't have to tell them stuff if they don't tell you stuff.

Lucia

131

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty filed a lawsuit against me

« on: January 21, 2014, 11:52:00 AM »

Absolutely! I'd like to see the pdf and the case number. Lawsuits should be matters of public record, right?

132

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I got a letter today

« on: December 09, 2013, 08:00:37 AM »

I don't understand how they can just lay a bill on someone

Bear in mind: legally it's not a bill. It cannot become a bill unless they sue you and win.

know that was the intention of their letter to scare me but from what I have read a lot of people weren't able to get Getty's Images to be reasonable and they just paid and chalked it up as lesson learned.

In 99.99% (estimated) of these cases, Getty would never have sued even had they not paid.

  it is best to do all of it through paper mail. Thank you all again.

Yes. And before you do so, you should know as much about your own case as possible. As in: is that image registered etc. Then, volunteer nothing to your detriment (that is: if you figure out that you did copy and so on, don't volunteer that info.)

We can tell you how to figure out copyrights and so on.

133

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Newbie question

« on: December 08, 2013, 10:04:28 PM »

ops.picscout.com visiting means it looked at whatever it loaded. You would only get a letter if 'it' concludes that image matches something in the inventory of whoever hired picscout to visit. Your image might not be in their inventory. (Mostly, getty uses picscout, but others could.)

134

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty claiming image is theirs when its not!

« on: December 06, 2013, 01:43:33 PM »

I suggest you inform Clive Streeter. He's got a potential claim.

135

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: MasterFiles Recent Victory. (If You Want to Call It That)

« on: November 29, 2013, 09:02:07 AM »

This is great! The judge gave Masterfile the absolute minimum the statues would permit for images that had been registered. Wow!