Messages

1306

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Hawaiian Art Network v. Aloha Plastic Surgery Lawsuit Settled

« on: November 05, 2012, 08:06:56 PM »

Well it would appear, that the Aloha Plastic Surgery / Hawaiian Art Network case has been settled. The docket entry is below from pacer.

EP: Early Settlement Conference held on 11/2/2012. Also present: Plaintiff Vincent K. Tylor and Defendant Michael Anthony Pasquale. Case settled. Terms stated UNDER SEAL. Based upon representations by counsel and affirmations by the parties, the Court finds that the essential terms of a valid and enforceable settlement agreement have been stated. Pursuant to the agreement, the record of this proceeding is hereby sealed except for the Injunction to be entered and signed by Judge Seabright. The deadline to submit the Injunction is 12/3/12. The following dates are hereby vacated: 3/7/13, 10:00am, Settlement Conference, Judge Chang; 5/21/13, 9:00am, Final Pretrial Conference, Judge Chang; 7/2/13, 9:00am, Jury Trial, Judge Seabright. All pending matters are deemed withdrawn based upon this settlement. (In Chambers - no record, 11:00-1:09pm (Settlement Conf); FTR C5 - 1:09-1:16pm (Settlement Conf-SEALED HEARING).) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 11/02/2012)

I find it interesting that the case records have been sealed. I highly doubt that Aloha requested this, as an alleged infringement is hardly anything to be embarrassed or ashamed of. I also find it hard to believe that the judge in this case would recommend sealing such a case, as this just means more paperwork for him / her.. All this makes be think that Glen Carner, Hawaiian Art Network and Vincent K. Tylor requested it be sealed...gee I wonder why..could be they have something they don't want anybody to see. 

1307

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Gibson remains CEO of Righthaven, appeals to continue

« on: November 01, 2012, 09:58:52 AM »

The Righthaven LLC copyright lawsuit saga will continue indefinitely after a judge on Wednesday blocked efforts to have Righthaven's CEO fired and its appeals canceled.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/oct/31/gibson-remains-ceo-righthaven-appeals-continue/

1308

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: November 01, 2012, 09:39:46 AM »

Actually Coleman, it falls on THEM to prove this claim.

1309

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Petition the U.S. government to change laws to end copyright trolling

« on: October 26, 2012, 05:22:29 PM »

I was someone who didn't hold out too much hope for Greg's idea of pestering the state attorney generals. But I think that strategy has been proven somewhat effective. There is truly no "wrong way" of doing this. I think if a hundred minds (or more) are all attacking trolling from different angles, it will some day lead to the extinction of trolls.

If you DO set up a petition, I will sign it.

I would sign it as well, I've signed others already... I'd love to see someone actually spearhead this and put forth the effort that would be needed to get enough signatures to be meaningful, it would need to be a social media blitz, to get that momentum..

1310

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: graphic from another site

« on: October 26, 2012, 02:06:30 PM »

if the image in question was not on your servers, than there is no infringement and they have no case..plain and simple...linking to an image is just that a link and not a "copy"

1311

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Petition the U.S. government to change laws to end copyright trolling

« on: October 25, 2012, 03:07:18 PM »

I've seen several of these petitions started including one on the page you reference, they never seem to get any traction, I personally don't have time to spearhead an effort to hammer away at something like this to get signatures..the other thing you have to remember, is that Getty Images is most certainly sleeping with some of these DC politicians.

1312

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Gettyimage letter demanding $875 for copyright infringement.

« on: October 24, 2012, 09:27:49 PM »

We've all been thru it, or are gong thru it....yes Getty images will likely not sue anyone for 1 image, it's totally your choice to ignore it, but most of us would not suggest this.

1313

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Defense Team Grows Again! Welcome Greg Troy, Newest ELI Team Member!

« on: October 24, 2012, 07:27:25 PM »

Perfect timing as I'll be taking my paid vacation soon! Welcome aboard Greg!

1314

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: October 24, 2012, 06:32:43 AM »

hahaha, put this in your files, just in case you need it ( which I doubt) a judge would love to see this. If I were you and I understand this correctly, you might want to contact your client, as they seemingly will be gunning for them now, I would advise your client, to send them the exact same letters you sent them. direct your client here to the forum, so they can see how this bogus collection agency acts..

1315

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How many have been sued for use of one pic?

« on: October 22, 2012, 09:00:48 PM »

I could be wrong here, you should probably confirm this with his office, but I think in order for him to represent the chamber, someone from the chamber will have actually pay the fee, and you would need to re-imburse the chamber somehow.. the 195.00 covers the letter and one response if needed, there could always be additional charges if the case were to progress, but that would be discussed prior too..You're in good hands with Oscar, he is more than fair and he is certainly honest.

1316

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received letters from CEG

« on: October 22, 2012, 12:12:18 PM »

I'm only going to address your questions, I will probably address more when I have the time..in the meantime take a deep breathe and relax.

1. I haven't heard of any of the trolls being accused of this and find it very unlikely. The situation you describe is a classic injection attack.

2. No they probably will not bring it to court as they have no case whatsoever. you've already discussed it with them , so don't waedste anymore time with it, it wil fall on money hungry /deaf ears.

3. IF it were to go to court, it would have to be filed in the state in which YOU reside..

4. again there is no case, if you have the html code showing the image was linked...end of story ( perfect10 v google)

5.  yes you are correct no infringement occured AKM CEG and Asshat Marvin Cable will tell you differently...they want your money.

6. Celebrity images are a bit different than "stock" images, you could copy the url of the image in question and do a reverse image search via google to get an idea of where and how often the image appears on other sites.

7.  They will continue to harass you, unless you retain a lawyer, then by law they cannot contact you.. the statute of limitations is 3 years.. Why would you even entertain settling? the image was never on your server...save your money!

8. no, no and no... you already stated your case, it's a waste of time in my opinion.. if you do engage him, state clearly that the image was NEVER on your servers, you did not infringe and if you here from him again you will filed a complaint with the State attorney General, as well as the Mass. Bar association, as this is harassment.

1317

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Johnathan Klein and Getty Images - Do As I Say, Not As I Do.

« on: October 21, 2012, 08:01:35 PM »

What the hell!!! I'm stunned by this!

"If you go to page 5 called “Image Guarantee” it appears that Getty is trying to sell you image insurance to protect you from their own images!?!  Their pitch is:

“Not every image comes with amodel<sic> or property release.Sometimes, with certain non-released imagery or
footage, it’s simply not possible to find or identify a rights holder, if one even exists. So clearance just isn’t an option.”

It appears at least to me that Getty is saying were not even sure of the copyright status or even who the copyright holders are on all their images so rather than Getty following their own instructions they say will sell you insurance to protect you from the images we sell you. "

1318

Legal Controversies Forum / Once-Again-Copyright-Troll-Apple-Uses-Image-It-Didn-t-Own

« on: October 20, 2012, 05:24:30 PM »

Lawyers for big companies tend to be notoriously careful to makesure the companies license images they use for marketing purposes, for obvious reasons. And yet... Apple seems to keepusing unlicensed images.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110303501/Once-Again-Copyright-Troll-Apple-Uses-Image-It-Didn-t-Own

1319

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How many have been sued for use of one pic?

« on: October 20, 2012, 12:31:36 PM »

@ SG do you have anything else in regards to the single image lawsuit and Masterfail? Does Canada make court dockets public record?...

1320

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screen shots of web sites that contain getty images

« on: October 20, 2012, 06:46:15 AM »

I'm not a lawyer either,but I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

I think if it was a portfolio page, "legally" it would not fall under fair use, as there are certain criteria you must meet..you would have an issue with the first point shown below. As of today Getty has not sued anyone over 1 image, and I highly doubt they would pursue something of this nature,  fair use or not a judge would probably be inclined to award the least amount, which wouldn't even cover the cost of filing the papers.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act lists four factors to help judges determine, and therefore to help you predict, when content usage may be considered "fair use."

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

If a particular usage is intended to help you or your organization to derive financial or other business-related benefits from the copyright material, then that is probably not fair use.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
Use of a purely factual work is more likely to be considered fair use than use of someone's creative work.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyright protected work as a whole.
There are no set page counts or percentages that define the boundaries of fair use. Courts exercise
common-sense judgment about whether what is being used is too much of, or so important to, the original overall work as to be beyond the scope of fair use.

4. The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyright protected work.
This factor looks at whether the nature of the use competes with or diminishes the potential market for the form of use that the copyright holder is already employing, or can reasonably be expected soon to employ, in order to make money for itself through licensing.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

you might want to read this is well:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/5-reasons-you-shouldnt-fear-being-sued-(too-much)/