Messages

1321

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The continuation of my Getty/NCS IP Solutions Saga...

« on: July 12, 2012, 05:33:17 PM »

As always, you have to decide what is best for you, but here are a few things that you should consider before you decide. I assume this is for one image and to the best of my knowledge Getty has never taken anyone to court over one image, also being in Canada I believe Getty would have to litigate you there. I seriously doubt Getty would want to go through the time, trouble and expense of trying to litigate you in Canada for such a small amount.

Also I would let them know that until they provide proof that they have exclusive copyright as they have stated, you have nothing further to discuss with them. Since you are in Canada you cannot use Oscars defense letter program but within the forums should be all the information you need to defend yourself from these letters should you choose to. I live here in the states and while I do have the option of Oscars defense letter program I have chosen to take on Getty myself.

As to the matter of whether it is C$500 or C$525, it would not matter to me as my offer to them would be C$0, but should you decide to pay to make this go away I would tell them since they put it in the letter I would go with the lower amount.

Again, before making any decisions I would continue reading the forms as there is a wealth of information that can be gleaned from them. As you read the forums should you have questions don't hesitate to ask, there are no definitive answers as rarely are two cases exactly the same.

Please keep us posted on your situation and what you decide to do, best of luck.

1322

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Picscout

« on: July 12, 2012, 05:17:55 PM »

I have a question, in the screen capture along with the date, was this about the time that your website was being developed or went live? If so this may have been a placeholder image before your website even went live and that's what this is a picture of. I'm not sure if this applies to your situation but I'm just trying to think of ways that Getty might have a screen capture of an image that has never been on your website. I know that a few others have stated that the image they received a letter over was for a placeholder image on a website that had not gone live yet.

This is an interesting case and please keep us posted as to what happens with it.

1323

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Drops Case Against Photographer/Graphic Artist

« on: July 12, 2012, 01:21:02 PM »

Agreed, they don't come much better than Oscar!

This part caught my eye:

New York attorney, Oscar Michelen, "told me that in no way was I to pay Masterfile any money. He said that they didn't have a case and he would be willing to represent me at a reduced rate, but to wait to see how the case developed before sending him any money."

Very nice and very classy. Sort of the antithesis of the troll-lawyers that are out just for a quick buck.

Oscar's my hero of the day today.

1324

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Flickr teams with Pinterest, releases share button for proper photo attribution

« on: July 10, 2012, 05:38:22 PM »

I found this FAQ page on Flickr about their relationship with Getty images, it is kind of long but some of it was an interesting read.

http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/

1325

Legal Controversies Forum / The EFF along with others fighting for First Sale Rights at Supreme Court.

« on: July 10, 2012, 05:19:21 PM »

Yesterday the EFF along with other groups filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court asking them to rescue the first sale rights which have been under attack. This is another step that is needed to be addressed to help shut down the copyright insanity that has been going on. I think this is an issue we will need to follow closely as the court considers it.

But this case is important for another reason: it is a chance for the Supreme Court to send a message about the future of first sale rights. Over the past decade, courts and copyright owners have quietly been creating a world in which goods that contain copyrighted works are never truly owned, but only licensed. And those licenses inevitably contain a plethora of legal restrictions on consumers' ability to fully use those goods. Never mind that the consumer paid for a permanent copy and the seller doesn't really expect that the buyer ever give it back—the fine print claims to transform a sale into something else.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/public-interest-groups-supreme-court-bring-copyright-law-line-common-sense

1326

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty on a screenshot

« on: July 10, 2012, 01:27:49 PM »

Glad to hear it and please keep us posted as to your progress

1327

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carreon's Butthurt proves to be too much as he drops suit.

« on: July 10, 2012, 09:47:25 AM »

I second the motion

And I thought that I could think of lots of things to do with $217,223.04. 

It is quite clear that my simple brain is not nearly as creative as Matt Inman's.  He could start a whole new art genre:  making emotional statements with photos of obscene amounts of money.

I motion that we bequeeth ELI hero status upon Matt Inman.  Do I hear a second?

1328

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carreon's Butthurt proves to be too much as he drops suit.

« on: July 10, 2012, 08:56:02 AM »

I know, and the fact that he took it all in cash rather than the check so that he could make these pictures is absolutely perfect. I love that he is sending the picture of the FU along with a picture he drew of his mama seducing the Kodiak bear talk about adding insult to injury, it is absolutely perfect.

Thanks for posting that Greg. I've heard of an obscene amount of money, now Inman has made a graphic meme out of it! 

1329

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new collection Agency working with getty

« on: July 10, 2012, 01:22:37 AM »

I think this just might be a legal loophole that they're using Moe, if anyone who is familiar with the laws concerning debt collection tries to call them on it saying you have not provided me with proof of the debt, they have an out by saying that Getty has informed us that they have already sent you this information and did not forward it to us. I think they put that line in there just as a CYA move.

Good point, Buddhapi. I find this letter quite confusing. They have a collection agency collecting a settlement claim for Getty without providing any specifics about the infringement in question, claiming Getty had sent you some information in an earlier communication. This raises all kinds of questions:

• Did the first letter have any information about the alleged infringement, such as the copyright registration and the author's name?
• Does Getty have the right to enforce this copyright?
• How did your client infringe a copyright and what "proof" do they have that an infringement was committed?
• Did they send you a PicScout screen capture?

Furthermore, has anyone agreed to pay any amount to Getty and then reneged? If not, why is a collection agency talking to anyone about a settlement claim that has not been discussed?

Maybe we need to see the first letter to get a better idea of what's going on. Switching from legal claim to debt collection seems totally capricious and haphazard, not to mention absurd.

By the way, Matthew's right. It's hard to download and read the image of the letter. Maybe you could send him copies of both letters.

1330

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Video Updates Ends. The ELI Factor will launch soon.

« on: July 09, 2012, 11:13:43 PM »

This sounds like it's going to be very exciting, looking forward to the first episode!

Oscar is back from his summer vacation. I finally had a chance to tell him about the upcoming "ELI Factor" series. He loves the idea and is onboard to be on the show.

When Robert comes back, the scene will be set to move forward.  Lots of ideas for upcoming episodes.

1331

Legal Controversies Forum / U.S. Appeals Court Rules Copyright Royalty Board Was Unconstitutional

« on: July 09, 2012, 10:39:39 PM »

The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia ruled on Friday that the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) was unconstitutional when it passed rates for non-commercial web broadcasts, like college and high school radio stations, leaving in question whether those royalty rates and others set by the board still stand.

The U.S. Court of Appeals made its decision in a lawsuit against the CRB and SoundExchange brought by the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System (IBS), a Rhode Island non-profit corporation representing colleges and high school radio stations engaged in webcasting

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/u-s-appeals-court-rules-copyright-royalty-1007516552.story

1332

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Copyright trolls attempt to extort a wrong person, invite a class action lawsuit

« on: July 09, 2012, 10:36:03 PM »

I found this and thought it was an interesting article. Another case, even though this person was wrongly accused, of someone who is not afraid to fight back and filed a class-action lawsuit.

http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/07/09/copyright-trolls-attempt-to-extort-a-wrong-person-invite-a-class-action-lawsuit/

On 07/05/2012 Henry and Associates, PLLC, a lawfirm from Louisville, Kentucky, filed a class action lawsuit against five porno purveyors — well-known copyright trolls. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Jennifer Barker, one of the victims who did not want to forgive an unprovoked assault by a copyright troll lawyer M. Keith Lipscomb. Lipscomb is one of the most cynical and productive trolls, whose “portfolio” comprises hundreds, if not thousands of trolling lawsuits. He is also one of the few trolls who abuse the Florida’s Pure Bill of Discovery to unjustly enrich himself and his crime partners.

And here's the same story covered by Reuters and TechDirt.

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=51585&terms=%40ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+'ANV'

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/12331219649/class-action-racketeering-lawsuit-filed-against-copyright-trolling-porn-companies.shtml

1333

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carreon's Butthurt proves to be too much as he drops suit.

« on: July 09, 2012, 10:28:22 PM »

Well today Matthew Inman put the final nail in Carreon's coffin when he went to the bank and withdrew the $217,223.04 in cash he raised for his charities, brought it home and took a picture of it to mail to Carreon. And as always the oatmeal is going to do it in style!


Spoiler alert: do not be drinking liquid when you view this or you'll ruin your monitor and keyboard

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/charity_money

1334

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 09, 2012, 04:54:21 PM »

Couch_potato, while I agree with you that the private equity firms are driven by profit and I'm sure have reviewed Getty's financials I still think that they would have to stop and take notice if they started receiving an influx of angry letters in regards to company they are thinking of acquiring. They are going to be looking to invest their money in companies that can show the a return on their investment and a recently filed $12 million class-action lawsuit in Israel, articles about the possibility of a similar suit in the states, as much negative information about the company showing up on search engine results as other information and then combined with a flood of letters may actually see some results. I have read articles that say Getty is overvalued and with all of these things hitting it once these equity firms wish to continue with the purchase may end up reducing the offer hurting Getty even more.

The letter writing campaign may end up being nothing more than a little salt but a little salt in an open wound hurts like hell. And I'm going to continue to be that irritant to Getty until they back off.

The potential buyers are private equity firms. They would have already done sufficient research into Getty's activities and most private equity firms only care about profit, not ethics.

The one avenue I thought might be worth a look is checking their accounts with companies house and seeing if it listed how much of it's income was through settlements.

Only problem there is if they are approaching settlements as retrospective licences they may just list that as normal income which would include income from genuine sales.

It may be the case that a potential buyer may not be aware of how much of the income on Getty's accounts is through "retrospective licences" which is an unsustainable business model and open to legal challenge.

If you want to approach potential buyers in private equity approach it from the angle of their bottom line, not their ethical approach.

1335

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 09, 2012, 04:24:21 PM »

Stinger, I am actually running an experiment I came up with based on this idea but do not wish to discuss it just at this time as I have given Getty a deadline to respond to me. I will know one way or the by the 18th of this month and will make public my experiment as well as the results.

I am also currently compiling such a list of names and addresses in addition to the ones I already have to be used in such a letter writing campaign. Keep your fingers crossed and wish me luck and I'll let everyone know on the 18th.

Greg:

Great idea publicizing Getty's business model to potential buyers.  Here are two offshoot ideas for consideration:

• Let's publicize the contact names and addresses of those potential buyers on ELI so we each can write letters talking not only about Getty's business model, but also our personal experience with the firm, what we think of it, etc.  Letting potential buyers know the myriad of dastardly things Getty has done to firm up it's position in the Troll business, and how we all feel about that.
• Send a group settlement offer to Getty and their attorneys.  Something like, "If you offer to settle and hold harmless the below named individuals and companies from all all actions currently on the table including any alleged copyright violations, the individual group will refrain from publicizing your business practices with potential buyers of Getty Images.  We can include some of the write-ups we are contemplating for point 1 above.  I know that sounds somewhat extortion like, but it is certainly no worse than what they do.

What do you all think?