Messages

1336

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received letters from CEG

« on: October 16, 2012, 10:19:10 AM »

I have no idea how up to date the copyright site is...it should be fairly current I would think.. No-one is sharing their stories because this is the first time we have heard of this group of trolls, hence we would like to do some research as well as shre the letters.. I will send you a PM with my email address where you can send the letters..

did they come via postal mail or email?? Either way I would not respond right away and if they came via email, I would not respond at all, email is not "official". I'll try to make time today to round up some info that will hopefully help you, as well as others, and once we get your letters posted, the rest of the community will surely chime in.

 

1337

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received letters from CEG

« on: October 16, 2012, 09:51:38 AM »

would you be interested in sharing these letters with us, we will redact your personal information, before uploading them to our library.. I'd like to do some research into CEG and this info would be helpful..

1338

Getty Images Letter Forum / Looks like we have a new troll to deal with

« on: October 16, 2012, 06:37:46 AM »

CEG TEK International has been mentioned over in the legal contro forum

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/legal-controversies-forum/received-letters-from-ceg/

Guess I'll be doing some digging and posting on this new comapny..

1339

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received letters from CEG

« on: October 16, 2012, 06:32:00 AM »

You have other options, but need to get educated first!!

is the image available for download elsewhere?
is the image registered with the copyright office?
does the company that sent the letter have the right to enforce this?

among other things..

1340

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can forums and social network type sites also be successfully sued?

« on: October 15, 2012, 07:35:44 PM »

Simple solution in your case would be to assign a registered agent, which would cover you under theDMA safe harbor. By law they would need to send a formal takedown request, which your "agent" would need to act upon... there are some threads here regarding this and if I remember correctly there is one that outlines the requirements and steps to take to be covered by DMCA.

::EDIT:: without a registered agent, legally you could be on the hook for any infringements, I strongly suggest looking int this and doing it, given your amount of users..

1341

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Masterfile Corporatopn

« on: October 15, 2012, 01:04:18 PM »

Strictly my opinion...

1. they are not going to do anything, except send you more nasty letters.
2. watermark or no watermark doesn't mean they have exclusive license to this image.
3. very few "pictures" are worth that kind of money, and no judge in his right mind would award such an amount.
4. the same image may be available elsewhere..
5. screen shots of you site, are only used as a scare tactic, being as you do not own the domain, they would have to "prove" that you yourself uploaded said image ( nearly impossible)

1342

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I am getting slammed by photographers

« on: October 15, 2012, 12:49:24 PM »

Good article, and kudos to you for writing it! It reminded me of the case of a Getty images customer AND contributor, yes I said contributor ( ie. photographer) that was out of the country on business and upon his return he realized that the license for his image had expired..well he only realized it because he had a letter from getty images waiting for him..mind you, this was not only a customer, but one of their "suppliers" as well!! and to boot, the license was expired something like 1 week..

stinger - Thanks for the offer to help. I appreciate that.

Also, I've just published a 2,200+ word follow-up post called:

"Attack of the Trollogs! Plus More Thoughts about Getty Extortion Letters"

If you are interested, you can read it here:
http://www.ryanhealy.com/attack-of-the-trollogs/

Ryan

1343

Getty Images Letter Forum / How does Getty Images calculate the settlement demand amount?

« on: October 13, 2012, 06:40:30 PM »

"The settlement demands are based upon the fair market value of a license, taking into consideration several factors such as usage, size, placement, duration, and territory. The settlement demand is calculated by taking the average length of use and the average cost of licensing for that period, plus a portion of the costs incurred related to the pursuit of the unlicensed use. Because you used the images without first obtaining a license, you are not eligible for our lowest pricing. We have incurred additional costs due to your unlicensed use, and any settlement amount we are prepared to accept must reflect those costs."

Why is it I have a feeling someone at Getty Images either can't perform simple math, or Timothy B. McCormack has pulled the above statement out of his ass?

Let us say for example I have an image of a cactus that Getty Images "claims" to own, there are nearly identical cactus images available on multiple stock images sites included IStock ( owned by Getty) these images can easily be purchased for less than $15.00, yet Getty Images demand upwards of 1000.00 for this image, whether its been on my site 1 week or 6 months....FACT the math doesn't add up! In my opinion Timothy B. McCormack continually makes himself look like an ass when posting these kind of statements..

1344

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Masterfile Corporatopn

« on: October 13, 2012, 04:35:42 PM »

I'm going to be quick and to the point here, hopefully our Canadian user will chime in as well.

Legally speaking ( at least in the US) no watermark is needed, copyright is automatic upon creation of the image. Yes masterfail has won, but they have also just LOST a very large suit, and it is very unlikely they will sue over 1 image, so don't worry so much about this aspect.

As your husband does not own that domain/website, and the account was closed down months ago, it would be nearly impossible for Masterfile to prove who uploaded what and when. it is up to them to prove the infringement, although they would like you believe otherwise.

who's to say that I did not log into that account and upload something??. I'm still thinking i would not communicate with masterfail, and if you do decide to speak with them, make sure everything is sent thru postal mail...NO emails, NO phone calls, explain to them the business has been gone for however long, and the account was cancelled at 411 long ago, and they did not due teir part to remove the page.

1345

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Masterfile Corporatopn

« on: October 13, 2012, 11:21:54 AM »

Dearest Disturbed Wife,  ( i have one of those too!)

you husband can't go to jail over this it's a civil, not a criminal matter...

tell me about this 411 thing? what is it, was the image in question uploaded to the 411 account? does your husband own 411.com or whatever?

if the image is on 411 servers and you husband doesn't own 411, then technically speaking 411 is infringing and not your husband. I would not communicate with them at this point until you get all of the facts straightened out. Masterfail will most likely not sue you or anybody else over 1 image..

It would greatly help if you could supply a link to this page in question...it sounds to me like he may have nothing to worry about.

1346

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I am getting slammed by photographers

« on: October 12, 2012, 05:41:23 PM »

ahemmmmm, I'm a photographer, so I get the luxury of seeing both sides of this.. Yes "most" photogs will jump on the "you stole it, now pay" bandwagon, but not all.. There are also a very large number of photogs that no longer work with Getty, Istock and other agencies because they basically have been selling them short. It's these narrow minded artists that will never make any money from photography, unless they take off the blinders and do things differently..

Mulligan - Thanks for the feedback. I thought about turning off comments, but comments are good for SEO. I want my article to be found to warn others about the dangers of using images on websites.

Greg - Thanks for the feedback. I totally agree with your analysis. The photographers keep harping on about the need for them to be protected, etc. But they fail to grasp the situation. In cases of innocent infringement, a simple cease and desist would do. These settlement demands are just outrageous (unless you're a photographer -- then screw the little people!).

1347

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 12, 2012, 12:40:58 PM »

i'll see if we can make it happen, time zones may be an issue I think it's like yesterday evening over there.. 

I would be happy to if we can get our schedules to collide and Ian likes the idea.

1348

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 12, 2012, 12:19:29 PM »

I immediateley thought of that when he mentioned skype..would you care to join us as well Jerry?

I nominate Ian for the next "Eli Factor" video. He and Robert (or Matt or all 3) should do a Oovoo video conference and share it here.

Good work Ian.

1349

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 11, 2012, 02:53:30 PM »

I wonder what it would cost to have that PDF translated into english?? it's only 8 pages.. If Scraggy doesn't know someone willing, I'll see if I can find someone..I need to see see and understand this better! Great work Ian!

1350

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

« on: October 10, 2012, 06:23:46 PM »

@ Lisa, you'd be silly to pay the full amount, look into Oscars letter program, for 195.00 you can make it go away for the most part.. But like I sai the chamber will have to retain Oscar and you will need to make arrangements to credit it back or pay it back to the chamber.. I'll hvae to search out the video...but now that I think about it a bit more, it may not apply to them, even tho they are "non-profit" doesn't mean they aren't making money and they most likely are making money in some capacity..