Messages

136

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Review of StopGettyImages.com

« on: July 18, 2012, 03:13:25 PM »

I did find it interesting that there's no mention of PicScout, only TinEye. Maybe this was how the "evidence" was gathered for the infringement they were accused of, or maybe Getty is trying to hide the PicScout hand and pretend a human used TinEye to find the infringement. I wish they'd give us more background on their case. Maybe they have, who knows.

I also found it interesting that the image Getty sent the claim for was not shown on the screen capture, as can be seen in the sample letter. Sloppy at best; I would call this plain incompetence on Getty's part. See the sample here:

http://www.stopgettyimages.com/Getty%20Images%20Report%20Data.pdf

It may have even been a "false positive" that TinEye or PicScout incorrectly flagged as an example of infringement, followed up by robotic humans sending form letters and emails.

This makes the letter seem more like a scam or a joke than a legitimate claim.

Not that it's a legitimate claim anyway, but one would think Getty would be trying to do a better job of making their extortion letter come off as frightening instead of silly.

If this was a false positive, they need to work on proofreading and quality control. Who the heck's reading these before they go out? Look alive people, you're about to get a new boss!

137

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Review of StopGettyImages.com

« on: July 18, 2012, 01:02:52 AM »

The background image could be found in several free wallpaper websites. At least it's not a picture of Hawaii. 

I would advise them to be careful with any image they use on their website, since Getty would love to catch them in the act. I guess the watermark images are not real Getty catalog images.

The design is very user-friendly for an information site. A forum is a bit different and that's why most of them are rather austere in appearance.

The action links are a great idea. Having them on the sidebar as "sticky" items is good too. They're literally putting the tools at their visitors' fingertips as they tell them how and why they should use them.

I think it's nicely done in general, but the specific comments made in this thread are all valid. Especially the one about the pubic information site.

Matthew, did they ask to use your quote at the bottom of this page?

http://www.stopgettyimages.com/attorney_timothy_b_mccormack.htm

Whether they did or not, they sure took a page from your book there. Imitation is definitely a form of flattery.

138

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: Another reversal for the trolls -- and they head right back for more

« on: July 17, 2012, 06:31:34 PM »

I found this to be interesting as it relates to the article "The Relational Contingency of Rights". The article mentions that staying out of court and the scrutiny of judges is good for copyright trolls, bad for copyright users. Mostly because it keeps them working silently away from any attempt at regulation or reform if the court system is unaware of their trolling because it's mostly settled out of court.

This one lawyer is so dumb he doesn't even realize that the last thing he wants to do is bring more attention to the trolling by taking up to higher courts where more light will be shined on the abusive "business model" the trolls have been abusing. This paves the way to reform by potentially setting precedents that will help copyright users defend themselves, make it more difficult and more expensive for trolls to do their trolling, and ultimately may even provoke reform at the regulatory level.

I can't believe the guy got a law degree and passed the bar somewhere. Even a rat will learn from aversive conditioning.

139

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Another reversal for the trolls -- and they head right back for more

« on: July 17, 2012, 11:44:29 AM »

Porn trolls have been floundering in court as of late, and appear to be so dense they're willing to go right back into trolling action so they can get sanctioned some more:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/08573019710/copyright-troll-claims-sanctions-against-him-are-bullst-hes-going-to-keep-sending-questionable-subpoenas.shtml

Here's porn troll Evan Stone's reaction to being sanctioned for being too stupid to follow the court's clearly-stated instructions:

“They just punted, and said you waived your arguments, so we have to affirm,” he told Ars Friday morning. “I'm ready for someone to take this up, this issue of copyright subpoenas in the Fifth Circuit. That's really the bigger issue. I'm just going to move on from this whole sanction thing. I think it's bullshit and I think it shouldn't have happened. I’d rather move on with my life than be right. That's what I’m going to do. We're going to do some more copyright subpoenas, and we're going to bring them before the district and see if they are accepted or denied and then bring them before the Fifth Circuit.”

Evan Stone seems to be quite unclear on the concept. The blowback he's causing will help build the case against abusive trolling. Thanks, Evan Stone, for being so incompetent you're helping our side.

140

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 16, 2012, 12:34:45 AM »

Update: Universal Images Group did get back to me with an answer to my request for an explanation of the attribution of public domain images to their outfit in the Getty editorial catalog. Here's what they wrote:

HI Moe,
Universal Images Group is a supplier of images to Getty.  We aggregate content from museums and private collections and bring them to the marketplace.  So, you’ll likely see a lot of fine art and historical images from UIG on Getty (and other sites).  We also represent individual photographers and contemporary, traditional stock content.
 
There is likely some public domain content within the historical and museum collections we represent. There are also many photographers and stock agencies that will obtain images from government entities, for example NASA, and repurpose them for stock.  The government entity usually just requests that credit be given for each image used )for example “NASA”, “NOAA” etc…).  I think in general many of these public domain images (especially a lot of historic content) would not be available digitally if not for the work of the supplier.  In many cases, the public domain images existed only in transparency or print format before an organization invested time and resources to digitize and keyword the images, and thus they then offer them for licensing in order to justify the investment they made.  I know this is the case with some of the museums and historical collections we represent.  In all honesty, without their investment, a lot of the PD images available through Getty and others would still be sitting in shoeboxes or file cabinets!!
 
I have experience in this industry, but I don’t consider myself an expert.  If you are looking for expert, professional advice for your project I suggest you contact Jim Pickerell (www.jimpickerell.com).  Jim edits an industry newsletter and is widely sought out for expert advice on all things related to stock photography.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he has already published articles on the licensing of public domain images.
 
Good luck,
Dan

Sounds innocent enough, and I agree that people should get paid for their efforts in making these images available in digital form. Someone had to scan the negatives, and hopefully using professional quality equipment.

However, I'm not sure the way to seek compensation for their effort is to sell a license to the public domain image. That's a little too grabby in the intellectual property sense. I think it would be fair to collect a "conversion and distribution fee", something akin to the shipping and handling charges we are used to paying when we order stuff to be delivered to us.

I certainly don't care for the incorrect attribution of the image to anyone except the original photographer. That's just bogus.

141

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

« on: July 13, 2012, 11:58:02 AM »

Great idea, Couch_Potato! When you call them, you could frame your question as a complaint for unfair practices. Might as well get it on Getty's record.

142

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Picscout

« on: July 13, 2012, 11:53:01 AM »

Jerry makes a great point. You could also bring this to Getty's/iStock's attention as well if you choose to contact them. You've been a loyal customer with a history of purchasing their products at their asking price, and this is how they reward you?

Outrageous. 

143

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Topic: ELI "AfterDark"

« on: July 13, 2012, 09:42:19 AM »

Very entertaining  and educational! 

144

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

« on: July 13, 2012, 09:40:36 AM »

That's an interesting angle, Couch_Potato. The following is the explanation given in Getty's boilerplate FAQs:

Getty Images International is an Irish resident company. Pursuant to Irish VAT regulations, legal settlements are subject to Ireland VAT. If your company is VAT registered, please provide us the VAT number before the payment is made so no VAT will be charged. If your company is not VAT registered, the VAT will need to be collected with your settlement payment.

Two things come to mind from this statement. First, that the Irish VAT may work in a similar way for businesses outside Ireland to the way sales tax applies in different states of the US to businesses from out-of-state. The business has to have the right to do business in the state to begin with, and it must register with the proper tax authority to collect sales tax for the state. Second, the language clearly states that the payment is for a settlement. Again the question is raised: Why is a debt collection agency involved with contacting anyone to collect on a settlement that has not even been discussed at any length? The collection agency should not be involved unless the matter has been settled one way or another.

I find it very distasteful that Getty Images is taking the posture that the matter is final without any discussion and that the settlement amount has automatically become a debt that can be collected through an agency.

Again they prove to be acting in bad faith, relying on the fear and/or ignorance of their victim to extort an unfair amount of money for an infringement that may very well be innocent. Worse yet, it may be that Getty does not even have the right to enforce the copyright in question.

145

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

« on: July 12, 2012, 10:13:57 PM »

It's interesting that in the FAQs they explain that "pursuant to Irish VAT regulations, legal settlements are subject to Ireland VAT."

In another thread we were discussing sales tax being added to claims in some states in the US. I wonder if they explain it as neatly in those extortion letters.

146

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court

« on: July 12, 2012, 09:03:54 PM »

Congratulations, Oscar! This is HUGE. This is a big step towards taking away the gill nets that are an important part of the "strategic litigation business model."

Now they have to register the images individually and properly follow the guidelines set by the law. It's the least they could be forced to do in the asymmetrical playing field they're currently abusing.

Thanks for your hard work in making this happen!

147

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Picscout

« on: July 12, 2012, 02:56:46 PM »

They sent you a PicScout image grab but you never used the image? I wonder if they have the wrong person. Perhaps if you share the original letter with Matthew Chan we could help you analyze the claim to see if there's any merit to it.

It would also be helpful if you send Matthew the NCS IP Solution letter so that we can see if they have any right to be contacting you to make any kind of claim.

Do not pay them any money. It's most likely they're trying to scare you into paying them without having any legal standing to make this claim. If you are correct about not having ever used the picture, they have no right to bother you.

Search this forum using the Google search bar on top of the page for "Canada" and you will find many posts discussing the legal aspects of these claims as well as the specifics of how copyright law applies to Canada.

I hope the stress goes away soon, it's always troubling to be threatened with legal action. The more you learn about these Getty people on this forum, the more you will feel that the right thing to do is fight back and stand for your rights.

By the way, I'm not sure if the FDPCA applies to Canada. Since we have a Fair Trade Agreement between the US and Canada, it may be that the same rules apply. However, I'm not a lawyer so I will defer to the more experienced members of the forum, such as SoylentGreen, to advise on that point.

148

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

« on: July 11, 2012, 12:21:23 PM »

Good for Larry Berman and score yet another Plus One for Oscar beating back the trolls! Here's Steve Pigeon's spin on their failed extortion attempt:

Steve Pigeon, president of Masterfile contacted me with the following information. "When the facts surrounding your case were brought to my attention on January 4th, I determined that yours was a usage that Masterfile would have permitted without charge in the normal course of business and our Copyright Compliance Officer immediately notified you of this decision. As I am sure you know, copyright infringement on the Internet is a huge issue for owners of intellectual property. Masterfile works diligently to monitor unauthorized usages and ensure that we and our contributing photographers are compensated for all commercial uses of our images. It's a tough part of our business but it's a necessary function of a company that licenses exclusive rights-managed images."

In other words, he told his "compliance team:"

"Drop that one, boys, Oscar Michelen's got the guy's back and next thing ELI's making highly-Google-ranked memes with my face and we look like the bullies we are. Now write me some p.r. doublespeak that makes me look like The Man and find another sucker to troll that doesn't know Michelen, Matthew Chan or ELI."

149

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 11, 2012, 12:13:21 PM »

You're right, Couch_Potato, it hasn't happened as far as anyone knows — or is able to tell.

If anyone has indeed been trolled for any of the archive images and they settled (like fools!), they were probably forced to sign nondisclosure agreements.

Even if they realized they got hosed, they probably would be too chicken to take on the big bad corporate wolf that is Getty, which is the main reason why they would roll over and pay them in the first place.

150

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 10, 2012, 10:55:28 PM »

You're absolutely right, SoylentGreen. On all counts. The best explanation for why Getty is, er, gettying away with this is that no one has challenged this practice, which has been coined as "Copyfraud" by Jason Mazzone, Associate Professor at Brooklyn Law School:

Mazzone argues that copyfraud is usually successful because there are few and weak laws criminalizing false statements about copyrights and lax enforcement of such laws and because few people are competent enough to give legal advice on the copyright status of commandeered material.[1]:1029-30

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

The state of Copyright Law is weaker than we think! There's plenty of room for improvement as it stands. Like S.G. says, people don't fight and so the trolls are winning by default.

By the way, I searched Google for "is it fraud to sell public domain images?" and Getty images was mentioned all over the first page results. Wow.