Messages

136

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

« on: June 07, 2013, 12:37:40 PM »

You might want to look into Oscar's letter program. It costs $200 but your client (and you) will no longer be contacted by them. All further collection attempts would need to got to Oscar. It is not a guarantee that they will not sue. But I don't believe it has happened yet.

137

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received letter saying Im a business

« on: June 05, 2013, 03:01:12 AM »

as I'm a former professional athlete have over 10,000 followers each and I will be sure to let people know of Gettys schemes.

GREAT! I love to hear about people getting the word out.

138

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty letter about image included with commercial web design software

« on: May 29, 2013, 12:05:29 AM »

Do you have the original Net Objects discs? Does the package contain a End User Licensing Agreement (EULA). I think this happens frequently, and frankly if you licensed the images with Net Objects, you shouldn't have to take them down. If you do find a license, share that info with GI and make it clear that you will be billing for any additional time to address this matter.

If you don't find the packaging (who keeps software boxes for 5 years besides me), you might contact NetObjects about this situation.

139

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got A Getty Letter Today

« on: May 28, 2013, 12:00:07 PM »

See, if this is the way Getty would handle ALL of these types of cases it would severely diminish the need for this site.

I like the idea of accepting TMonroe's explanation and then maybe introducing him and his daughter to their microstock affiliate and maybe even pointing out where a similar image to the one that was used could be had for a few bucks. THAT is how you turn infringers into customers.

What do you say Getty? Is this the new direction?

140

Getty Images Letter Forum / Copyright in Space

« on: May 24, 2013, 03:08:36 PM »

I'm posting this under the guise that it is copyright related. But it's really because it's an awesome video, I'm a Bowie fan, and I think Commander Chris Hadfield is the ultimate geek rockstar.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-12?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fee%2Fcopyrightinspace

141

Getty Images Letter Forum / Spoke to another meet up group

« on: May 23, 2013, 01:23:27 PM »

Last night I spoke to another Meet Up Group about my personal Getty Image experience. I also shared some of the other stories I have leaned on this site.

One person asked, "Wait. So are you saying these stock image companies won't just send you a DMCA take down notice?" Ha! Ahhh the innocence on naivete. I spent some time explaining that they don't and why. We also went over some of the things developers can do to protect themselves.

Anyway, here is my slide deck: http://slid.es/jerrywitt/avoiding-the-trolls

This time the audience was about 20 or 30 web developers and designers and most hadn't heard about the Extortion Letter scheme. You can see pictures from this group meet up at:
https://www.facebook.com/html5ddla?ref=hl

142

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar Michelen Defends Chaga Against $6 Million Masterfile Lawsuit

« on: May 22, 2013, 03:18:22 PM »

Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is granted

** BLAM  **

Nice work Oscar. With this decision, it should be clear to team MF that you simply cannot say, "but... but... someone in the copyright office once told us it was okay to blanket register images without identifying the actual creator or the image itself."

143

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 77 FR 40268 - Deposit Requirements for ... Databases ... Photographs

« on: May 21, 2013, 12:35:49 PM »

...the copyright claim
extends to the individual photographs
themselves, each of those photographs
must be included as part of the deposit
accompanying the application. As the
Office has previously stated:
[T]he Office rejects the plea of at least one
commenter to permit the use of descriptive
identifying material in lieu of the actual
images.

Gee I wonder what commentator wanted this? It really makes sense in this day and age to describe a photo rather than provide a thumbnail. I guess the trolling industry would welcome anything that makes it harder for ordinary folks to track down whether an image is registered or not.

144

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty getting sued...again

« on: May 18, 2013, 02:04:23 PM »

It does seem odd that Getty did not specify that the image was ONLY available for EDITORIAL. Maybe the plaintiff found his image used in a commercial context and that is the root of his dispute.

145

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Well at least they are trying SOMETHING in the UK

« on: May 16, 2013, 06:44:57 PM »

It seems we ARE at least looking into this. See my post at:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/u-s-house-copyright-hearings/

I have to say that after reading this Politico article and what DavidVgoliath has to say, I have changed my position. It sounds like content creators were left out of the conversation and what is being presented here would shift the burden onto them and only benefit the tech industry.

There needs to be a way to make it easier for creatives to share their work and get paid for it when it is used commercially. But it doesn't look like that is the primary focus of the hearings here or in the UK.

However, I do think now is the perfect time for people to bring the practice of copyright trolling to the attention of their Representative and also Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House subcommittee. 

You can contact Bob at:
http://goodlatte.house.gov/contacts/new

Find your Representative at:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

146

Getty Images Letter Forum / U.S. House Copyright Hearings

« on: May 16, 2013, 06:31:13 PM »

It seems while I was looking "across the pond" at the UK (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/well-at-least-they-are-trying-something-in-the-uk/), a House subcomittee here in the USA also started hearings about copyright. See:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/building-a-real-copyright-consensus-91231.html

Oddly enough it outlines a lot of the same thoughts I presented in the UK thread. I have to say that after reading the article on Politico, I have changed my position. It sounds like what is being presented here would shift the burden onto content creators and only benefit the tech industry.

But for all of us who wish to see changes to the practice of copyright trolling, it seems now would be a good time to bring this practice to the attention of Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia.

147

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty letter received - No clue what to do...

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:57:14 PM »

I think if you spend a few hours more reading you should be able to form a letter. The key, I would say, is to emphasis that this image is everywhere, it's (hopefully) generic, and you simply cannot discuss any settlement until you are provide with a proof of ownership AND certificate of copyright registration if there is one.

No one is going to draft the letter for you. If you want that, the solution is Oscar's letter writing program.

148

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Well at least they are trying SOMETHING in the UK

« on: May 14, 2013, 02:43:03 PM »

What's wrong with a scenario where there is a free to use image registration system? That essentially fixes the problem.

If a person doesn't care enough about their work to register it, it can be re-purposed and even sold by others. If they register it and someone uses it, there could be codified penalties for doing so. And if someone doesn't care to spend the time to check out if an image is freely available they can just pay a content aggregation company that finds images and then does the clearance legwork.

This seems like it would work for everybody. The only issue I see is that if a photographer happens to get that one-in-a-million pic, the whole world could just infringe on it and pay the codified fee. But, what if that fee was $500. Sure the photographer selling an exclusive may get tens of thousands. But instead, he or she has thousands of outlets just using the image and paying the fee. Oh wait! Thousands times $500 equals... a win!

I'm a big fan of win-win-win solutions and this seems like this could work for everybody.

149

Getty Images Letter Forum / Well at least they are trying SOMETHING in the UK

« on: May 13, 2013, 06:33:55 PM »

I came across this article today:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

It's obvious from the article the author is a photographer and doesn't much like the plan. But I say, if photographers think enough of their images they should take a moment to register them with a site such as what is being planned. And meanwhile anyone that posts these images without at least attempting a search, should get penalized.

I personally think a plan like what is being proposed in England CAN be made to work. Just wonder what other people think.

150

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"

« on: May 13, 2013, 12:31:54 PM »

Mulligan, I think K-Mart is going to be the one to come after you:


Personally I think it will be a sad day if the web goes back to some early 90's text-only version because of fear of the trolls. I have to say I am shooting more of my own stuff and I still use images from royalty free sites. I document this meticulously.  If I ever heard from an artist (or even a person that claimed to be the artist) I would remove the image and work with them to discover why a site was offering it for free. I also purchase microstock quite a bit, I'm just careful not to buy from Getty Images subsidiary iStockPhoto.