Messages

136

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Corbis & Superstock being sued...a MUST read!

« on: February 03, 2012, 10:49:05 AM »

This thread made my day.  The irony and justice in it are very satisfying.  There is also a lesson in this for those of us who have vowed to stop using stock photo companies and take our own shots.  We still need to be careful of what we photograph and how we use them . . .

137

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Introduction

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:23:00 PM »

HNRAL,
Welcome to the forum.  Just wanted to point out that in the link you posted (good info, btw, so thanks!) that the plaintiff seems (to me) to be very reasonable in what she is seeking:
"Lopez is seeking an injunction preventing the defendants from selling her images and damages in the form of all profits obtained from the alleged sale of her copyrighted work"
As described in the linked to article, I find this very different from Getty's behavior.  If the article, is indeed accurate, I wish Ms Lopez luck in her complaint against Getty.  I only wish that Getty would be as reasonable with their demands.

138

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Advice needed on dealing with HAN: Just got letter from Aldrich Law Firm

« on: January 21, 2012, 05:08:06 PM »

Just to show , just how in-experienced Mr. Aldrich is in copyright law, have a look at the FAQ from a Getty Images letter:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74355849/Getty-Images-Settlement-Demand-Letter-2008-to-Matthew-Chan?in_collection=3367532

and compare it to Aldrich Law Firms FAQ..... they seem eerily identical, so my question is whom copied whom, is this not copyright infringement, changing company names and just a few words here and there would probably not fall under fair use..

Maybe it's in some stock legal document library that they both licensed and use?

139

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter: Special Report!

« on: January 18, 2012, 11:28:22 PM »

oh, and don't forget to register the copyright, so you can sue Getty for statutory damages and legal fees if they illegaly obtain a copy. lol .

140

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter: Special Report!

« on: January 18, 2012, 10:59:00 PM »

Matthew,

THis is a wonderful initiative.

You've probably already thought about this, but right up front I think there should be a section on risk assessment.  That was the first thing on my mind years ago when I received the letter.

1) worst case scenario outcome vs best case scenario outcome and discussion of likelyhood of each
2) difference in Getty and MF (image(s) might not be registered) and whether statutory damages and legal fees would come into play ... or just damages (market value of image use)
3) a summary of Getty wins and losses in court
4) likelyhood of Getty suing for less than X images

Also some response template letters might be helpful

141

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I found a copyright infringement!

« on: January 17, 2012, 10:07:15 AM »

Wow.  Talk about dripping with irony.  Assuming Ms Stewart was indeed infringing someone's copyright I wonder:
1) if she applies these words to her own actions: " It is theft, plain and
simple.  Yes, it is upsetting to be on the wrong side of the law."
2) if Ms Stewart will find the owner of the copyright and proactively applogize and intiate settlement negotiations with him or her.
3) if finding herself in this situation will ultimately make her a better and more understanding person.

I am hopeful for number 3.

142

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Images from RSS - Getty images letter

« on: January 12, 2012, 05:42:29 PM »

I agree that trying to call hotlinking infringment is ridiculous.  In fact it makes about as much sense to me as trying to sue someone for reflecting a picture in their mirror.  And they continue to try to pull that after the courts have told them no . . . amazing.

143

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network Lawsuit Collection

« on: January 12, 2012, 06:57:14 AM »

Thanks for posting all these documents, Matthew.  Looks like Moku-aina Properties might be planning some defenses we've been talking about here and hoping to see:

"SIXTH DEFENSE" mentions implied license
"SEVENTH DEFENSE" mentions unclean hands, entrapment, enticement and honeypotting

Aloha Plastic Surgery does seem to be on the ropes at the moment.  However, it seems not so hard, at least according to this, to get a default judgement set aside:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgment:

"However, "good cause" is rather easy to meet, compared to other instances where "good cause" might be required. For example, mere "excusable neglect" is, at least at the federal level, a sufficient reason to vacate default judgments.[26] There are often time limits and other requirements"

I do worry that he is trying to get it set aside "pro se".  I think he needs to lawyer up FAST.

144

Getty Images Letter Forum / Vicarious liability

« on: January 11, 2012, 10:32:23 PM »

Just wondering if this might apply to some plaintiffs.  From reading I understand that the Vicarious liability occurs when
a) someone has the right and ability to control the infringing activity (but fails to do so) and
b) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement .

So if some "infringer" (defendant) got the material in question off a free wallpaper site registered with Godaddy (who is apparently good about taking down offending sites when and if contacted), would not the above two tests be satisfied?  Could the defendent successfully sue the plaintiff for Vicarious liability, since he had the right and ability to ask Godaddy to remove the content but did not?

I know this isn't the "normal" application of this theory . . . but is sure seems to fit well to me.

145

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: January 10, 2012, 05:30:59 PM »

would likely deter a judge from finding that infringement did occur..at least that's how I see it, but I could be being overly optimistic..

Why would this affect the judge's judgement on whether or not infringement occurred? 

I'm asking. I make a rule of avoiding rhetorical questions on blogs and forums because they just result in confusion.  Also: I'm not a lawyer so I have no specific experience.  My impression has always been that generally speaking the judge would not consider the  infringements all over the place when assessing whether or not copyright violation occurred but would only affect the size of the award and the likelihood the judge would require the defendant to pay the plaintiffs court costs and attorney's fees.  (The exception where failure to enforce copyright might affect the judges determination of the fact of copyright might arise if the defense is the copying falls under fair use.   )

Lucia,

Perhaps the presence of the material on free wallpaper sites with the knowledge and inaction of the owner could be the foundation for an "implied license" defense (thus no infringement)? 

btw I'm not a lawyer either.

Field v. Google

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15945714264866823005&q=field+v.+google&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1

" Consent to use the copyrighted work need not be manifested verbally and may be inferred based on silence where the copyright holder knows of the use and encourages it."

146

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: January 10, 2012, 05:19:00 PM »

As a practical matter, many of the wallpaper sites are out of the reach of copyright law. Those with .ru domains, or even with .com domains but hosted in russia, poland, cz, china etc are going to be impossible to sue.

Looking at the sites listed in reply 28 above, most are registered with GODADDY, if I interpreted the whois search correctly.

from:

http://www.pixel2life.com/forums/index.php?/topic/20185-dmca-action-a-general-guide-to-taking-action-against-site-rippers-using-dmca-law/

"Step 4 - If you have still not received any action from either party, your final action is to try and get in touch with the Registrar. Send them a letter explaining your situation and be sure to attach your DMCA notice. Registrars like Godaddy will take immediate action, however smaller companies may prove difficult to work with."

Regarding people who have their copyrighted material showing up on GODADDY registered domains for lengthy periods, I have to wonder how hard (or if at all) they have tried to have it removed.

147

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Alternative names for Extortion Letters

« on: January 10, 2012, 06:06:50 AM »

I found it funny that the "other side" has such a problem with the term extortion.  I think that thier theory is that they are being falsely accused of something illegal. Ironically, some of them don't seem to me to have any problem calling innocent infringement "theft".

Looking at the definition on dictionary.com, I can't see how one could say "extortion" always means an illegal act.  I think that this is especially true when tempered (not necessarily) with, and used in context with, explanations that there is no illegal activity.

It is clear to me that "extortion" as used on this site means "oppressive exaction, as of excessive price". 

From Dictionary.com
"ex·tor·tion
noun
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. Law . the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. anything extorted.


ex·tort
verb (used with object)
1. Law . a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.
b. to take illegally by reason of one's office.
2. to compel (something) of a person or thing: Her wit and intelligence extorted their admiration. "

148

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are Copyright Holders Seeding Own Files To Find, Sue Downloaders?

« on: January 09, 2012, 03:49:35 PM »

Just thought I'd pass along some related reading.  I am intrigued by the concept of an "implied license" when the copyright owner doesn't do enough to protect material. One cases I found interesting:

Field v. Google

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15945714264866823005&q=field+v.+google&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1

" Consent to use the copyrighted work need not be manifested verbally and may be inferred based on silence where the copyright holder knows of the use and encourages it."

So, if someone knows that their material is on a free wallpaper site (no matter if they put it there themselves), and does not take the simple step of sending a take-down request would that not be an implied license?  I certainly believe so.

149

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Another Law Firm to add to the growing list of HAN attorneys

« on: December 28, 2011, 12:33:30 AM »

Interesting stuff. I wonder how HAN finds these lawyers?

My guess is through Picscout: http://www.picscout.com/partners/legal-partners.html

150

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Legal Fund

« on: December 28, 2011, 12:32:41 AM »

Many thanks for all you and the ELI team do!