Messages

1351

Legal Controversies Forum / Hard Drive Productions answers Complaint in Abrahams Case

« on: July 06, 2012, 08:37:20 PM »

An article about one of the Hard Drive Productions lawsuits from the DieTrollDie website.

Well on 20 Jun 12, Hard Drive Productions (HDP)/Brett Gibbs (Prenda) finally answered Mr. Abrahams first amended complaint (FAC).   HD_Answer_01006(CA)    Docket.    A blindly simple response of basically denying the core issues.

http://dietrolldie.com/2012/07/06/6-jul-12-update-hard-drive-productions-answers-first-amended-complaint-case-312-cv-01006-seth-abrahams/

1352

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 06, 2012, 05:59:22 PM »

I remember reading an article back in May about the possibility of Getty going public and being sold but I haven't really heard any more about it so thanks for the post and the update.

After reading the new article I think I'm going to expand my letter writing campaign to include the companies listed in the article as potential buyers. I'm going to let them know that they should look into Getty's current business model of demand letters, look into complaints filed with the Atty. Gen.'s office as well as stop by Eli or just do a simple Google search about the company that they are interested in buying and take a look at what pops up on the first page. Remind them as I'm sure that they know Getty already has a class-action lawsuit against them in Israel and that there's a movement growing in the states for the same thing. So unless they're looking to purchase this company to clean house they might want to consider abandoning ship because Getty should be renamed the Titanic and at this stage in the game the captain has just ordered more speed and they're heading blindly into the ice fields. If Getty wishes to continue pursuing their current business model I don't think it will be too long until they hit the iceberg.

1353

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: July 05, 2012, 05:12:25 PM »

That one works, thanks Ian!

TRY THIS LINK

www.cardozo.yu.edu/(S(3clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x))/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524

Ian

1354

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: July 05, 2012, 07:43:14 AM »

Hey Ian, thanks for the article, I would like to read this but I think there may be a problem with the link.  When I click it I get a server error saying the resource is not found.

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law has written a short piece on our lawsuit.

http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/%28S%283clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x%29%29/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524

It misses the important point that Marot Images owned no rights to sue at all , but it's still pertinent to the behavior of copyright trolls in the USA.

Professors Alex Stein and Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn Law School) wrote an article “The Relational Contingency of Rights” that will soon appear in the Virginia Law Review.  This article demonstrates that legal rights afford no meaningful protection against challengers who can litigate more cheaply than the rightholder and who can use this advantage to force the rightholder to give up her entitlement.

These challengers include large companies that acquired portfolios of copyrighted photos available on the Internet. Those companies retain attorneys at a sharply discounted fee, who aggressively sue unsuspecting fair users of those photos.  These un-meritorious suits virtually never go to trial because of the high cost of defense.  The companies offer lawful users of their photos an opportunity to avoid this cost by paying the company a lesser amount in a settlement.  To put an end to this extortionary practice, Parchomovsky and Stein have proposed a number of measures that include punitive damages.

This proposal has now been taken to court in Israel.  An individual who refused to surrender to a pressing settlement demand filed a class action for over $10M against an Israeli company associated with a multinational copyright giant, Getty Images.  If successful, this action might prompt similar suits against copyright trolls across the world.

The link to the article - “The Relational Contingency of Rights” is above.

1355

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pinterest blocks Getty's Picscout infringement bot?

« on: July 04, 2012, 10:11:53 PM »

I bet Klein wishes he never gave that interview about now.

1356

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another UK Getty 'Love Letter'

« on: July 04, 2012, 06:23:25 PM »

Keep us posted as to what happens please.

Thanks Greg.

I've written my response again, it is going out.
I dont think ignoring it would be right.

Basically just enclosing copy of first letter, telling them tp reply to that, couple of references to the Jonathan Klein IP video on techCrunch and explaining no money made/providing free service etc.

And adding in that if I dont get all the info requested within 30 days, I assume matter is closed. Will see what happens with it.

1357

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pinterest blocks Getty's Picscout infringement bot?

« on: July 04, 2012, 06:12:04 PM »

That is interesting, thanks for the posting this SG

1358

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

« on: July 04, 2012, 03:45:50 PM »

Moe , that is actually pretty amazing but at the same time not too surprising. What we have here is Getty speaking out of both sides of their mouth, on one hand they're saying that some of the images that they have they don't even know who the copyright holder is or if the copyright even exists yet in email that Robert posted from Getty copyright compliance specialist Nancy Monson she states the following:

“Copyright exists the moment a photograph is created and copyright registration is not a requirement of copyright ownership.”

So when it comes to images that they acquire, they claim that copyright may not even exist but when it comes to an image that is been allegedly infringed upon then copyright exists from the moment the photograph is created with or without registration. Lets go back to that first part, Getty Googles up an image and decide they like it, can't figure out who owns it and then says that they cannot locate the owner and are not aware if the copyright even exists on the image but we will lease it to you for X amount of dollars. Can you say willful infringement? They are taking someone else's image whose copyright according Ms. Monson existed from the moment that the photograph was created and they are now leasing it for profit. Wow, just wow.

Thanks again for posting that image guarantee Moe, I'm going to print this out and add this to my Getty file which is growing extremely thick of late. I almost wish Getty was stupid enough to sue me as I have collected enough stuff to make them answer for in a countersuit that it would give them a permanent butt pucker that would last till the next millennium.

1359

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

« on: July 04, 2012, 12:19:33 AM »

Well it appears that all of the pressure, Internet coverage, bad publicity, his wife's mental meltdown rant and the fact that the EFF joined in the fight proved to be too much for Carreon. It was announced yesterday in this article on the EFF website that Carreon has dropped his lawsuit against the oatmeal creator Matthew Inman. Here is the link to the article

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/charles-carreon-drops-bogus-lawsuit-against-oatmeal-creator

1360

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

« on: July 04, 2012, 12:13:02 AM »

Yeah, that's true SG they never have and they never will because they can't. The only time that my special Getty friend Douglas Bieker ever address the subject he told me to go to the Getty website and enter the image number and view the image and that should be all the proof that I need. I got a really good chuckle out of that.

I run a remodeling/handyman business and for the most part my customers know what they will pay in advance of any work being done, however there are times were unexpected issues arise and I must do extra work to ensure the job is done correctly. I could never imagine how a customer would react or how long I would stay in business if when asked to justify the additional expense and how I arrived at the new number if I replied to my customer I will only reveal this information to you through the process of discovery (when I sue you), now you need to pay me.

I agree with you 100 percent, Greg.

My reasoning is that one can give the alleged copyright holder a chance to prove the claim.
If they don't (and Getty never has to my recollection), then you have good cause to ignore them.

Of course, a statement of "we don't have to prove anything" is an outright lie, and it simply means that they're pulling a scam.

S.G.

1361

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

« on: July 03, 2012, 08:36:29 PM »

I don't ever remember while reading through the forums that Getty has ever actually sent anybody proof. I think their standard line that they reply to you with is that they will provide proof only during discovery, which is their way of trying to frighten you into paying by saying We'll show you proof when we sue you and it's too late.  Well I say, Getty v. Advernet where they won by default and they got nothing for the 35 images that they sued over because not one of them would hold up in court.

I also don't even think they know if the paperwork is done correctly for any image that they have. I remember Robert's post of the letter sent to him via PM that was from Getty copyright specialist Nancy Monson which said:

Copyright exists the moment a photograph is created and copyright registration is not a requirement of copyright ownership. Getty Images does not own the image. Getty Images has contracts with its contributing photographers who are the copyright holders and owners of the images. The contributor agreement contains representations and warranties that the contributor is the sole copyright owner. Consequently, Getty Images does not require contributors to provide Getty Images with certificates of registration and leaves the option of copyright registration to the individual photographer. Due to confidentiality concerns, Getty Images does not provide copies of our contributor contracts or copyright registration at this time.

But I'm with you on this SG, and that is basically what I have told my Getty specialist that until he produces proof that they own rights to this image we have nothing further to discuss.

If the ad was actually hosted on your site, don't admit any wrongdoing.
But do ask for proof of their copyright ownership of the image.
If they refuse to provide any proof (which means that they don't own it), then you're basically off the hook on this. S.G.

1362

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today.. What do you think of my response?

« on: July 03, 2012, 08:23:18 PM »

I too would love to see it happen.

1363

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: not getty / letter related...totally off topic

« on: July 02, 2012, 04:58:16 PM »

And we miss having your input when your not around, have a great trip, relax and enjoy time with the family, the trolls will still be here when you get back

1364

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Upcoming "The ELI Factor" recording

« on: July 02, 2012, 04:52:38 PM »

I am usually done with work and home by 9pm EST.  I can do pretty much any day as long as it's around 9ish.  This sounds like a great format and I can't wait to see it.

1365

Legal Controversies Forum / Judge reconsiders his order on Prenda case

« on: June 29, 2012, 11:57:27 PM »

Good news in one of the Prenda the cases, the judge has reconsidered his decision and granted a motion for a protective order preventing Prenda from obtaining personal information of does in the case.

http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/06/29/judge-reconsiders-his-order-to-allow-early-discovery-forbids-prenda-to-harass-co-conspirators/