Messages

1456

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Glen Carner's First 8 Questions for Matthew Chan

« on: June 01, 2012, 07:59:37 PM »

bernicem77, it is clear that it is just about the money and that’s all. HAN, MF, Getty and the rest don’t care what reasons you have as to how/why the alleged infringing image(s) appeared on peoples sites, nor do they care if you can 100% prove any infringement is innocent and non-willful, they just want the money.  HAN has already stated that 50% of their revenue comes from the collection side of the business.  Unfortunately until it no longer is profitable to bully, harass and extort money from people it will continue since fairness, customer service and common sense are words not included in their current business model.  Apparently 50% of the bottom line is worth negative press, loss of potential customers and your company’s reputation being in the toilet.

Due to recent court rulings where judges are showing they are fed up with the judicial system being used as a means of generating income rather than justice, a growing community of people learning how to fight back thanks to ELI and finally people who when sued will file a counter suit putting the trolling companies on the defensive I think we are on the verge of being able to turn the tide.

Mr. Carner talks about defending the rights of the artists his company represents, and believe me I am all for true copyright enforcement, but what about the rights of the individuals and small businesses who get extortion demand letters asking for many many times an images worth. 

Again, thanks to ELI and the knowledge base of its members I have been able to educate myself and no longer fear my situation as it is nowhere near as dire as my demand letter implied, not to say I take the situation lightly either.  I know what to expect and if it should come to it I am prepared to vigorously fight with everything means available to me. 

1457

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Glen Carner's First 8 Questions for Matthew Chan

« on: June 01, 2012, 05:46:18 PM »

Welcome to the forum Bruce, very good comment concise and to the point.

Dear Mr. Carner-
Thank you for participating in this forum.
Allow me to answer all the questions for you in a painfully simple manner:
If you find unlicensed use of an image send me a firm, but polite, C&D letter.  I will stop.  If not, sue me.

I am an innkeeper.  I employed an outside web design firm who used Getty images without a license.  Getty did not ask me to stop, their first request amounted to over 1% of my annual gross sales.  There was no "willfull intent" on my part, there was no knowledge of the infraction.  Getty's actions were clearly aimed at extortion of funds, not protecting the artist.

Make your first contact a C&D request, not a threat.

Simple.

Problem solved.

1458

Legal Controversies Forum / Wi-Fi use effecting Copyright Trolls

« on: June 01, 2012, 09:17:26 AM »

Here’s an interesting article I found talking about how the growing use of Wi-Fi will make it tougher for the trolls.  I believe I remember reading something like this over in the P2P/Bit Torrent forums where a judge throughout or dismissed  some of the claims as the defendants said they were on open and unsecured Wi-Fi networks and anyone could have accessed there IP address.  I am getting ready to head out to work so I don’t have time to find the link to the thread on the P2P forum but will look for it tonight when I get home.

Matt, I wasn’t quite sure where to place this thread, if you think it would be better in another forum feel free to move it.

http://dietrolldie.com/2012/05/30/wifi-accounts-for-approx-40-of-internet-traffic-in-2011-relevent-to-copyright-trolling/

1459

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Another Lawyer Feeding Frenzy

« on: May 31, 2012, 03:06:20 PM »

Good article, I know it’s a somewhat different situation but I think Getty will face similar problems with lawyers circling if they go public, not as a result of glitches but from their trolling activities.  A good line from the article Getty should think about before going public was:

“If you're Facebook, you're making a list of all the regulators you have to deal with, and identifying some you want to deal with more quickly than others," Garber said.

I think Getty might have a lot to deal with if they went public and opened up their books for all to see.

1460

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Disgruntled gentleman honestly thinks he can strip Google of its trademar

« on: May 31, 2012, 02:54:51 PM »

Good article buddhapi and thanks for sharing.  I thought it interesting as I was reading it, I was thinking about Kleenex, I can’t tell you how many times when doing a grocery list my wife asked if I wanted any particular brand of Kleenex.  Then low and behold farther down in the article I see where Kleenex has to fight to keep its brand name for just that reason.  I never knew if your brand becomes a generic term you can lose the rights to it.  Work hard become the best, most recognized in your field and lose the rights to your name for it. Doesn’t seem fair.

Another from the wacky world of silly and crazy lawsuits:

http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/25/google-sued-over-trademark/

1461

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Taking a stand and fighting back first!

« on: May 31, 2012, 02:42:25 PM »

Interesting article but I agree with Peeved, he is just using the system because he can which is exactly what the Getty, HAN/VKT and the rest of the trolls are doing.  I understand standing up for your rights, if the collectors were calling him and threating him while he is trying to work it out then yes, sue them, but when you sit on your couch and wait for them to call with your list of “Bait questions” ready and wait for someone to slip and say the wrong thing so you can sue them that’s wrong too.  He’s just a new “little guy” form of troll.

HAN/VKT- $1000.00 bucks an image for baited wallpaper sites.

Craig Cunningham - 1000.00 bucks for a wrong answers to baited questions from bill collectors (trying to collect on legitimate debt BTW)

Any difference, not in my opinion.  Just sayin....

1462

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Wacky Copyright Holders Shoot Themselves in the Foot

« on: May 31, 2012, 02:02:02 PM »

Do you think these companies are starting to use bots to search out for their material and then someone is just issuing the DMCA takedowns without checking on what the links are?  I know in large companies sometimes the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing as you said, but who would request take downs on your own trailers, delist your movie on a site that does reviews for movie goers or a Wikipedia listing on your own movie?  As much as I chuckled reading the article something doesn’t seem quite right here.

It seems the zeal used by some companies to issue DMCA take down notices actually trumps their own marketing efforts. These are mostly film studios and record companies where the left hand didn't seem to know what the right hand was doing.

1463

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: Funny Video About Recent P2P/Bittorrent Legal Extortion Story

« on: May 30, 2012, 07:32:54 PM »

Great video Matt, thanks for sharing and I will check out the website too!

1464

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: Furious judge decries "blizzard" of copyright troll lawsuits

« on: May 30, 2012, 07:25:17 PM »

I am so glad to see more rulings like this, a message needs to be sent that the courts should not be used for profit based extortionist business practices.

1465

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images/Memorial Day Welcome Home surprise...

« on: May 30, 2012, 06:45:02 PM »

Just be careful if you decide to do this as it works both ways.  Good luck and please keep us posted.

Every misstatement, every time they say something and it's recorded, they can't take it back. 

1466

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: HAN / Copyright Services International Settlement Notification Phone Call

« on: May 30, 2012, 06:39:32 PM »

Wow this is going to be a great thread and Glen, I give you credit for having the courage to come here and talk to us.  Like mcfilms said, I do not agree with your current business model.  I would like to know how you justify asking for outrages amounts after it is shown that the person has either innocently or un-willfully infringed an image.  How can companies like HAN/VKT seem to turn a blind eye to anyone who can show they have used one of your images innocently? Why not a simple cease and desist letter or if you/HAN feel there must be damages paid not the 200.00 minimum fine that is routinely used for innocent/ non-willful infringers.   I know what the law says, you are guilty regardless of how the image was obtained but wouldn’t it serve your company, its reputation, and the artist you represent much better to show a little compassion and understanding rather than demanding outrages sums and threatening jail time?

Again Glen, I thank you and I appreciate your willingness to come and talk to us and I hope you will remain a part of this forum.

I would also like to invite any Getty representatives to show the same amount of courage Glen has shown and join us.  I personally have MANY questions I would like answered from you.

I look foward to posting on these forums daily and addressing the concerns that have been brought up  on the appropriate thread.  The outcome may not be as glamorous or conspiratorial as expected but there is still plenty of anger and frustration to go around as a result of the current law and how it's utilized by stock photo agencies.  I don't have as much flexibility on the HAN issues but will do my best to contribute as a member of CSI.  Thanks guys and expect more tomorrow.

1467

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Changes Watermark, Tries to Change Image

« on: May 30, 2012, 04:00:28 PM »

Interesting question Doc, I don’t know if it’s a clue or not but it should certainly help anyone find the image, although I would never support them in any way until they changed their policies.  As buddhapi said, I would just try to bypass them and talk to the artist directly if I should ever need an image.

I would welcome Getty Images going public for a couple of reasons.  First, there would be a wealth of information about their business structure and practices that would have to be released and made public prior to an IPO that could be used to support our cause and help take the fight to Getty.  Secondly, I think that having made all this information public any potential shareholders would not look to kindly on the current extortionist practices of the Copyright Compliance department making it a business practice to harass people and small business who can clearly prove they are non-willful or innocent infringers, demanding outrages sums rather than a simple cease and desist or license the image request. 

As for getting a good IPO price, in my opinion which this whole thing is, I think they would face the same kind of issues that Facebook is having.  Computer glitches on opening day aside their stock has continued to fall partly due to several lawsuits filed against them.  I can see the same happening to Getty, there are a lot of people out there who have been treated badly and unfairly that would love a look at Getty’s files.  I hope Getty does go public though as it would probably result in them having to change the way they do business or watch their stock continue to fall.

That is curious.  Could this be another clue to the possibility of their going public?  If they have negative attachment to their icon's, it would make sense that they would try to distance themselves from it to getter a better IPO price.

1468

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pro photographer + expert witness Sedlik comments on copyright infringements

« on: May 27, 2012, 06:19:39 PM »

You and all the ELI members are very welcome!  I saw buddhapi’s post and I have no doubt that there are many issues with the Stone Collection.  Hopefully Getty will soon realize that I am not the low hanging fruit they originally thought I was and move on.  My Getty defense folder is getting thicker by the week with all the great information found through research and the ELI sites. 

Thanks for your kind words, "Keepfighting".

Buddhapi mentioned "93,146 images in the same month".  That's quite lot.
Even if the images were registered in several compilations, they'd still contain many, many images.
I'm willing to bet that there's both published unpublished images in all those collections.
The Copyright office states very plainly that these cannot be combined; so that's a showstopper right there.

In addition to this, imagine if there was a lawsuit and Getty/Stone were made to account for what was published where, and when.
That would be quite a major undertaking for them, and any images unaccounted for or unpublished (there's probably hundreds) would weaken their case severely.
Heck, courts have already dismissed copyright lawsuits partly on the basis of the images being registered as part of a compilation.

S.G.

1469

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: DISH Skipping TV Commercials is Copyright Infringement?

« on: May 27, 2012, 05:50:04 PM »

"I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom."

What!?!  How gracious of them, sound almost like when I was a kid and had to raise my hand in class.  May I go to the bathroom please?  What until the Tidycats  commercial is over and then you can go.  Give me a break.

I don’t have dish or TiVo, I do have Cable with a lot of free On Demand programming where you can go back and watch almost any show you may have missed.  Which is nice as I work ALOT.

Solution #1
The solution is out there and easy for the networks that want to be like that.  Most of the On Demand shows on cable you can pause, stop rewind and fast forward.  When the commercials come up we hit the FF button and zip past.  If we watch a show on some of the major networks a message pops up at the beginning stating that the FF function is disabled on this show and will be replayed as it originally aired with commercials.  I’m sure that Dish and TiVo can do something similar by disabling the skip function on programs they feel necessary.

Solution #2
Make the commercials as good as the Super Bowl commercials and we’ll watch them.

from 2002:

...Asked about viewers who go to the bathroom during commercial breaks, Kellner responded, "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.

1470

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pro photographer + expert witness Sedlik comments on copyright infringements

« on: May 27, 2012, 04:20:07 PM »

Great thread S.G.  There is a lot to digest here.  One thing I noticed was buddhapi’s comment on the "Stone Collection" being registered in bulk.  The image Getty is accusing me of infringing is from the Stone collection.  I can see why Getty is unwilling to provide me any information except through the discovery process.   Thanks to all again for their research and knowledge that makes it possible for letter recipients to defend themselves against Getty’s extortionist business practices.

something else I'm interested in is this:

"You must also separate your published images by year of first publication, so images published in December must be separately registered from images published in the following month."

Has it been stated that the Tony Stone Collection of images which Getty now owns was registered in bulk as a compilation? if so I would be interested to know how it would be possible to shoot, edit, process, cull, etc 93,146 images in the same month. or is this collections split into many smaller chunks?