Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Katerina

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16
If such a case, then how come that they send demand letters stating about "infringement of their registered image"? It is lie from the very beginning then!

18
At least you do everything you can to protect your works:
"I do put lower resolution images online, I disable right click downloading (a popup opens with a copyright warning if someone tries right clicking), I have a copyright notice on each image page and I began loading copyright/contact info into the exif data of each image about a year ago. All are reasonable and prudent measures." And what about Masterfile or Getty?
I do understand that infringement still happens and will happen, and you have full right to force it. But do you do this in the way that Getty or Masterfile does?
Don't get me wrong. I do respect the copyright and agree that artists should be paid for their works. I just do not agree with tactics of these companies. That's what gathers people here.
I want these companies to be reasonable. True, that's their choice to put the copyright notice or not. But if they decide not to, then they shouldn't threaten with up to $150 000 for gamages (for willfull infringement, btw)

19
I would also like to add that I am working on a sort of open letter, which I am going to publish in schools, universities, internet - wherever is possible. In this letter I am sharing my story - well, in general the story of everyone else who is here. This is just to attract public attention to this issue with Getty and Masterfile. There are still people who don't know about this forum, who get scared and pay or ignore. I decided to do this for a reason. Here is the extract from my email to Masterfile:
"After some intensive research I have found that the infringement cases for images are very common in the United States and there are thousands of people who got the letters of demand from the companies like your, including yours. Most of them ordered their websites from third parties or didn’t see any signs of copyrighted work either. It means, that you are aware of that internet users are tended to use the images found in internet using the most common search engines – Google, Yahoo, etc., you know that there is a high possibility of infringement. You say in your letter that you take the infringement as a serious matter (my note: in the next letter they stated that have loss and damages from infringement), so what do you do to prevent future infringement? I have found out, that you use the watermark when images are posted on your site only. Did you put copyright signs or watermarks on the pictures that could easily be found using search engines? How did you make it difficult to use your work without your permission? Did you enable right click function of “save the image as”? Why do not you send notices of copyright violations with the request to remove immediately first?"
Their answer was:
"Masterfile is in the business of licensing rights-managed images for commercial reproduction by clients around the world.  We have been doing so for nearly 30 years.  While we would prefer if end users licensed our material legally, unfortunately this is not always the case.  As such, we must dedicate valuable resources which could be utilized elsewhere to locating infringing use of our intellectual property, and enforcing our copyright.  We do this because the unauthorized use of our images negatively affects us and our artists." and "There is no requirement or obligation for a copyright-owner to assign a copyright symbol, watermark or any other type of identification to a copyright-protected work in order to protect their rights to their intellectual property.  It is solely the responsibility of the end user, the party publishing the intellectual property, to ensure that they are not infringing on the rights of any party prior to publishing said material."
You can see that we didn't get responses on the questions asked. For me it sounds like "I don't want to do anything to protect my works, but I want to get full recover for the damages if this happens". It didn't prove that settlement letters are their buisenss model, but it leaves to to think this. They know that people will infringe, and it is good for them. So, then why to rise this issue in public? The less people know, the more money they will get. That's why I decided to publish the letter, to have people know about what the hell is going on. I am still working on it, and have it in a very raw draft so  far. As soon as I am done, I will send it to Matt or post here as the beginning.
I also think to create a short poll that can be run on a facebook may be, or, again, in universitites, work places, etc to see in percentages how many average americans (not lawyers, artists - categories which deal with copyryghts on daily basis) know what  constitutes copyright infringement (downloading movies, music, images, etc.). If there is a great percent of americans who don't know, then, again, it will show that there can be a lot of potential infringement - which is good for Getty, Masterfile and others (and considering the fact that they do not do anything to prevent their damages from infringement.....;))
If we cannot get necessary proves for class action lawsuit or barrirty, may be if we get all the smallest pieces all together, this will help?
I just need to know what you guys think of it, if it all worth of doing this.

20
Ask for a registration number from Masterfile. When we did this, they sent the registration document from Copyright Office. There will be a registration number. Check this number with copyright office - you will see if this is a compilation or a single image (which I doubt), also, pay attention if the artist is listed.

21
Wow! That's something! Getty is getting sued, Rightheaven is getting sued, there should be at least one more company to added to the list :)
Well, considering that 90%of Getty's images are not even registered - it can be not difficult to fight and prove "barrarty" claim against them (in addition to that infringement claim that was filed for court pictures). But what about Masterfile? They register images (well, yes, in compilation) having anagreements with photograthets, where it was written that they give full authority to sue on their behalf? And Masterfile sues......

22
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Karma is a wonderful thing
« on: August 18, 2011, 03:05:46 PM »
I look forward to updates on this, too! :D

23
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice
« on: August 18, 2011, 02:09:26 PM »
I know.... We got this feeling from correspondence with them.

24
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice
« on: August 18, 2011, 12:13:05 PM »
Lol! Funny :)
Thanks for support :)

25
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Karma is a wonderful thing
« on: August 18, 2011, 12:10:33 PM »
Ha! Sweeeeeeet!
I hope that someone will be able to catch Masterfile on this too!

26
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice
« on: August 17, 2011, 12:45:22 PM »
True, I have the same question. But, I think that the only way to check if the image in question is really associated to that registration and author is to request this service from Copyright office, but there was a topic, that most of CDs are corrupted, so you still cannot see, and you have to pay for this, but the court can accept the sworn statement that the image in question is on that CD anyway. So?
Confusing......Muensch case is written in confusing way, I read it several time........

27
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice
« on: August 17, 2011, 10:40:27 AM »
Well, I got totally confused.
Masterfile registers images in compilations, and is the author of this compilation even though is not the author of each particular image. So, this compilation, the catalog, is their registered work, thus using one or several images from their catalog is using some part of their registered work, right? So, if I understand correctly, they have all rights to claim damages from infringements of their registered work – compilation. Right? Then how does Muench case apply here, saying that they cannot claim damages unless they register each particular image? May be I am misunderstanding smth…… or got overhelmed....
Any comments on this?

28
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice
« on: August 16, 2011, 04:09:03 PM »
Hey, guys, could you please help me to understand this:
"§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully." (employing preexisting material - in case of Getty and Masterfile, does this term mean images taken by photographers?)

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work (if Masterfile is the author of compilation, but is not the author of the images taken by photographers, but has agreement with them - does it apply here?), as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."
any ideas?

29
It was also posted in the forum that 85% of stock photo agencies are from infringement claims. Where are the resources, proving that this is a business model, registering images in US Copyright office, using US copyright law, and demand thousands of dollars from US residents to be paid to Canadian company? Can it be considered as an abuse of US copyright law and usage in purpose of enrichment? this is just my thought......
any ideas?

30
true - everything you say can be used against you!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.