16
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.
« on: November 23, 2014, 04:36:14 PM »
I didn't think you meant me. It just prompted me to think about the date!
| 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.
17
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.
« on: November 23, 2014, 04:16:48 PM »
I posted about gettign the Getty letter on Nov. 29, 2011. So... soon. Very soon!
18
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.
« on: November 23, 2014, 04:14:22 PM »
My three years is just about here... I've got to check the date!
19
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Roca Labs Sues First First Amendment Big-Dog Lawyer Marc Randazza for Defamation
« on: November 12, 2014, 09:07:27 AM »
By the way, one of the main ingredients in their diet product is "Konjac gluccomanan". (See http://mini-gastric-bypass.me/answers/no-surgery/medical-evidence-for-success) This is a fairly inexpensive ingredient which can be bought at health food stores. It's ... slimy. You can put some in a glass of water and drink it-- it gives a slight full feeling. It's also what used to make shiritake noodles (and is the 'secret' to why those have practically zero calories.) Some people like these, some hate them. They have a very slight 'fishy' taste and oder. But yes, they makes you feel full relative to a soup that doesn't have these in them. (They have pretty much zero calories.)
People who want to try it could do so pretty cheaply.
People who want to try it could do so pretty cheaply.
20
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hacker blog discussing picscout.
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:38:21 PM »What I like is that he exposes how Getty's program works. Knowing that is the first step to plotting a strategy for how to deal with your particular situation. Heck, their are many attorneys, who are not in the digital image field but get asked for their opinion of what someone should do with their Getty letter. This roadmap of how Getty works would be very helpful to these attorneys in discussing potential strategies and options for their clients.Agreed.
He also exposes the fact that Getty's program is automated and accuses people before humans even look at the case. Seeing how their program works would make it a lot easier for a judge or bar association to consider that Getty's operation may be tantamount to extortion. The defense of "I am strongly advocating on behalf of my client (Getty) doesn't really fly when this guy proves that no humans looked at the offense until after they received a response to their troll letter.I was very happy to see he had server logs and looked at them. I don't store mine for very long, so I couldn't conveniently do that when I got my letter.
I also noticed that his images were hotlinked. I think they were hotlinked from a googleusercontent.whatever account the blogger controls, so Perfect 10 v Amazon (google?) probably wouldn't protect him. But I can't help wondering if the bot still doesn't examine where the images are hosted.
21
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hacker blog discussing picscout.
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:42:51 AM »
stinger,
Bear in mind that worked for him because his use was fair use. His position was very strong. Also, he does understand copyright law and knew who to reach out to.
People who did violate copyright in someway need to understand they aren't as well positioned as he was.
One of the difficulty with Getty Letter recipients is that people getting letters fall in a huge range going from those who didn't even copy to some who really were violating both in spirit and practice. Sometimes the latter don't really understand copyright-- but they did violate. The legal issue in those cases tend to be: How much would a judge award? Often not enough to make it worth Getty's while to file a case. Will Getty have their ownership/ contractual documents well organized? It appears often they don't have documentation that lets them win a case. And so on. Be we all know that sometimes Getty Images does have traceable documentation, and a violator so flagrant no one can get behind him comes along. (Wasn't there a group that made web pages for Veterenarians?)
So: On the one hand, we need people to understand that Getty sends out letters willy-nilly with -- apparently-- little checking. Accusations are sometimes beyond tenuous. On the other hand: some people did violate. How feisty you can be does depends somewhat on how strong or weak their case is.
Bear in mind that worked for him because his use was fair use. His position was very strong. Also, he does understand copyright law and knew who to reach out to.
People who did violate copyright in someway need to understand they aren't as well positioned as he was.
One of the difficulty with Getty Letter recipients is that people getting letters fall in a huge range going from those who didn't even copy to some who really were violating both in spirit and practice. Sometimes the latter don't really understand copyright-- but they did violate. The legal issue in those cases tend to be: How much would a judge award? Often not enough to make it worth Getty's while to file a case. Will Getty have their ownership/ contractual documents well organized? It appears often they don't have documentation that lets them win a case. And so on. Be we all know that sometimes Getty Images does have traceable documentation, and a violator so flagrant no one can get behind him comes along. (Wasn't there a group that made web pages for Veterenarians?)
So: On the one hand, we need people to understand that Getty sends out letters willy-nilly with -- apparently-- little checking. Accusations are sometimes beyond tenuous. On the other hand: some people did violate. How feisty you can be does depends somewhat on how strong or weak their case is.
22
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:25:26 AM »
I'm not suggesting this means that we must automatically assume AugustImages is totally on the up and up and so on. But it is useful for a person getting letters to take things in context. Until I saw the link from the photographer to the site, the chicken entrails used for prognostication were suggesting AugustImages could be some sock-puppet entity with nearly untraceable ownership for its domain name operating... somewhere... sending out scary letters.
But the link from the photographer suggests an actual honest to goodness photographer, whose domain is registered under his own name (http://whois.domaintools.com/donfloodphoto.com ) and whose IP is in the US does have a contract with August Images. His photos are clearly high priced including lots of celebrities. This means it's unlikely that the photographer operates without good knowledge of contract law required to maintain value of his portfolio.
If August Images does come back and press for payment, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on "Getty Images -- and entity that seems to permit online registration by anyone and anything without checking has been sloppy in the past-- so I bet August Images is too." August Images at least looks like truly exclusive images. (Even when comparing celebrity image to celebrity images, Getty's are often "decent quality paparazzi", August are "the celeb came to the studio and posed" and "these were used by high end magazines and advertizers". These are different from each other.)
That said: for all we know, August Images tends to just go away if someone removes the images from their site. If so, Darkbotic may not hear from them again. We really don't know.
But the link from the photographer suggests an actual honest to goodness photographer, whose domain is registered under his own name (http://whois.domaintools.com/donfloodphoto.com ) and whose IP is in the US does have a contract with August Images. His photos are clearly high priced including lots of celebrities. This means it's unlikely that the photographer operates without good knowledge of contract law required to maintain value of his portfolio.
If August Images does come back and press for payment, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on "Getty Images -- and entity that seems to permit online registration by anyone and anything without checking has been sloppy in the past-- so I bet August Images is too." August Images at least looks like truly exclusive images. (Even when comparing celebrity image to celebrity images, Getty's are often "decent quality paparazzi", August are "the celeb came to the studio and posed" and "these were used by high end magazines and advertizers". These are different from each other.)
That said: for all we know, August Images tends to just go away if someone removes the images from their site. If so, Darkbotic may not hear from them again. We really don't know.
23
Getty Images Letter Forum / Hacker blog discussing picscout.
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:14:40 AM »
The following post discusses a response to a Getty Letter from a blogger who keeps track of his logs and looks at them:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/627-A-Victory-for-Fair-Use.html
It appears picscout may be using user agents like
http://ops.picscout.com/QcApp/Classification/Index/371842247
So, blocking 'picscout' in .htaccess or some other way would be wise.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/627-A-Victory-for-Fair-Use.html
It appears picscout may be using user agents like
http://ops.picscout.com/QcApp/Classification/Index/371842247
So, blocking 'picscout' in .htaccess or some other way would be wise.
24
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August
« on: November 10, 2014, 08:56:39 AM »
With respect to credibility of Augustimages:
http://donfloodphoto.com/contact/ Does link to augustimages.com
That suggests that he likely does have a contract of some sort with them.
http://donfloodphoto.com/contact/ Does link to augustimages.com
That suggests that he likely does have a contract of some sort with them.
25
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August
« on: November 05, 2014, 02:52:23 PM »
Darkhorse:
I have never heard of august images.
They appear to list a number of photographers.
The appear to make it difficult to browse their content.
Their 'whois' information is all private making it difficult to guess much about them.
Based on this: It is very difficult for anyone to tell you the likelihood that they
(a) actually own the copyrights.
(b) would be likely to sue if you didn't pay.
So: if they do own the copyrights and are aggressive, they may sue. If not... then not. It's very diffcult to give further advise about that company in particular.
It is worth noting that your issue on on the "more infringy" end of the spectrum of what we normally see here. Here are factors:
1) Your appear to be a business site. Often people who merely have personal blogs appear here.
2) You used a celebrity photo. The person in it is currently a major celebrity. It's even a very nice photo that was obviously well composed and created professionally. Even if you used it without knowing who the person pictured was, it is difficult to persuade a judge that it was just "a fungible images just 'like' zillions of others." This is not something like "a sprinkler head" or "random back yard lawn".
3) We don't know more about your site. But sounds like you were likely using other nice glossy photos to decorate a business site. Moreover, even here, it sounds like your view is you think your not having money yet is a defense. It's not.
These are factors that are going to tend to make things look worse for you rather than better. But as for August Images: It's likely no one can tell you much. That's a new name.
I have never heard of august images.
They appear to list a number of photographers.
The appear to make it difficult to browse their content.
Their 'whois' information is all private making it difficult to guess much about them.
Based on this: It is very difficult for anyone to tell you the likelihood that they
(a) actually own the copyrights.
(b) would be likely to sue if you didn't pay.
So: if they do own the copyrights and are aggressive, they may sue. If not... then not. It's very diffcult to give further advise about that company in particular.
It is worth noting that your issue on on the "more infringy" end of the spectrum of what we normally see here. Here are factors:
1) Your appear to be a business site. Often people who merely have personal blogs appear here.
2) You used a celebrity photo. The person in it is currently a major celebrity. It's even a very nice photo that was obviously well composed and created professionally. Even if you used it without knowing who the person pictured was, it is difficult to persuade a judge that it was just "a fungible images just 'like' zillions of others." This is not something like "a sprinkler head" or "random back yard lawn".
3) We don't know more about your site. But sounds like you were likely using other nice glossy photos to decorate a business site. Moreover, even here, it sounds like your view is you think your not having money yet is a defense. It's not.
These are factors that are going to tend to make things look worse for you rather than better. But as for August Images: It's likely no one can tell you much. That's a new name.
26
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August
« on: November 05, 2014, 12:42:41 PM »So, you're saying that I have to remove all the photos from Pixabay as well?Free photo sites are risky. Many are difficult to trace overseas companies that offer pirated images. If the image you got was copyrighted and the owner went after you fact you got it from them would not help you much in court. (It might a little-- but the issue is more 'how much' the judge will fine you.)
How I'll get the photos? If I can't pay $600 for this settlement, I can't pay more than $1,000 to get all the photos I need from sites that provide them for a fee.
Why do you need lots of images at your site? If you have a business need for images to "decorate" the site with the idea that glossy and pretty attracts eyeballs, that is precisely the situation where you should be paying the photographers for the images.
27
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Blog Post Extortion Letter
« on: November 01, 2014, 11:42:36 PM »
If you are going to have them deal with an attorney, why not just have the attorney contact them for you? Is it the attorney's fee?
Anyway, as it's a company, if they sue you, you will need to have an attorney represent you in court. I would hope your insurance could cover attorney's fees for representation?
Anyway, as it's a company, if they sue you, you will need to have an attorney represent you in court. I would hope your insurance could cover attorney's fees for representation?
28
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Schneider Rothman IP Law v. Getty Images & Zemanta Lawsuit
« on: October 23, 2014, 11:21:23 PM »
Do we have a copy of the "covenant not to sue". It would be nice to see if they admit there was no copyright infringement.
29
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Fair Use Question
« on: September 21, 2014, 10:05:04 AM »Quote
Nevertheless, this phrase has nothing do with fair use, it seems. The fair use exception should remain intact (as long the manner in which the image is used indeed meets the criteria of fair use) no matter if the image appears in the website's design elements, its template, or wherever else.I doubt that. I think it would be very difficult to make a 'fair use' claim for an untransformed image used as the header images in a template. There could be some exceptions based on the specific image and what's been done to it. But, using it in a template is a major market for images and it's very rarely any sort of "comment" or "criticism". (Not that it absolutely couldn't be-- but it's pretty rare).
30
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Fair Use Question
« on: September 21, 2014, 09:58:53 AM »
landmark,
* "Web designer" licenses image. So "Web designer" can display it.
* Web designer makes slick template using the image as a design element. Customer A buys template.
* Customer A thinks he can display the image because the web designer sold the template to him. The template he displays uses the images as a "design element", not 'content'.
* Customer A launches his blog or web site and displays the image. At this point, Customer A is violating copyright. (Unknowingly, but still violating.) Also: the images he is using are 'design content'.
* The copyright holder finds the image on Customer A's site, sends nastygram to customer A for displaying.
Note: Copyright holder hasn't found 'web designer' yet. Also, unless the license prohibits the web designer from selling the template to customer A, the web designer hasn't violated copyright in the sequence above. So, the copyright holder may have no case against the web designer. (Custome A may have a claim under tort law. But that's a different matter.)
Quote
However, you may not, under any circumstances use the materials from our website in a Website template or any template or design sold individually or as part of an archive or catalog collection, or an automated shopping system, under any circumstances.The restriction is you can't use it to create a template offered for sale. That's not a distinction between "design element" and template, it's the difference between people making a bunch of templates with the images and then selling the template. Not this is a totally reasonable provision. Otherwise, what happens is:
* "Web designer" licenses image. So "Web designer" can display it.
* Web designer makes slick template using the image as a design element. Customer A buys template.
* Customer A thinks he can display the image because the web designer sold the template to him. The template he displays uses the images as a "design element", not 'content'.
* Customer A launches his blog or web site and displays the image. At this point, Customer A is violating copyright. (Unknowingly, but still violating.) Also: the images he is using are 'design content'.
* The copyright holder finds the image on Customer A's site, sends nastygram to customer A for displaying.
Note: Copyright holder hasn't found 'web designer' yet. Also, unless the license prohibits the web designer from selling the template to customer A, the web designer hasn't violated copyright in the sequence above. So, the copyright holder may have no case against the web designer. (Custome A may have a claim under tort law. But that's a different matter.)
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. |