Messages

1516

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter, now what???

« on: August 12, 2012, 07:23:50 PM »

the time limit they toss at you is only a scare tactic, take a breath, relax, and contrary to what your wife says, don't pay it. You have time, you have options.for a quick education the phone support call is your best option, otherwise get reading..but more importantly don't stress out over this, your certainly not alone!

1517

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How to STOP Getty images settlement demand letters - Cease All Communication

« on: August 12, 2012, 05:58:11 PM »

@ Rock, would you kindly refrain from editing this post over and over again, it's getting old seeing it as something new, when it's not...in other words you're wasting my time...

1518

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: What is Glen Carner's Official Position on Vincent K. Tylor?

« on: August 11, 2012, 05:06:38 PM »

I wonder if Vincent k Tylor is teaching his son the ways of sending extortion letters?
http://www.scottephotos.com/

1519

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Kirstie Alley Sued Over Weight-Loss Supplement

« on: August 11, 2012, 04:37:49 PM »

what a suck up!! Might I suggest a different angle of attack??
I think you should just walk around in HER undies for a week, after this assualt on her eyes, she'll want the swine back!!

Since I've been told by my old lady blushing bride of 40+ years to spend more time bringing out my inner woman and less time being a chauvinistic swine, I'm not going to enter into this discussion other than to say I support whatever Peeved has to say in this thread!

1520

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 11, 2012, 04:32:52 PM »

The search engines (or ISPs) require some proof, but do not make decisions about the legitimacy of the claim. The claim has to at least make sense, e.g. you can provide a URL that you claim is your intellectual property and another URL that you claim is an infringement of your intellectual property, and they can be visited to verify that at least the URLs do exist and that the infringement could exist.

I don't know if it would be better for the ISPs/SEs to require a higher standard of proof than an affidavit. It appears to me they prefer to stay out of the fray and let people duke it out in court.

S.G., you do make a good point about the impact it could have on an online business. If your site is down for a couple of weeks because of a bogus takedown claim, that's going to be a slim month for sales. I suppose one has the option of taking the accuser to court for filing a false DMCA removal request and sue for lost revenue and legal fees, but that's a huge hassle.

I think you are incorrect on your first statement here. ISP's do not require any "proof" all that is required is the take down notice. It is not the ISP's job to determine if there is evidence, proof, or if in fact there was an infringement. Their only requirement is to take down the questionable content, notify the supposed infringer of the take down and notify the complaintant that the infringer was notified. Doing this satisfies the safe harbor provisions.

Now the ISP does have the option to ignore the request, but if they do and the complaint makes it to court, the ISP could also be held accountable for the infringement. I don't know of any ISP's that are going to go out of their way and spend their time looking to see if a claim is legitimate, I know as a hosting provider myself I wouldn't. It's simply not my job, and I'm certainly not in the position to police every one of my hosting accounts.. I get a takedown notice, the content comes down, plain and simple. If someone were to come after me as their hosting provider for damages, they would never win as I only followed the guidelines set out in the law.

Now Go-Daddy is a different beast, they just don't remove the content, they kill the entire hosting account, which in my view is completely over the top, but I think they have that clearly stated in their TOS.

I also think the biggest issue with getting "delisted" within google, would be proving damages, as Moe state it would be a huge hassle, ands you'd have to sue for attorney fees and damages" ie lost income..how many people could actually prove damages?? just because your numbers may be way off isn't going to be proof enough. You'd have to be super anal, like myself to really have a chance at proving this. for example I get at least 4 calls per week from potential clients that find me thur google, I ask every single caller how they found me, and it gets noted in their file, which is created while I'm talking with them that first time. I think it would be a good bet that if I got de-listed from a bogus complaint from a competitor, and I sued them I might win the damages...."Might" and "IF" can be to scary words however..

1521

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Kirstie Alley Sued Over Weight-Loss Supplement

« on: August 11, 2012, 01:52:22 PM »

yes dear... 

very simply, cause you were right, which is according to whop the female brain thinks is just wrong..further supporting the notion, that even when we're right, we're wrong, which is why we find ourselves using the mantra "yes dear"

I hate that "yes dear" crap! I say.......HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!
 

1522

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Kirstie Alley Sued Over Weight-Loss Supplement

« on: August 11, 2012, 01:38:06 PM »

very simply, cause you were right, which is according to how the female brain thinks is just wrong..further supporting the notion, that even when we're right, we're wrong, which is why we find ourselves using the mantra "yes dear"

Why is it that you are in even more trouble when you are right? 

Except when we are right, which just happens to be NEVER!

FYI- purchasing and reading diet books and nutritional books, doesn't do a damn bit of good if all you do is sit yous ass on the couch and read them...just sayin..

1523

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 10, 2012, 09:44:25 PM »

Actually SG, while I agree they are not an ISP it would appear that Google is adhering to DMCA guidelines, if you go here, you can walk thru the steps, and the last question asks if you are the copyright owner, if you select "no" the following pops up

"In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), we only accept copyright complaints from content owners or someone officially authorized to act on their behalf. If you have legal questions about the DMCA (the text of which can be found at the U.S. Copyright Office Web Site, http://www.copyright.gov), please consult your own legal counsel."

http://support.google.com/bin/static.py?hl=en&ts=1114905&page=ts.cs

Googles Transparency Report gives a glimpse of how much time and effort is put into takedown requests.

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/

I've browsed thru the chilling effects database of takedowns and the numbers are literally staggering.

1524

Legal Controversies Forum / Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 10, 2012, 04:25:43 PM »

Not troll related, but interesting nonetheless...directly from the official Google Search Blog

We aim to provide a great experience for our users and have developed over 200 signals to ensure our search algorithms deliver the best possible results. Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it’s a song previewed on NPR’s music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed from Spotify.

Since we re-booted our copyright removals over two years ago, we’ve been given much more data by copyright owners about infringing content online. In fact, we’re now receiving and processing more copyright removal notices every day than we did in all of 2009—more than 4.3 million URLs in the last 30 days alone. We will now be using this data as a signal in our search rankings.

Only copyright holders know if something is authorized, and only courts can decide if a copyright has been infringed; Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law. So while this new signal will influence the ranking of some search results, we won’t be removing any pages from search results unless we receive a valid copyright removal notice from the rights owner. And we’ll continue to provide "counter-notice" tools so that those who believe their content has been wrongly removed can get it reinstated. We’ll also continue to be transparent about copyright removals.

1525

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Haters

« on: August 10, 2012, 03:01:46 PM »

yeah it's old hat for sure...the only thing the photographers see is that damn dollar sign in the statute, they can't seem to see past it.

Simply put, "copyright infringement" isn't "theft" under law.

It's also of note that photogs often make offhand statements about attorney's and thousands of dollars in damages.
However, there would be an onus on them to show that the image in question has actually sold for such prices.
That's very, very rare indeed.

But, all this is old hat, I guess.

S.G.

1526

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Haters

« on: August 10, 2012, 02:57:49 PM »

Nice write-up Tracy! You also have to keep in mind that even IF Getty did prove ownership and the rights to enforce infringement, the amounts they demand are way out of line, these are stock images, that for the most part are worthless these days, as they are readily available on multiple sites for a few buck apiece..No Judge in there right mind would award these kinds of numbers..Make no mistake getty knows this and now Masterfile also knows as they just got their collective asses handed to them.

I keep going back to the Veterans story, where the guy was collecting cigarettes to give to veterans, he was making no money what-so-ever, it was really just a hobby and nice gesture, yet Getty sends a letter demanding nearly 1k, then on the other hand we have Getty Images CEA ( Chief Execuive AssHat) on video, spouting off about Getty not having a problem with folks using their images, as long as they make no money...total hyprocrite.

1527

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Judge sides with porn P2P plaintiff, setting up legal showdown

« on: August 10, 2012, 12:31:55 PM »

In recent months we've seen growing judicial skepticism of mass copyright lawsuits. Many judges have concluded that plaintiffs—often pornography publishers—have no interest in actually litigating cases and instead hope to use the threat of ruinous legal bills (not to mention the embarrassment of public association with pornography) to extract four-figure cash settlements from defendants. This strategy has the advantage, from the plaintiffs' point of view, that the innocent have almost as much incentive to settle their cases as do the guilty.

But the judiciary is far from unanimous. And this week, one judge sided squarely with the porn plaintiffs—again.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/judge-sides-with-porn-p2p-plaintiff-setting-up-legal-showdown/

1528

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: August 10, 2012, 12:23:45 PM »

I'm not going to guess at a number, but I will say I am working with another ELI user to put a plan of action together to present something directly to the Wash AG..it's an election year and we may be able to use this to our advantage....i'm hoping our very own April Brown would be willing to assist..

1529

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Haters

« on: August 10, 2012, 12:21:35 PM »

FYI - I have a screen shot of this, and I'm holding you to it!

One of these days, I am going to write a definitive editorial on the issue of "theft" of intellectual property. I get sick of the "theft" notion being thrown around. As a publisher, author, blogger, content creator, and having experienced plagiarism, I can speak to this.

When I get around to it, they can then shove the "theft" word up their ass, preferably without any KY Jelly.

Since no one has written this editorial piece on intellectual property "theft", I will take it up on myself to do so.

1530

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Haters

« on: August 10, 2012, 12:12:09 PM »

It is very clear that some of the poster on the mayhem site did not read very much, and they don't understand where we are coming from.. Everybody on this forum to my knowledge understands and respect copyright.. What they don't understand is the over the top tactics used by Getty Images, who continues to make claims, buyt show no proof of said claim, it is stricly a money maker for Getty. I've always said from day 1, send a cease and desist letter requesting a reasonable amount, if the recipient fails to remove the image, then move onto step 2.. yeah photographers tend to see with tunnel vision, as the theft of images is a big problem for sure, I don't fault them for wanting to protect their work, but there is a right way and a wrong way, and when it becomes a business model like Getty has made it, it's borderline criminal and fraudulent.