Messages

166

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another copyright bot: 80 legs.

« on: July 08, 2012, 11:05:26 AM »

Trolling for font software has been happening for some time now. There are even large companies in the industry offering products to help businesses who use large collections of fonts protect themselves from unforced errors. Print shops, publishers and advertising agencies often share thousands of fonts on a LAN for their personnel to use and it can become very difficult to manage accidental misuse of a font.

Fonts are often licensed with clauses that allow giving the printer a copy for the purpose of imagesetting the output to create offset print plates, but are forbidden to use them for any other purpose. If a designer from the same print shop were to unwittingly (or knowingly) use the font to create a piece of artwork, the print shop would have committed an infringement and the client who provided the font may also be liable for providing it and losing control of it. The innocent end-user client whose artwork was created by the printer may also be dragged into the mess.

It's important to note that typefaces are not copyrightable, but font software is. If you trace a font from just looking at it and create your own font that is similar, keep all your files to prove that you never used the provider's font software. If you're using font squirrel or something like it on your website, BE VERY CAREFUL. The fonts will be stored in your server and the scraper will find you.

80legs' claim that they respect robots.txt is fatuous. They don't legally have to, according to discussions we've had repeatedly, so they can claim they play nice all they want but the voice out of the other side of their mouth is that theirs is "the most powerful web crawler ever." Take that, PicScout!

So powerful, in fact, that Yelp filed a lawsuit against them in March for scraping the bejeezus out of Yelp's servers collecting data to sell to third parties for God knows what purpose, which could include font trolling. Here's the text of the lawsuit:

http://tinyurl.com/7dqtnkb

80legs and the font foundries have been hurting print shops and their clients for years now. This is incredibly short-sighted as they're killing their own client base. With serious offshore competition and the price of paper putting near-fatal financial strain on the whole of the U.S. printing industry, the last thing they need is for one of their providers to cruelly troll them for the last drop of blood left.

Here's some good legal advice about protecting yourself from font trolls:

http://intellectual-property.lawyers.com/intellectual-property-licensing/Company-Sues-Over-Unauthorized-Use-of-Its-Fonts.html

167

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new collection Agency working with getty

« on: July 07, 2012, 11:22:21 PM »

In reading the article that scraggy posted on the thread about class actions against the porn trolls, one of the complaints filed made a very interesting point.

If the troll is attempting to extort money through the telephone and has no right to collect a debt or settle a lawsuit, they are committing wire fraud. This is item 27 of the facts in the complaint:

18 USC. 1343 makes it unlawful to use wire transmissions in a scheme or artifice to attempt to fraudulently obtain money from another.

This is on page 7 of the following complaint filed against some California porn trolls:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/uploadedFiles/Reuters_Content/2012/07_-_July/barkervcolliins--complaint.pdf

It sounds to me like anyone who calls on the phone claiming to be collecting a debt better have the right to do so or they're exposing themselves to a complaint for wire fraud.

So Timmy should be VERY careful calling anyone attempting to "collect on a debt." I wonder if wire transmissions include contact by email as well.

168

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new collection Agency working with getty

« on: July 07, 2012, 10:34:38 PM »

Good find, S.G. The fine distinction is whether the troll approaches one with a legal claim or attempts to present one with an invoice for a debt one has not incurred. If it's the latter, then the troll is a debt collector no matter what other job he may pretend to hold.

If the claim is in the form of a legal claim for copyright infringement, I would still demand proof that the party enforcing the copyright indeed has the legal right to enforce it, and that should include the author's information. "We'll show you during discovery" is just ridiculous. I don't think any reasonable judge would fault one for not writing a check without any proof being shown.

169

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new collection Agency working with getty

« on: July 07, 2012, 11:16:39 AM »

That was easy given the company name. They're an international company that offers debt collection services:

http://www.atradiuscollections.com/products/debtcollections/debt-collections.html

Reading this page you can see what their debt collection services include:

Atradius Collections helps collect outstanding invoices and:

• Improves the cash flow of your business
• Relieves you of a time- and energy-consuming collection process
• Maintains your sustainable relationship with your customer for future business

However, no matter how much lipstick Getty puts on it, the issue here is not a debt that is not being paid. What they're trying to do is claim a settlement amount for an alleged copyright infringement.

I think it would be safe to say your facebook friend can tell Atradius Collections they have no outstanding invoices with Getty and to stop sending letters or calling or trying to contact them in any other way because this matter is closed and if they insist, a complaint will be filed with the appropriate consumer protection agencies and even the BBB and FTC.

Of course, Atradius now qualifies for the distinction of being included in our trolling debt collection agency list. I find it quite interesting that they're an international outfit that covers most of Getty's target markets. I guess you could say they're a one-stop-shop for the Getty debt collection trolling approach.

By the way, can you believe the last point? "We're going to troll you on behalf of Getty, after which we can all still be friends!"

170

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

« on: July 07, 2012, 09:49:16 AM »

Right on, scraggy! I think you may have identified the rationale for a class action against image copyright trolls! This is a great line of thinking you're following there.

171

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

« on: July 07, 2012, 07:42:20 AM »

Maybe Getty isn't the optimal target. Maybe HAN or PicScout are better targets. The former for abuse of process by intentionally leveraging abandoned copyrights to extort money under the color of right, the latter for violating Fourth Amendment rights by collecting evidence that will be used in the extortion to threaten criminal charges without having a warrant or court order to do so.

Please revisit this thread and read the commentary by the law professors regarding the asymmetrical state of copyright law and why the professors believe the situation is disconcerting because the trends have shown that the party with the money is able to bully the smaller party due to their advantage in legal know-how and financial resources:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-for-sale/msg9609/#msg9609

This is the opinion by the law experts from Berkeley; it has some very relevant points about copyright and trademark trolling. The juicy stuff starts on page 29, under the subheadline "Intellectual Property":

https://bspace.berkeley.edu/access/content/group/e675b947-6067-425e-adbf-10e8922547b9/03.%20Jan%2030_Alex%20Stein%20-%20The%20Relational%20Contingency%20of%20Rights/RCR_1_18_12.pdf

Thanks for posting the legal opinion, scraggy. I think it's a great read and provides some nutritious food for thought.

To address S.G.'s very good question about setting goals, the idea would be to make deep and permanent policy change in copyright law to achieve a more level playing field. This comment in the legal opinion explains exactly what I think needs to change:

Enforcement organizations are repeat players in the copyright arena. As such, they can produce “cease and desist” letters and court briefs at a much lower cost than their adversaries, and then leverage this advantage into a favorable settlement. These settlements economize on litigation costs, but they also stunt the development of fair-use, misuse and other copyright defenses, as courts are increasingly denied the opportunity to consider these defenses. A corollary cost of this dynamic is that it sweeps problems under the rug and thereby prevents policymakers from adopting corrective measures. After all, disputes that have been settled privately between the parties rarely make policymakers to do list.

Once there is an opening to change policy by creating case law in the U.S., and supported by the class action in Israel, the respective authorities such as the US Copyright Office could be approached to help change the policy which will force the industry's "enforcement organizations" to chill their bully tactics and engage in protecting copyright in a civilized manner — if they're still interested after the profit motive and the automatic trolling technologies are taken away.

172

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 06, 2012, 04:19:53 PM »

Great post, scraggy! That's the most subtle definition of copyright trolling I've read to date. The quotes around "business model" seem somewhat snarky, yet it's a very polite description of how "certain corporations and individual actors" have picked up on this modus operandi.

It's also quite generous by stating that they wait until the work goes "viral". Of course there is no evidence to suggest unclean hands yet, so the analysis is quite measured and fair, as one would expect from distinguished law professors.

I find it very intriguing how they describe that the works attain the "viral" status "due to the fact that initially they are distributed freely, often under permission from the original creators."

This speaks to my suspicions about how Vincent Khoury Tylor's images could possibly be found in hundreds if not thousands of websites being offered as free wallpaper. The one person I have spoken to who posted a derivative work on her website based on one of his images told me she got the image from a royalty-free stock photography CD she purchased at a retail store some 10 years ago. She offered the derivative work as a free background image for years, unknowingly "seeding" for VKT.

Assuming this is true, the image could not have been included in a CD without VKT's blessing, and he probably got paid for it at that time. It may be that half his portfolio was included in the CD, which would explain why so many of his photos are so incredibly ubiquitous in the free wallpaper market. Most of the VKT images that are so commonly disseminated are at least 10 years old.

This line in particular fits Hawaiian Art Network LLC like a glove:

At this point, profit driven actors, typically corporations, acquire the rights to the works and launch an aggressive enforcement attack against unsuspecting internet users.

The same paper also makes this statement, which is pretty much the way I see it:

Although copyright law is supposed to balance the interests of copyright holders against those of users, numerous scholars have noted that the design of copyright law is slanted in favor of copyright holders.

On another note, S.G.'s comment is right on the money, so to speak. The price being asked for Getty is definitely high, which is why Bain Capital LLC is not showing interest. Private equity firms make money by buying troubled companies at low prices, then making them viable by cutting costs (usually firing half the staff), taking advantage of whatever support they can get from public sources, and then selling high. Bain Capital did not get so rich buying high from their competitors.

The price structure for Getty's stock photography approximates the costs of hiring top-shelf photographers to shoot custom work for a project. Why anyone would pay Getty instead of hiring a skilled photographer can only be explained by deadline pressure, a common ailment of the communications industry. When you need the shot at lightning speed in the age of instant communications, a service like Getty's would seem like a lifesaving resource, albeit one that will cost dearly.

Enter the competition pushing prices way down in the form of microstock companies. Getty refused to lower their price structures and instead tried to position themselves as a high-quality source. However, the demand for that level of photography dropped way below the level of commercial viability and they had to troll for money in order to monetize the company and get it ready for the selling block before it became obvious they can't survive in the flooded stock photography market we have today.

As S.G. mentions, they probably haven't made enough money trolling, and their model weakens with every failure. The time came to sell the ship before potential buyers realize it's taking water. At this point, the Getty brand is all about its glorious past. I doubt anyone will fork over 3.5-to-4 billion bucks for that portfolio. It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, would bite, and how low Hellman & Friedman LLC are willing to go.

I'd like to add that the timing is precious due to the class action in Israel, which could have a chilling effect on future trolling operations by Getty and the rest of the "corporations and individual actors" who have adopted their "business model."

173

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

« on: July 05, 2012, 07:14:06 PM »

lucia and S.G., thanks for clarifying the distinction between PicScout auto-trolling for corporations and ImageExchange manual trolling for physical persons.

lucia, thanks to your great advice, I've blocked out ImageExchange and I think I've got PicScout blocked, although I do worry about blocking a larger range than is necessary. I've read that PicScout's ISP will assign them different IP number blocks on request, which makes them a little more squirrelly than average, but I'm willing to adapt to their shape shifting as necessary on principle.

Speaking of principle, the best idea is to avoid copyright violations but we've seen that even using best practices, one can still end up infringing a copyright innocently or by way of a third-party such as Getty or iStock. Then it's up to the copyright owner to be decent about it or attempt to troll for ridiculous money.

By the way, I wouldn't flatter PicScout or anyone else by thinking you, myself or anyone else in this forum can't think of something they haven't thought of. I'm always very impressed with the ideas that this group comes up with.

174

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

« on: July 05, 2012, 12:19:32 PM »

ImageExchange doesn't auto-troll.

Not yet! Maybe I shouldn't give them ideas. You know they probably read this forum.

175

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

« on: July 05, 2012, 12:16:02 PM »

stinger, thanks for pointing out something I grievously left out of my brainstorm.

The education component of the Victims Defense Fund would be ELI. A portion of those proceeds SHOULD go to fund the expenses and efforts of Matthew and Oscar in keeping this forum alive and well. We can make that very clear. I don't see how that would be a conflict of interest in any way.

Matthew has raised the issue of financial support several times in the short time that I've been reading this forum. I can understand how it frustrates him and Oscar that they put so much of their time into helping others and some of the beneficiaries turn out to be cowardly, ungrateful whiners who want to shirk off their responsibilities on someone else and won't even pony up fifty bucks for a coaching session. Those people deserve to pay the extortionate amount, get dragged into court, or have to run and hide. You know the old saying about taking a horse to the water.

The audience problem is a real one. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. We need the money to put together the social network campaign, but it's hard to get the money without the social network campaign. Some of us may have blogs with audiences that will be sympathetic to the appeal, but many of us (myself included) are self-employed businesspeople who do not usually engage a wide media audience. I generally tell all of my friends and contacts about this problem, hoping enough of them will listen for their own protection. I still see many of them committing unforced errors daily on Facebook and other social networks, and even on their own blogs.

So I'm with stinger, I'd like to hear some ideas from other members of the community. This will work best if we can pull it off as a group.

176

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

« on: July 05, 2012, 12:05:21 PM »

I'd like to add:

Thanks, Matthew and Oscar, for all of what you're doing and for all of what you have done over the years to help others. I'm personally in your debt for your efforts to put together this invaluable resource and for sharing your core competences with this community.

Also, to the ELI community at large. Specifically and in no particular order: Buddhapi, SoylentGreen, mcfilms, lucia, and so many others I won't list them for fear of leaving someone out. You have also contributed an immense amount to this community.

All hail ELI, those who are willing to fight back salute you!

177

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

« on: July 05, 2012, 11:44:08 AM »

Totally, stinger, it's great news to see a precedent is being set to pave the way for local action. I just posted a comment on another thread responding to your idea about fundraising with some brainstormy suggestions:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/carreon's-butthurt-proves-to-be-too-much-as-he-drops-suit/msg9589/#msg9589

Ian, you ROCK! Thanks for all of what you're doing.

178

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

« on: July 05, 2012, 11:19:42 AM »

Awesome thought, stinger. Allow me to throw a few bolts into the brainstorm.

We could start a Victims Defense Fund Against Copyright Trolls to piece together a class action on behalf of people who are receiving ridiculous, extortionate letters demanding money and refusing to provide proof of ownership.

We could start with one vendor as a way to "send a message" to the other copyright trolls. Getty and HAN come to mind because they are the most egregious offenders we've seen, although it's hard to measure without applying a consistent standard. I'm sure each of us thinks the worst offender is the one that's attempting to mess with us. No one needs this crap in their lives.

We could use part of the fund to advertise on the social networks for people to sign up for the class action, pretty much like the ads you see now seeking people to join a class action against any product that has caused reckless harm to the general population.

Such a class action could be lengthy and expensive, but the best part would be the fact that the trolls themselves would add people to the list (and possibly donations to the fund) by continuing to send letters attempting to "scare" people into compliance.

I will again state that I am perfectly sympathetic to the plight of the copyright owners who are earnestly defending their intellectual property, but ardently opposed to "scare" tactics and trolling for profit with disproportionate and fatuous claims.

Having said that, the campaign could also involve an "image buyer's education guide" component to let people know their rights and their responsibilities as "copyright users". That way innocent infringement should be mitigated so that people don't commit unforced errors, and the trolls can have open season on people who refuse to comply knowingly and engage in real, bad-faith image theft. We have to make it clear that we don't care about those kind of people and we're not defending them from the trolls.

179

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

« on: July 05, 2012, 11:02:41 AM »

Right on, S.G. They're so lazy they won't even right-click for potential victims. 

They want to set ImageExchange on auto-troll and sit back to wait for checks to come in!

180

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

« on: July 04, 2012, 10:40:26 PM »

Thanks...

Wonder if it's intentional, or just an error on certain platforms?

https://getsatisfaction.com/picscout/topics/image_exchanged_doesnt_work_on_pinterest

S.G.

S.G., this is quite interesting. I'm not sure why PicScout would be having troubles with ImageExchange trolling Pinterest on different browsers, but there's all kinds of other nuances to this exchange between PicScout and their Image Exchange users.

It seems like the angry copyright birds are getting impatient with PicScout. This one guy wants more and faster results. He doesn't want to click so much to find infringements on Pinterest. I wonder if he intends to hire someone to "scare" the Pinterest grandmas — and make a few bucks at it.

The other articles you linked to also feature a lot of content providers who are clearly angry about flagrant infringement of their property. While I completely sympathize with them, I don't care much for their talk about "scaring" people into compliance. It sounds like they're getting close to the "Carner Complex", whereupon extortion is a valid method of "getting satisfaction" against those they perceive as "image thieves." And, of course, there's money to be made "scaring" people.

I also find most of the claims that people are "making money" from their images to be delusional. Aloha Plastic Surgery clearly didn't make squat from an innocent infringement, yet HAN/VKT are demanding thousands in court. Carner left the forum before telling us how they arrived at the absurd figures they're demanding. I don't think they can show even one example of VKT getting paid so much for his wallpaper stock photos.

I figure they'll have to explain that sometime in the near future — under oath. Can't wait to read about it.