Messages

166

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: hire freelance designer and get charged

« on: April 28, 2011, 10:48:17 AM »

danielksy,

I just wanted to make the point the the majority of discussion here is related to US law.  If Malaysian law controls in your case things might be different for you (better or worse . . . I don't know).  If I were in your position, and if Malaysian law controlled, I would be seeking Malaysia specific information:

1)  Do statutory damages exist for copyright in Malaysia?
2) Does the absence of copyright markings help your case?
3) Is there a willfull infringment clause that reduces or eliminates damage recovery potential?
4) Have similar suits been won or lost?
5) Are attorney fees recoverable by either party?

etc

167

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / are Copyrights in question registered before infringment?

« on: April 22, 2011, 08:16:22 PM »

I noticed in the articles (which I dare not quote verbatim ) that Righthaven appears to be seeking $150,000 statutory damages.  My understanding is that statutory damages are NOT recoverable unless the material was registered before infringment began, or registered within a certain amount of time of publication.

Does this mean that each and every newspaper article has been registered before infringment began?  

Maybe its all so quick (publication to infringment to getting caught) that they still have a window to register in time to sue for statutory damages?

Or are they asking for something that they arent entitled to?

I can hardly imagine any news organization going to the trouble and expense of registering copyrights for each and every article they print.  

just curious . . .

168

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / DMCA protection NOT automatic

« on: April 21, 2011, 12:00:12 PM »

... I hope everyone who runs/owns a website that allows users to post are aware of this:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole/

169

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: i dont get it

« on: April 21, 2011, 11:59:06 AM »

it really looks like its gotten so ridiculous that its reached a tipping point where people are starting to fight back ... I hope that translates into legislation that makes sense for todays world.

170

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / i dont get it

« on: April 20, 2011, 11:42:09 AM »

What could they legitimately threaten you with?  What could they possibly recover from a 2 paragraph quote from a 30+ paragraph newspaper article.  Even if they got past a fair use defense, I seriously doubt newspapers are pre-registered with the copyright office, which would bar recovery of attorney fees and statutory damages.  What does that leave them with?  A few cents for every hit on some obscur blog?  Would that even amount to hundreds of dollars in many cases?

Those questions aren't rhetorical ... I really am curious as to what they could recover from an obscure blogger who quoted 2 paragraphs from a newspaper.

I'd personally like to see a list of all Righthaven media partners so that I can make sure I never spend a nickle on their publiciations.

171

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Ignoring GI

« on: April 18, 2011, 07:05:25 PM »

I can see some potential problems with that strategy.  If you lie and say the proof is fake and that you never displayed the picture on your website, then I think it would be fairly easy to prove that you did indeed display the picture (www.archive.org and other databases that record your website history).  That opens up the possibility, I would think, to a perjury charge against you, but even if it didn't, I think it would put you in very poor standing with the court (how could they trust anything else you say if they caught you in that one?).

Besides ... in the words of Mark Twain: "If you tell the truth you dont have to remember anything."  


As far as ignoring them, I think that's not a good strategy either.  I would want to be able to prove that I had made a reasonable offer to settle before it got to court (if it ever indeed got there).


Just my unqualified opinion (Im NOT a lawyer so take it for what its worth )

172

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Feedback Request: Should We Launch a Facebook Page for ELI?

« on: April 06, 2011, 02:03:27 PM »

I mostly agree with JPicker.  However, I do think you would reach more people with Facebook.  Maybe you could just add a Facebook "Like" button to this website?  That would get your content exposed to friends of us here I think.

173

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class Action?

« on: April 06, 2011, 01:54:44 PM »

You can find the answers to both questions in the forums.  Class Action has been discussed at length so search for those threads.  Also search for attorney's fees, and I think you'll find that if the image wasn't registered with the copyright office when the infringement began then attorney's fees and statutory damages are not recoverable.   As far as whether your image was registered and qualifies for statutory damages and attorneys fees, I think that is hard to determine for sure.  My feeling is that a very small percentage of Getty Images are registered.  You can search the copyright database, but with registration of compilations it would be difficult, I think, to find a single image if it did exist there.

You might ask yourself if you think it would be worth the risk to Getty to sue over a single unregistered image (if yours is indeed unregistered).  Seems to me they would spend more in their own litigation costs than they would recover in actual damages in most cases.

Be thankful you didn't accidentally use a Masterfile image.  They seem to be very aggressive and register a large percentage (if not all) of their images.

But I'm no lawyer, so do read through the material here.  Everything above is just my layman's take on everything.

174

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How DO I Respond To A Getty Letter?

« on: April 06, 2011, 01:40:07 AM »

Are you in the UK?  That letter cites UK law and really wouldn't be applicable in other countries.

175

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is PicScout Legal? - Cyber Trespass

« on: April 05, 2011, 01:48:27 PM »

I doubt it.  I think I remember seeing a thread about someone here asking picscout for a scan to see if any of their photos were infringing.  If I remember correctly it was basically a dead end (I cant find the thread though).

If you have a look at this statistic:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,1472,1475#msg-1475

you might ask yourself why they would even want anyone to have such an ability.  

Personally, I think the better idea is to just take your own photos.  You can get a far more than adequate camera (e.g. Canon Digital Rebel) for less than a few stock photos in many cases.

Good luck, though, and do let us know if you find anything.

176

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: OK ... A Friend Got "The Letter" from Getty

« on: March 29, 2011, 06:02:28 PM »

Just so you know, I've heard Getty uses archive.org to look for offending material. archive.org can be used to view older versions of websites, even after the owner changes them.  It wouldn't surprise me if they went back to look for the other images you told them you removed to see if they are Getty's.

177

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received My 2nd Letter!!

« on: March 23, 2011, 09:51:56 AM »

I would definitely be ready to hear more from them if you do write them.  If you don't want to hear from them directy again, you can get a lawyer to send a letter.  That way they should only correspond with your lawyer and not with you directly.

If you want to get an idea of how "risky" not paying is, read through the website and watch the videos Oscar and Mathew posted.  Its a lot of material, but it is a bit of a complex issue.  I would guess that in your case, you will feel a lot less nervous, and that you'll be a lot more comfortable with your position if you take the time to do this.

Best of luck.

178

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recent Intellectual Property Legal Issues

« on: January 06, 2011, 08:27:58 AM »

Helpi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was speculation on my part as to the typical
> response.
>
> "...wouldn't you agree that the issues you raised
> from Maverick probably aren't applicable to most
> Getty letter cases?"
>
> I wouldn't want my attorney spending my money on
> novel 401(d) issues unless and until Getty tries
> to preclude my innocent infringer defense,
> assuming I was putting one out there. <


And, of course, if the image wasn't registered before infringment began (or within 3 months of when the image was originally published by the owner (as you pointed out)), an innocent infringer defence wouldn't even be necessary, right?

By the way, are you a lawyer/paralegal/etc ?

179

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recent Intellectual Property Legal Issues

« on: January 06, 2011, 07:34:14 AM »

" Lettered, I forgot to add to this comment.
 
 It gets stated so many times on this board people
 may think what you said is the rule. It's not
 complete. The actual rule is prior to infringement
 for unpublished work. For published work you get a
 three month grace period. So someone can infringe
 you before you register but so long as you
 register within three months of your first
 publication you can get fees and statutory
 damages.  A lot of businesses would be unable to
 benefit from these remedies (and practically
 protect their work) without the grace period."

Point taken.  So if someone recieves a Getty letter regarding an image published (published by Getty ... not the infringer) less than three months ago, Getty might still be able to get it registered in time.  I have to believe that this would be an exceedingly rare case, though.
 
 
" Getty so aggressively fighting for copyright
 owners as plaintiff is putting forth some pretty
 silly arguments when the shoe is on the other
 foot. "

Wouldn't it be funny if Getty actually ended up setting a precedent that went against them in their letter campaign?  lol

180

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recent Intellectual Property Legal Issues

« on: January 06, 2011, 05:58:52 AM »

" Lettered, most people probably ignore it unless
 and until Getty files a lawsuit, right ? "

I'm not sure.  If you're talking about completely ignoring, I would probably disagree.  If you're talking about just not responding and not seeking legal advice from a lawyer, I'm not sure what percentage of letter recipients would fall into that category.


" . . . Not an issue in the Maverick case. . . "
" . . . True. Also not an issue in Maverick. . ."

Then wouldn't you agree that the issues you raised from Maverick probably aren't applicable to most Getty letter cases?  As I understand it, most Getty stock images are neither registered nor have copyright markings.