Messages

181

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS Trunk Archive Follow Up Letter

« on: March 29, 2017, 06:28:43 PM »

question.....does the instagram "upload" the image to your blog, or does it generate a link to the image on instagram?.... reason being if it only generates a link, then you possibly did not infringe, as no "copy" was made, except for the screen shotted version which was on instagram and NOT your blog... Instagram certainly has a DMCA agent for such scenarios.. If the image in question was only on instagram Trunk Archive would be required to file a proper DMCA takedown request with instagram.

182

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: School tutor

« on: March 22, 2017, 05:30:00 PM »

IF it went to court, I doubt the fair market value would even get mentioned...file for dismisal on the grounds that vista prints holds a license for their clients..end of story... this won't go anywhere, I'm inclined to think they won't even contact you again.

183

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: School tutor

« on: March 22, 2017, 11:01:47 AM »

If the image was indeed offered up via Vista Prints gallery for use, contact Vista Print, and have them deal with it directly for you.

184

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS letter for AFP image used in a school project

« on: March 21, 2017, 04:53:48 PM »

LCS & Getty Images are one and the same..
It could possiblt fall under "fair use", but a judge would be the one to decide this...they aren't going to sue you over this.
statute is 3 yrs from date of discovery ( or date of first demand letter)
if you ignore, it you willlikely get some follow up demand letters / threats for the next 3 yrs...

Paying for the letter program is your choice, i highly doubt they will persue this over 175.00, it will cost them 495.00 just to file..not worth it to them.

185

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received extortion letter requesting $570 for erroneously posted private image

« on: March 20, 2017, 06:29:08 PM »

I think Getty or whomever would need to prove that an image "in a forgotten corner" / folder, was publicly accessible via a link or some other means, that would at least be my argument.. and another scenario..

image is indeed used on a public page 4 yrs ago. That image has long since been removed, and now a letter appears...could be that someone looked at archive.org, and saw the image, hence date of "discovery" might be at present even though the image may have been removed long ago...this s a highly unlikely scenario, as all of this is an automated process, and there aren't many companies that manually search.. I suggest everyone instruct archive.org to not index sites as a precaution anyway.

186

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received extortion letter requesting $570 for erroneously posted private image

« on: March 20, 2017, 04:28:05 PM »

If the image was displayed from your server several years ago , and for less than one year, then it might be passed the statute of limitations already.

The rule is: for an (alleged) infringement of a copyright, the copyright owner has a claim against you for 3 years since it happened. In the best case for them, count those 3 years from the moment you took down the image from public view.

If the image was taken down from public view more than 3 years ago, then they have pretty much no chance against you (imo). Because they must have found it with a bot scanning the site, and if it was entirely private not only they couldn't find it, but also there's no provable gain you make from it, nor harm to them.

PS: make sure you do remove it completely either way.
(quick writing on mobile)

FALSE...the statute runs 3 years from "date of discovery"..always use the date of the first demand letter to guage the SOL...

Also if the image was in a seperate directory or folder that was NOT password protected, it's not "private", just not readily seen by the public..The picscout bot scans all directories, unless behind a password

187

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received extortion letter requesting $570 for erroneously posted private image

« on: March 18, 2017, 11:14:16 AM »

you can't "counter sue" them , unless they sue you first, which they won't. and I think "extortion" would be a "criminal" case as opposed to infringement, which is a civil matter.

188

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Linda Ellis back to Her Old Tricks Again?

« on: March 06, 2017, 06:27:00 PM »

Hi all,

Been keeping up with the Joel Albrizio craze. Nuts. Anyway, I wrote my own commentary about it as a business owner, an author, and a reviewer. I've also wrote about Linda Ellis since she is rearing her ugly head again.

http://www.backwoodsauthor.com/2017/03/06/badly-behaving-entrepreneurs-put-badly-behaving-authors-shame/

Thanks for the input and post!! Be warned the Boston PD may be notified if you continue to mention Joel Albrizio..His ego while seemingly huge is very fragile.

189

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Voices of Jupiter Florida" Discussion Thread

« on: March 05, 2017, 06:36:59 PM »

I tend to agree with Matthew here..I also think Joel and Linda have spoken, and Linda did comment on VOJF using her own name, but I think thats the extent of it. I think Joel decided to "use" Linda for his own selfish purposes, thus dragging her further into it. Greg brings up good points, the only time VOJF posts is when something is said about Adlife, Joel Albrizio, or Brandon Albrizio. I'de be willing to bet if I started posted using Jordan Albrizios name, or perhaps Ashley Albrizios name, we'd see some sort of twisted, bogus made up BS on VOJF.

190

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Voices of Jupiter Florida" Discussion Thread

« on: March 04, 2017, 05:15:48 PM »

OR maybe he is just dumber than a box of rocks.

How dare you insult rocks like that!

191

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Even More Proof Joel Albrizio Is Involved With VOJF

« on: March 03, 2017, 06:55:28 PM »

I must confess that I was honestly dumbfounded and confounded when I saw the GrowingtheGrocer website have "Joel Albrizio" & "Voices of Jupiter Florida" URL/website links right there so prominently under his own "About" page in the Footer section. Those screenshots (which I also grabbed for myself) are just real stunners.

I guess I am naive. I thought perhaps that was a reluctant admission of him owning up to VOJF.  But then as soon as Greg's post goes up, the links to "Joel Albrizio" and VOJF suddenly disappeared.

But MAYBE it was one of his employees or contractors that did that by mistake. And perhaps someone has gotten a verbal-spanky-spanky for that online faux pas.  He is just having a very tough time staying hidden. I would say to him, just come out of the closet and own up to VOJF. It is the worst kept secret and worst "anonymous" online presence we have ever seen.

Forget about taking down VOJF for now, I call for Joel to just CONFESS to being behind VOJF!  The back-stretching, neck-tightening, leg-pulling, arm-cramping statement "I am not your blogger" just can't fly! I suppose he has a right plead the Fifth, the right to not self-incriminate himself.

At this rate, we now have a Gallery of all this VOJF evidence piling up! LOL.

We have now had two new pieces of information linking Joel Albrizio and AdLife Marketing to the VOJF blog in a weeks time. The first was when a screenshot of Robert Krausankas'Facebook page appeared on the VOJF blog. The image was only up for a few hours before it was taken down, edited and reposted but while it was up we were able to get screen captures of it showing that Joel Albrizio was the person logged in to the Facebook account at the time the original screen capture was taken.

If that wasn't enough we now have what I consider to be the biggest piece of evidence linking Joel Albrizio/AdLife Marketing to the VOJF blog to date. A new website created by AdLife Marketing with a permanent link on each page to the VOJF blog.

You can read all the background and see the screen captures in this article at Copyright Anti-Bullying Act.

http://copyrightantibullyingact.org/site/can-joel-albrizio-continue-to-deny-his-involvement-with-voices-of-jupiter-florida/

Being dishonest, lying and trying to hide behind a fake persona is a huge effort, and rarely works out well. to much crap to keep track of..Give them enough rope and their bound to get hung up at some point. This is a perfect example of that.

192

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Voices of Jupiter Florida" Discussion Thread

« on: March 03, 2017, 11:08:25 AM »

....pretty much sums it up...

Looks like April Brown had some pent up energy to release..

https://www.aprilbrown.com/copyright-infringement-the-das/joelalbrizioepicfail

193

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Letter from Pixsy

« on: February 22, 2017, 07:14:03 PM »

Get yourself educated, read these forums, and your answers will be fairly self evident.

194

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Voices of Jupiter Florida" Discussion Thread

« on: February 17, 2017, 11:08:45 AM »

An Open Letter to Brendon Albrizio

I'll just drop this here....Please by all means feel free to discuss and share..

Dear Brendon,
As an ex-executive of your father’s (Joel Albrizio’s) company, Adlife Marketing, I’m sure you are aware of the recent goings on in regards to me reporting my opinion on Adlife Marketings somewhat shady business tactics regarding copyright enforcement tactics. This has never been a personal quest of mine (or those reporting on these tactics) to tarnish your or your family’s reputation in any way shape or form. The author of The Voices of Jupiter Florida .com is solely responsible for making this a personal issue.

read the rest here : http://copyright-trolls.com/2.0/an-open-letter-to-brendon-albrizio/

195

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Beware of Photographer Nicholas (Nick) Youngson of NYPhotographic.com

« on: February 15, 2017, 12:52:14 PM »

Hi @buddhapi, thanks. Yes, you can use this to check that a copyright exists, that it is under Nick Youngson's name, and that it is for images. However you cannot see what specific content is included in that copyright. Multiple images may be part of the same copyright and you cannot see the actual images contained in it. Now perhaps we can assume that Higbee has a smart enough operation that he will ensure the image copyright information is correct - but IMHO (and attorneys I have consulted) it is always prudent to check whether the image in question for you is actually copyrighted. In order to get the actual images under a specific copyright registration, the copyright office gave me the procedure I listed above. Please let me know if you have found a better way. Thanks.

Might I suggest you consult an attorney that is experienced in copyright law... copyright exists at the moment of creation...registration is not required to afford copyright protection, but it does afford other remedies in regards to infringement. The flaw in the copyright system, which has been spoken about for years now, is that "group registrations", that is many images registered at one time, does not include the "images" in question, so going to DC would still not yield the desired results, but you'd be out 100.00. As I stated before, it would be up to the plaintiff ( if they filed) to prove their case, and that the image(s) in question is included in the registration. You also need to realize the reason is that lawsuits are hardly ever filed is because there is no valid registration in the first place, these trolls simply want to extract money from your account, by using fear tactics..If it were me, rather than spend 100.00 for possibly no results, I would wait and if they file, I would spend a bit more to file a counter suit for a declaratory judgement..in other words I'd flip it back on them and back them into a corner..but thats just me.