181
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: an inside peek at picscout
« on: September 24, 2012, 03:12:09 PM »
Hey Ian,
I removed the post.
Sorry for any offense.
S.G.
I removed the post.
Sorry for any offense.
S.G.
| 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.
182
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: an inside peek at picscout
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:22:06 PM »
Getty probably wants to downplay the fact they own PicScout.
Everytime Masterfail uses PicScout for example, they're enriching their direct competitor Getty.
S.G.
Everytime Masterfail uses PicScout for example, they're enriching their direct competitor Getty.
S.G.
183
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:08:34 PM »
Interesting sales pitch.
I noticed that he used language such as you can "claim your image on C-Registry".
Which implies that doing so provides some sort of "legal" protection, or "legal standing".
It clearly does no such thing. Only the Copyright Office can do that. Even then, most people fail at using it properly.
This "C-Registry" does have definite uses for copyright trolling extortion practices.
Anybody... me you, Buddhapi... any of us could sign up for C-Registry, "claim" some random image, and then attempt to extort monies from the end user under the guise of "infringement".
Again "C-Registry" cannot prove ownership, infringement, or even that a picture is actually copyrighted... it could link to any bogus number at the copyright office.
I should also mention that if Randy Taylor is storing all of these images cataloged on "C-Registry", then he is personally committing copyright infringement on a huge scale.
Anyway, "C-Registry" appears to be a clone of PicScout's "ImageExchange", and also a clone of google's Image Search.
None of these can provide a shred of proof regarding allegations of copyright infringement.
It's back to the same old thing; "you're using our images", and "we don't have show you any proof, just pay us".
Fail.
S.G.
I noticed that he used language such as you can "claim your image on C-Registry".
Which implies that doing so provides some sort of "legal" protection, or "legal standing".
It clearly does no such thing. Only the Copyright Office can do that. Even then, most people fail at using it properly.
This "C-Registry" does have definite uses for copyright trolling extortion practices.
Anybody... me you, Buddhapi... any of us could sign up for C-Registry, "claim" some random image, and then attempt to extort monies from the end user under the guise of "infringement".
Again "C-Registry" cannot prove ownership, infringement, or even that a picture is actually copyrighted... it could link to any bogus number at the copyright office.
I should also mention that if Randy Taylor is storing all of these images cataloged on "C-Registry", then he is personally committing copyright infringement on a huge scale.
Anyway, "C-Registry" appears to be a clone of PicScout's "ImageExchange", and also a clone of google's Image Search.
None of these can provide a shred of proof regarding allegations of copyright infringement.
It's back to the same old thing; "you're using our images", and "we don't have show you any proof, just pay us".
Fail.
S.G.
184
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?
« on: September 24, 2012, 01:13:09 PM »
I think that Lettered nailed it.
We've discussed such things in the past many times.
I can get all sorts of "free" images to use. But, I buy royalty free stock images.
Why? To avoid claims such as the one that the original poster (OP) received. I have a license and receipt when I buy.
In any case, if it's offered up for "free" on the web, Getty couldn't get much more than the price of an innocent infringement ($200).
...and they'd have to spend many thousands of dollars in court costs to get that. Getty's content isn't registered, so they couldn't get those court costs.
Plus they never sue over a single image... a single image that's a "mash-up" of other images.
I hope that clears everything up.
S.G.
We've discussed such things in the past many times.
I can get all sorts of "free" images to use. But, I buy royalty free stock images.
Why? To avoid claims such as the one that the original poster (OP) received. I have a license and receipt when I buy.
In any case, if it's offered up for "free" on the web, Getty couldn't get much more than the price of an innocent infringement ($200).
...and they'd have to spend many thousands of dollars in court costs to get that. Getty's content isn't registered, so they couldn't get those court costs.
Plus they never sue over a single image... a single image that's a "mash-up" of other images.
I hope that clears everything up.
S.G.
185
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?
« on: September 23, 2012, 11:45:47 PM »
The moment that content is published (appears) on the Internet, it is "live". No questions.
Whether or not anyone can find the content doesn't matter.
I have the feeling that PicScout plugs in raw DNS numbers to access sites. It doesn't come from "google", for example.
I saw Klein's vid a while back. I have no intention of defending Getty.
But, did he specifically say that people could make live sites with Getty images that they haven't licensed?
Additionally, while this is certainly embarassing for Getty, and they're definitely enticing people to take chances with their content, anything that he says offhand in an interview is not a "contract".
It is embarrassing, for Getty... I'll give you that.
Also, I'm agreement that you should not talk on the phone with Getty.
They've dealt with thousands of people on the phone, and they have legal counsel on staff.
That's a couple things to keep in mind.
S.G.
Whether or not anyone can find the content doesn't matter.
I have the feeling that PicScout plugs in raw DNS numbers to access sites. It doesn't come from "google", for example.
I saw Klein's vid a while back. I have no intention of defending Getty.
But, did he specifically say that people could make live sites with Getty images that they haven't licensed?
Additionally, while this is certainly embarassing for Getty, and they're definitely enticing people to take chances with their content, anything that he says offhand in an interview is not a "contract".
It is embarrassing, for Getty... I'll give you that.
Also, I'm agreement that you should not talk on the phone with Getty.
They've dealt with thousands of people on the phone, and they have legal counsel on staff.
That's a couple things to keep in mind.
S.G.
186
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What exact IS Google's DMCA policy?
« on: September 23, 2012, 12:26:34 AM »
It's always about the money.
How many hits has the video gotten..? Nearly 5 million?
That's a lot of hits... and advertizing revenue for YouTube.
I also think that people in the acting field should have clauses in their contracts that their appearance can't be edited to appear "obscene, defamatory", etc.
Even stock image companies have such clauses. A hard lesson in this case.
S.G.
How many hits has the video gotten..? Nearly 5 million?
That's a lot of hits... and advertizing revenue for YouTube.
I also think that people in the acting field should have clauses in their contracts that their appearance can't be edited to appear "obscene, defamatory", etc.
Even stock image companies have such clauses. A hard lesson in this case.
S.G.
187
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers
« on: September 21, 2012, 11:16:06 PM »
My pleasure, of course!!
Everybody's pitching in, and I'm happy to be a part of it!!
S.G.
Everybody's pitching in, and I'm happy to be a part of it!!
S.G.
188
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers
« on: September 21, 2012, 06:43:41 PM »
Good finds by couch_potato.
In fact, there was some private discussion already underway about the court case that couch_potato mentioned (thanks Buddhapi!).
I think that this is in fact, the same Levine that we've been talking about on here.
"iWire Inc." references the 16 Evans drive address of Dan B. Levine:
http://www.majon.com/local/business-services-directory/new-york/glen-head/iwire-inc
This is the company that went bankrupt in 2007 as mentioned in the court filing that couch_potato provided.
"iWire International, Inc" is presently in business.
This company makes reference to stock photo/trolling activities also associated with Dan B. Levine.
To prove that, take a look at these pages on the "iWire International" web site that couch_potato provided:
Compass Media:
http://www.iwireinternational.com/index.php?page=44&lang=e
StockPhotoFinder:
http://www.iwireinternational.com/index.php?page=45&lang=e
Copyright Registry (C-Registry):
http://www.iwireinternational.com/index.php?page=46&lang=e
So, if anyone would to "invest" in copyright trolling, you now know which holding company to contact. lol.
S.G.
In fact, there was some private discussion already underway about the court case that couch_potato mentioned (thanks Buddhapi!).
I think that this is in fact, the same Levine that we've been talking about on here.
"iWire Inc." references the 16 Evans drive address of Dan B. Levine:
http://www.majon.com/local/business-services-directory/new-york/glen-head/iwire-inc
This is the company that went bankrupt in 2007 as mentioned in the court filing that couch_potato provided.
"iWire International, Inc" is presently in business.
This company makes reference to stock photo/trolling activities also associated with Dan B. Levine.
To prove that, take a look at these pages on the "iWire International" web site that couch_potato provided:
Compass Media:
http://www.iwireinternational.com/index.php?page=44&lang=e
StockPhotoFinder:
http://www.iwireinternational.com/index.php?page=45&lang=e
Copyright Registry (C-Registry):
http://www.iwireinternational.com/index.php?page=46&lang=e
So, if anyone would to "invest" in copyright trolling, you now know which holding company to contact. lol.
S.G.
189
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?
« on: September 20, 2012, 11:45:46 PM »
If Getty found the alleged infringement, the site must have been "live", I think.
Regardless, I agree that nothing much will ever come of this.
The alleged infringement is part of a montage of other images, and the site made no money.
It would be difficult to prove any damages.
Getty will send letters to OP for the usual period, then it will simply fade away.
S.G.
Regardless, I agree that nothing much will ever come of this.
The alleged infringement is part of a montage of other images, and the site made no money.
It would be difficult to prove any damages.
Getty will send letters to OP for the usual period, then it will simply fade away.
S.G.
190
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers
« on: September 20, 2012, 11:40:28 PM »
Check out the real estate listing that I posted earlier if you want more info on the house...
S.G.
S.G.
191
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers
« on: September 20, 2012, 05:01:04 PM »
Before we bung up our family dogs with Alpo so that they can defecate on Levine's front lawn, I should mention that the house is actually 15 Evans Dr. 
Good research by Couch_Potato in finding that iWired site. It was a bit buried in the results.
S.G.
Good research by Couch_Potato in finding that iWired site. It was a bit buried in the results.
S.G.
192
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Glen Carner, Hawaiian Art Network and Copyright Services Int.
« on: September 19, 2012, 04:20:51 PM »
Check out the Picscount branding on her website:
"Get PreCrime!! It works!!"
S.G.
"Get PreCrime!! It works!!"
S.G.
193
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Glen Carner, Hawaiian Art Network and Copyright Services Int.
« on: September 19, 2012, 04:13:19 PM »
No doubt that she wants to get into the trolling game.
It's not as if rights-managed content is selling like hotcakes.
Time to look into her background...
S.G.
It's not as if rights-managed content is selling like hotcakes.
Time to look into her background...
S.G.
194
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GODADDY Shut Down By Anonymous
« on: September 15, 2012, 05:26:58 PM »
Apparently, the outage wasn't because of a "hack":
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57510432-83/go-daddy-sorry-about-the-outage-and-no-it-wasnt-a-hack/
S.G.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57510432-83/go-daddy-sorry-about-the-outage-and-no-it-wasnt-a-hack/
S.G.
195
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Dan B. Levine from Copyright Defense League
« on: September 14, 2012, 06:41:27 PM »
heehee..!
S.G.
S.G.
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. |