| 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.
couple of items.. I believe Lucia meant to refer to perfect10 v google, not Amazon and in regards to Pinterest and Peeveds' comments..Perplexingly, both,
So technically there is a "COPY", Pinterest clearly states that it's the user or "pinner" that holds the responsibility , and to boot King douche bag Jonathan Klien pretty much stated on video, then when pinterest starts showing a profit the lawsuits will come.Mind you, it's Pinterest's theory that they aren't the ones copying even though their servers do fetch the image at the 'pinners' behest. I"m not a copyright attorney, but I bet Oscar would suggest Pinterests theory has not been tested in court. This is not quite the same as a pinner downloading to their pc and then uploading to pinterest. Pinterest's hardware actually makes the copy, and I'm not sure the pinners all understand quite what's going on. (Some will; some won't.)
Hell most users probably never even read the TOS..for me it's not that big of an issue, because my images really aren't that super awesome, and I have a moral compass and would not sue someone for some insane amount..Oddly, my thought is that 'justice' would deem Pinterest liable before it would deem the 'pinner' liable. But I don't know what courts would do.
Just one more on the Pinterest thing....I think if you uploaded it to your a Pinterest account that you control and then displayed a hotlink to that image you your Pinterest account at your blog, Masterfile might very well have a case against you. Because in this case, your Pinterest account is, for all practical purposes "your server" and you copied it to that server. So, in this case, you are for all practical purposes "hosting" the image. After all: you can delete it.
TOS link...
http://about.pinterest.com/copyright/
Highlights:
"Pinterest will take whatever action, in its sole discretion, it deems appropriate, including removal of the challenged material from the Site. DMCA Notice of Alleged Infringement ("Notice").
"I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the copyrighted material or reference or link to such material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., as a fair use)."
Now...if one uploaded an image on Pinterest and linked it back to ones personal or commercial website, I would think that this would NOT be considered "fair use".
A. Display Right
In considering whether Perfect 10 made a prima facie case of violation of its display right, the district court reasoned that a computer owner that stores an image as electronic information and serves that electronic information directly to the user (“i.e., physically sending ones and zeroes over the {I}nternet to the user's browser,” Perfect 10, 416 F.Supp.2d at 839) is displaying the electronic information in violation of a copyright holder's exclusive display right. Id. at 843-45; see 17 U.S.C. § 106(5). Conversely, the owner of a computer that does not store and serve the electronic information to a user is not displaying that information, even if such owner in-line links to or frames the electronic information. Perfect 10, 416 F.Supp.2d at 843-45. The district court referred to this test as the “server test.” Id. at 838-39.
Applying the server test, the district court concluded that Perfect 10 was likely to succeed in its claim that Google's thumbnails constituted direct infringement but was unlikely to succeed in its claim that Google's in-line linking to full-size infringing images constituted a direct infringement. Id. at 843-45. As explained below, because this analysis comports with the language of the Copyright Act, we agree with the district court's resolution of both these issues.
We have not previously addressed the question when a computer displays a copyrighted work for purposes of section 106(5). Section 106(5) states that a copyright owner has the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly.” The Copyright Act explains that “display” means “to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process․” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101 defines “copies” as “material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” Id. Finally, the Copyright Act provides that “[a] work is ‘fixed’ in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.” Id.
We must now apply these definitions to the facts of this case. A photographic image is a work that is “ ‘fixed’ in a tangible medium of expression,” for purposes of the Copyright Act, when embodied (i.e., stored) in a computer's server (or hard disk, or other storage device). The image stored in the computer is the “copy” of the work for purposes of copyright law. See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 517-18 (9th Cir.1993) (a computer makes a “copy” of a software program when it transfers the program from a third party's computer (or other storage device) into its own memory, because the copy of the program recorded in the computer is “fixed” in a manner that is “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration” (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101)). The computer owner shows a copy “by means of a ․ device or process” when the owner uses the computer to fill the computer screen with the photographic image stored on that computer, or by communicating the stored image electronically to another person's computer. 17 U.S.C. § 101. In sum, based on the plain language of the statute, a person displays a photographic image by using a computer to fill a computer screen with a copy of the photographic image fixed in the computer's memory. There is no dispute that Google's computers store thumbnail versions of Perfect 10's copyrighted images and communicate copies of those thumbnails to Google's users.6 Therefore, Perfect 10 has made a prima facie case that Google's communication of its stored thumbnail images directly infringes Perfect 10's display right.
Google does not, however, display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user's computer screen. Because Google's computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects ․ in which a work is fixed ․ and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. 17 U.S.C. § 101.
Another thing he told me during our conversation:He's just wrong. Wrong. Laughably wrong.
Beal: "It does not matter if you link to an image and don't host it. If it is displayed on your website, you are liable for it."
Me: "The site is a blog, not a static website. I did not download the image on my hosting provider's servers."It's not at all clear how Pinterest's Terms of Service could possibly affect your case. But it might have been fun if he gave you a link so we could laugh at precisely what language written by Pinterest he thinks affects your display!
Beal: "It doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of pinterest.com? Look there and you will see they promise penalties there if you link to copyrighted material."
Major news on a Getty case. Attached is a federal decision in a case called Getty v. Advernet. I was involved in the case for awhile representing the defendant in court. Like you, he was bit of a renegade and wanted to battle it out and see what happens. He was sued for thirty seven images. After the case did not settle at a settlement conference, he decided that he would just default on it as the corporation had no assets and he would have to spend a lot of money on the litigation. So we moved to be relieved and it was granted. Of course, when the company did not show up with a new attorney at a scheduled conference, Getty moved for a default judgment.
Well, while the judge found that the lack of appearance was grounds for a default he REFUSED to enter a default judgment because he said Getty could not establish it rights to the images properly and could not establish when the infringement allegedly occurred! The decision has lots of interesting info on how Getty operates and how PicScout works, etc. Better yet, when Getty got the decision, they tried to move for re-argument saying the judge misunderstood the evidence and the law. On Nov 22, 2011, the judge denied THAT motion as well! Both decisions are attached. The reargument decision follows the first one. This is great news and a big loss for Getty. Even when the other side had no lawyer, a judge had problems with their claims. They will likely re-tool after this and figure out how to correct the issues raised by the court.
I went to see a bankruptcy lawyer a couple week ago to see how bad it could be. He said I had to have an attorney to represent my company as Glycomeds was a company at the time of Getty's notice (so I couldn't represent my own company myself even if it had no money and I couldn't terminate the company to avoid the infringement). He said they would sue me in Washington State and claim they have jurisdiction and as I wouldn't have anyone one there to speak for me the judge would go along with it. As Getty has in-house paid attorneys this action would cost them nothing but $150 filing fee. As no one would appear it would upset the judge and he would go along with what Getty said - My company made millions of dollars over the years through the sole use of their two images. All in all the bankruptcy attorney said he would expect the judge to award fines and penalties of six or seven digits against my company.
It seems that you can just make whatever accusations you want to exaggerate the reality of the situation.In court VKT will have to prove his case. If there is no ongoing infringement, the defendant's attorney will presumably simply point that out. The judge isn't going to simply accept the claim that infringement continues without proof. (This seems to be a business. My impression is incorporated entities can't defend themsevles; they are required legal representation. ) There is plenty of discussion on this site about VKT's habits resulting in his images quickly leaping to free wall paper sites. Presumably, the defendant will find those and present them-- and also present all the images with copyright information missing.
On the www I read very disturbing things, rumour goes around that PicScout is downloading a copy of your entire website, is that even possible, or legal?It is possible for a bot to scrape your entire website. The technology certainly exists though a the webmaster or administrator can also organize things to make it more difficult (or impossible) to scrape certain things. But basically: Generally if person can load a url on the web, a bot can also load the url. If the bot can load the url, it can 'scrape' that url-- which mostly just means copying it.
Does this mean that they can use this data for future clients?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100207125204AA1Id9a
Whether this is legal depends on the country and a variety of factors. But in the US it would probably be very difficult to win a suit for someone scraping a site though there might be situations where the level of scraping becomes illegal. (For example: If it was so severe that the scraper caused your server to crash. ) Just guessing urls or violating robots.txt are not illegal.
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. |
