Messages

1846

Getty Images Letter Forum / Photo Attorney Leslie J. Burns Exposed

« on: May 29, 2012, 05:28:54 PM »

Another stellar job exposing the newest photo attorney Leslie J. Burns also of photoattorney.com Carolyn Wrights Office as well as burnsautoparts.com.

http://www.palmbeachdns.com/leslie_google_SS.jpg

1847

Getty Images Letter Forum / Photo Attorney Cindy Wan-Hsin Hsu should be grateful!

« on: May 29, 2012, 05:13:25 PM »

Now thats' she's getting much more exposure than she was getting 2 weeks ago, just one of the many benefits she reaps after joining Photo Attorney Carolyn Wrights stable of copyright trolls

http://www.palmbeachdns.com/cindy_google_SS.jpg

5 results on the first page of google...well done ELI!
( the fifth result is directly under the "photoattorney.com" listing..

1848

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / go-daddy's misguided use of DMCA

« on: May 29, 2012, 01:57:45 PM »

Another case of GoDaddy not only removing the questionable image, but shutting down the entire account..not just the hosting account for the domain in question, but the entire account including a total of 14 sites under this one account.



I have seen first hand that some of the "Free Wallpaper" sites that have Vincent K Tylor / Hawaiian Artnetwork images on them are hosted with go-daddy, yet they are still online...just say'in

1849

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 29, 2012, 01:34:46 PM »

exactly correct, int he nearly 15 years I have been in business, I have ALWAYS put jobs being developed into a password protected directory, and given access to my clients only. By looking thru my log files I can confirm no bots, good or bad have been in there..

I would be curious to learn if any stock agency is pursuing claims against people with their images in a protected directory. I always presumed that Picscout would hunt down the images, pass the relevant "hits" to the stock company. From there the stock company would have an employee actually visit the public-facing page where these images appear, take screenshots and any other notes.

If that is the workflow, I think you would have a hard time making the case that the images were in a private directory if you were publishing them on an HTML page for the world to see. On the other hand, if you are producing a password protected page and the images are in a protected directory, I don't think PicScout is able to spider those images. They are not "hacking" into your system. They are "just" ignoring your robots.txt directive. And unfortunately at this stage, robots.txt is seem as more of a suggestion than an enforceable rule.

1850

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: May 29, 2012, 10:19:42 AM »

Another case of someone rolling over to masterfile's demands.

5/16/2012:
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by Plaintiff Masterfile Corporation pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to Pindar Enterprises Import and Export LLC. (Weinberg, Steven) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

Masterfile is wasting no time this year.  They just filed another lawsuit yesterday against Global Services Worldwide.  However, it doesn't show up as IP, it shows "other" under type of suit. 

http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Masterfile+Corporation

1851

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images/Memorial Day Welcome Home surprise...

« on: May 29, 2012, 10:05:25 AM »

I'll go out on a limb here and tell you Getty's response:

"The image in question was a screen capture used for portfolio purposes to generate revenue for the infringers business, it does not matter that the image appeared somewhere else. The image appears on your web-site and there is no valid license agreement...yada, yada, yada..

I might be inclined to reduce the response time from 14 to 10 day, mail it and date it on a Friday, with any luck it will take a few days to get there, and you've already lost sunday, you might just get lucky and they might miss your deadline.

+ 1 for keeping it short and simple. I agree about admitting nothing as well as not getting into the fair use argument.

If you're going to quote, quote from Getty CEO Klein (vids on the home page of ELI) where Klein encourages people to use Getty images as long as they're not used for a commercial purpose. It seems to me that your wife fits this category perfectly. Let's see what kind of BS reply a Getty intern will have for that one.

1852

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: HAN / Copyright Services International Settlement Notification Phone Call

« on: May 29, 2012, 09:59:31 AM »

I would also not volunteer my name or address, let them find it on their own.

Something I wrote and keep on my desk just in case I ever get a call from a copyright troll:

"I do not discuss legal matters regarding copyright disputes on the phone. Put what you have to say in writing and mail it to my address. I keep a paper trail for all legal matters. Doing so has always served me well in and out of court."

At this point I'd hang up and not reply to any additional calls from that number. I most definitely would not engage these people in any form of conversation.

1853

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images/Memorial Day Welcome Home surprise...

« on: May 29, 2012, 06:54:11 AM »

I would not go the fair use direction, it will get you nowhere, whilst at the same time, you're telling them you used the image. Admit nothing, word your letter in such a way where you admit nothing. There is a good post here with some good ideas to assist with your response..Remember Getty is not judge and jury, it is on them to to show they own the image in queston.. Keep it short, simple, factual, and ADMIT nothing..

There was another poster in a similar situation, he/she had a portfolio page that showed some sort of print advertising, containing an image in pdf format.The image used in the ad was roperly registered and Getty came at this prson for having the pdf sample on their site.

1854

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NCS IP Solutions Settlement Offer Letter

« on: May 28, 2012, 01:54:47 PM »

Pretty sure Matthew has the order correct....Getty Demand Letters, then NCS collection letters, the it it sent to McCormack Law for another round of threatening and demanding letters.. Getty's very own circle of life

1855

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 27, 2012, 03:36:33 PM »

I think what you're missing here is that Picscout is not operating from the US, if it was, this would be a different ballgame, as they would have to play by our rules and laws. Even though Getty Images owns Picscout I doubt they will ever move that portion to US soil.. As web hosts, and developers, it is part of our ethical and moral responsibility to educate and protect our clients and any future clients from the trolls.

1856

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pro photographer + expert witness Sedlik comments on copyright infringements

« on: May 26, 2012, 04:36:35 PM »

Sorry SG I'm not qualified to add any details on your question, but i have a few comments to toss into the mix..As I understand the terms "published" this comes into being once "anyone" besides yourself sees the image..for example if I'm a pro photographer and I do a model shoot and show my client "proofs" afterward, but before I register them, they would be considered published..same goes if I upload them to a password protected directory on my web server and give you the username/password..for all intents and purposes those images have now been "published" even if not in the "public eye" How would one go about proving when something was published or not is the real question..

something else I'm interested in is this:

"You must also separate your published images by year of first publication, so images published in December must be separately registered from images published in the following month."

Has it been stated that the Tony Stone Collection of images which Getty now owns was registered in bulk as a compilation? if so I would be interested to know how it would be possible to shoot, edit, process, cull, etc 93,146 images in the same month. or is this collections split into many smaller chunks?

1857

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: photoattorney.com / Carolyn Wright

« on: May 26, 2012, 04:18:24 PM »

I'd like to here comments form some others regarding this snippet from Carolyn Wright.

""There are some risks in sending the letter yourself. First, the infringer may attempt to preempt an infringement lawsuit and file a request for declaratory judgment that the use is authorized. This may involve you in a legal action for which you may need legal counsel in a jurisdiction (court location) where you don’t want to litigate. Second, your demand for payment may be admissible against you if an infringement case is filed. If you demand too little, then it may limit your ultimate recovery. To avoid this possibility, include in your demand letter that “these discussions and offer to settle are an attempt to compromise this dispute.”

Specifically in regards to the request for declaratory judgement. Am I understanding it correctly??

So I get a letter from Timothy B. McCormack from Seattle, I'm located in Florida, could I upon receipt of said letter file a request for declaratory judgement in Florida , thus forcing his hand to appear in Florida to address this request? That would sure be inconvenient to say the least and costly.. I guess I'm reading this as similar to a "counter-claim" but me firing across his bow first..a premptive strike as it were..thoughts?? opinions?? am I totally not "getting" this?

1858

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pro photographer + expert witness Sedlik comments on copyright infringements

« on: May 26, 2012, 04:12:09 PM »

I find it interesting that both Glen Carner  of Copyright Services international/Hawaiian Art Network and Carolyn Wright of photoattorney.com both commented on the same thread...once again birds of a feather.

I'm sure SG realized these are 2 different parties, and it is indeed a good read. Carolyn Wright and other copyright trolls will continue to get "clients" by way of photographers that cannot earn a living by selling their images..after all look at what Getty Images has done to the industry and how they treat their own "contributors"...they sue them!

Also conveniently listed on this blog is a list of
"Recommended US Copyright Attorneys", which not only lists Carolyn Wright of photoattorney.com, but also Nancy Wolff whom we know from PACA ( Picture Archive Council of America)



http://www.jeremynicholl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/us-copyright-lawyers.pdf

1859

Legal Controversies Forum / Taking a stand and fighting back first!

« on: May 26, 2012, 03:55:05 PM »

Not copyright related, but interesting nonetheless

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2010-01-21/news/better-off-deadbeat-craig-cunningham-has-a-simple-solution-for-getting-bill-collectors-off-his-back-he-sues-them/1/

1860

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: May 26, 2012, 07:22:19 AM »

Copyright Services International is indeed an active business in the state of Hawaii, it appears they have hanged it to an LLC so Glen Carner can hide behind the corp

http://hbe.ehawaii.gov/documents/business.html?fileNumber=92213C5

http://hbe.ehawaii.gov/documents/trade.html?fileNumber=72605C5&certificate=4091906

The registrant was originally Hawaiian Art Network LLC, perhaps Mr Glen Carner did not want HAN to be sued or he did not want it to appear that the 2 were in fact tied together.