Messages

2086

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the letter ....A question and my plan....

« on: April 14, 2012, 05:36:10 PM »

I'm doing some homework on any patterns as to when Getty and others send out letters, I've been noticing a trend, where the forums seem to get quiet, and then all of a sudden get busy again.. I can't help but think that Getty tends to send out letters on a monthly basis all in one shot. If anywould would like to volunteer when their letters were dated it would help in my research, I f a pattern emerges I'll have a look at how hawaiian art network operates as well..it might just be me, but in talking with Matt recently, we discussed the fact that it's usually quiet right before the storm.. This would lend credibility to the fact that you can't use the date of the letter as date of the infringement discovery.....Poor mail mail must hate to pick up Getty's mail on the dates in questions...if it pans out

So I've looked thru literally hundreds of posts going back several years, and also has some folks send me dates , the dates seems to be spread out all over, no obvious patterns, with the exception that some letter seems to "sit around" before actually getting mailed...

On another note has anybody noticed that Hawaiian Art Network has seemed to fall silent?

2087

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the letter ....A question and my plan....

« on: April 13, 2012, 06:25:28 PM »

You are correct.  I actuall used another site as well to check.  I had 1 image from some other Getty like site, I removed that one as well.  After looking at the images that are listed in these companies you get a good feel if you think it is an image that would be on Getty or a Getty like sight.  But I always check now.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to be an ass hat, but I think you missed my main point.. just because one of these sites did not find an image, doesn't get you in the clear, the ONLY way to be 100% certain is to have paperwork or create the images yourself. I suggest you might read the hawaiian art network posts, in regards to "free" wallpaper images.. there are also single photographers that track back their images and send out nasty grams.. I guess it comes down to if you want to gamble or not. I have since stopped using images unless I create them.

2088

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the letter ....A question and my plan....

« on: April 13, 2012, 05:59:22 PM »

Like most people I am a pretty busy person.  When I actually had the time (April 5th, 1 week past the Getty deadline for a response) to check the rest of website. I took all my images and uploaded them up to a reverse image lookup site: http://www.tineye.com/ (This is a great site to check your images)  I found I had a total of 4 images that were in the Getty database,  Yikes!  Of course I took them all down and replaced them.

I actually never got around to reply to Getty.  There is a phone number on my website, but it is just a voice mail, no messages yet.  I have not received another letter yet either.  I think at this point I will do nothing unless I get another letter. 

Matt

Do NOT depend solely on TinEye, it's not a slam dunk that it will find all images, and also don't forget Getty is not the only trolling company either.. Bottom line is if you have ANY images on your site of which you do not have a receipt for, or you did not create the image yourself, someone somewhere owns that / those images and you are still exposed to getting other or more letters.

2089

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Judge Calls Out Copyright Troll Scam in Plain English

« on: April 13, 2012, 11:44:37 AM »

This judge hit the nail on the head here.  Maybe he follows the ELI website! lol

This is certainly plausible, after we have known Getty, Masterfile, Peter Holt, Brandon Sand, Julie Stewart, McCormack and various other attorneys, and stock photo copyright trolls, and maybe even PACA have been following us.

2090

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the letter ....A question and my plan....

« on: April 11, 2012, 07:26:39 PM »

NOTE:

"PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Services.

Am I the only one who is urked by this? You may use them all you want for "personal" use but don't you dare try to decorate your website where you sell stuff to try and put food on the table for your family! Err!

The images contained in Microsnots products are owned by Corbis, which is owned by Microsnot, so it's not very surprising..

2091

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Somehow I knew The Righthaven case would come to this!

« on: April 11, 2012, 05:34:30 PM »

Since Copyright troll Steve Gibson, Righthavens head honcho, doesn't appear to be paying up..

Review-Journal owner facing $774,000 fee demand in Righthaven case

Attorneys say the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal should be required to pay $774,683 in legal fees for what critics call a failed ''shakedown'' copyright infringement lawsuit that threatened the free speech rights of a political website.

The attorneys represent the Democratic Underground, a website that defeated Righthaven LLC, the R-J’s copyright enforcement partner, in one of Righthaven’s copyright infringement lawsuits.

If attorneys for the Democratic Underground have their way, the family of Arkansas investment banking billionaire Warren Stephens will be paying their fees for two reasons:

• They say the Stephens company that owns the R-J, Stephens Media LLC, used Righthaven as a tool to prosecute a frivolous copyright lawsuit against the Democratic Underground.

• Even after the Stephens family invested in Righthaven, Righthaven apparently is now broke and can’t or won’t pay creditors’ claims. That would leave Stephens Media on the hook for all of the fees in the Democratic Underground case under the theory it and Righthaven are jointly and severally liable.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/apr/11/review-journal-owner-facing-774000-fee-demand-righ/

2092

Legal Controversies Forum / MPAA: you can infringe copyright just by embedding a video

« on: April 11, 2012, 12:36:55 PM »

The Motion Picture Association of America is squaring off against a coalition of Internet giants and public interest groups over the key question of whether it's possible to directly infringe copyright by embedding an image or video hosted by a third party.

A federal judge took that position last July, prompting a chorus of criticism. Two briefs—one by Google and Facebook, the other by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge—attacked the decision as contrary to past precedents and potentially disruptive to the Internet economy. They asked the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn it.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/mpaa-you-can-infringe-copyright-just-by-embedding-a-video.ars

2093

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image on Getty is no longer available

« on: April 09, 2012, 07:02:17 PM »

Good for you Ursus, and once again SHAME ON GETTY IMAGES!

2094

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar Michelen Defends Chaga Against $6 Million Masterfile Lawsuit

« on: April 09, 2012, 03:42:45 PM »

To hell with small bites, I dove right in and read all of it at once, from what I see Chaga has a good shot at winning this, I can see if the registrations were flawed in one area, but there are multiple issues on each registration, and apparently Ms. Wolff, Paca and the copyright office don't have the power to make the rules as they go along, and it seems to me that is what happened here, not only did the copyright office give bad info/advise, PACA did not do it's legal homework before sending this bad info on to the stock agencies...

2095

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter: Special Report!

« on: April 08, 2012, 02:21:38 PM »

Ok, ok!  Thanks for the kick in my tail. I deserve it. I truly need to get to the a good stopping point. If for no other reason, I don't want to embarrass myself further with a runaway deadline.

I already feel bad for getting sidetracked. But this is one of these times I don't mind people ganging up on me to get the darn thing done.  :-)  It will be good for everyone if I do.

Peeved wnated me to ask you if it was ready and completed yet! 

2096

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Hypocrite of the Century!

« on: April 06, 2012, 06:29:58 AM »

@Peeved T.H.A.T is classic, nothing like protecting yourself from some serious Butt hurt with a Butt Hat!

@scraggy, another great nugget there, I'm heading out of town and won't have internet, but perhaps a couple of screen shots to document this would be good to have...just for the record as it were.

2097

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Hypocrite of the Century!

« on: April 05, 2012, 07:41:52 PM »

Great find Buddhapi.  Actually I'm glad to hear him go on the record like that. 
I would think that would be very good supporting information for an "implied license" defense should one wind up in court.  It appears to me that he is clearly implying a free license for all Getty images, up to a point anyway.  I'm not even sure "implied license" would be the right term . . . sounds explicit to me!

The credit belongs to Matt, he brought it to my attention, and he's been busy with other matters and life in general. We briefly spoke about this interview, and I'm sure when he has time there will be an article written. I am quite sure he will some some very good input.

2098

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Hypocrite of the Century!

« on: April 05, 2012, 05:34:20 PM »

I would think as CEO he would be the driving force behind the demand letters, granted he has board members, but as CEO  he could at least be honest, instead of flat out spreading this garbage. He know damn well what his company does, right or wrong makes no difference to him, it's all about the money at the end of the day...

2099

Getty Images Letter Forum / The Hypocrite of the Century!

« on: April 05, 2012, 04:50:06 PM »

Here are a few gems from none other than Jonathan Klein co-founder and CEO of Getty Images..

“We’re comfortable with people using our images to build traffic. The point in time when they have a business model, they have to have some sort of license.”

"...when their images are used for commercial purposes they are paid" here he is referring to Getty's "contributors"

"...we don't stop consumers from playing with our images..."

"we don't stop the proliferation of imagery..."


But he hasn’t eliminated the ability to right-click on a Getty photo and save it to your computer. Anyone with the most basic of Photoshop skills could easily get rid of the Getty watermark within minutes. That’s because he’s not concerned about people playing with Getty photos, teenagers using them for school projects, and folks putting them up on their personal blogs — or, at the moment, even Pinterest.

I can't watch or read it anymore this ass-hat ticks me off... I'm reminded of the site that was helping US Veterans, that got a letter from Getty, they made ZERO dollars, they did NOT have ANY ads to generate revenue..

Judge for yourself, and please share your thoughts on this:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/22/for-pinterest-revenue-will-turn-copyright-questions-into-problems/

2100

Legal Controversies Forum / How much does Pinterest actually make?

« on: April 05, 2012, 02:21:16 PM »

What kind of revenue numbers would justify Pinterest’s $200 million valuation? Atlantic writer Alexis Madrigal and others have used back-of-the-envelope math to explain this valuation. In his article, “Why Pinterest Is Playing Dumb About Making Money,” Madrigal puts Pinterest’s annual revenue at $45 million a year. Based on statistical modeling, I believe there is only a .25 percent chance that Pinterest is making that much money.

Considering all possible scenarios — not just the most optimistic ones — let me show you why and how much Pinterest earns.

http://gigaom.com/2012/03/30/how-much-does-pinterest-actually-make/


If this is indded true to any degree, you can bet your ass that Getty will be ramping up the demand letters..they (Getty) have already p[ublicly stated that as soon as any money is generated, they will come after their share.