Messages

2146

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: UK Query

« on: March 21, 2012, 04:33:46 PM »

They very well could be IF they decided to start filing suits, they know and realize they do not have their ducks in a row, this is why they only continue to send letters, and not actually file suit. They continue to work the percentage game

2147

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: UK Query

« on: March 21, 2012, 10:39:59 AM »

I can see why a UK "you win or it's free" legal service would be so lucrative.
Not mentioning any names... just sayin'...

S.G.

I can see it as well, if in fact this snippet from the law applies, there would be very few "losses", which is also another reason Getty rarely files suit..they basically have no case. I hope someone can confirm this as factual UK law.

2148

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Creditor seeks $500-a-day fine against Righthaven

« on: March 21, 2012, 07:11:15 AM »

Copyright lawsuit filer Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas and its CEO may soon face a fine of $500 per day for every day that Righthaven fails to comply with a court order.

An attorney for Righthaven creditor Thomas DiBiase asked a federal judge in Las Vegas on Tuesday to impose the daily fine to “coerce” Righthaven and its officers — mainly CEO Steven Gibson — into compliance with the court order.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/mar/20/creditor-seeks-500--day-fine-against-righthaven/

2149

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Checking for copyright

« on: March 20, 2012, 05:41:22 PM »

you can try here: http://www.copyright.gov/records/

hasn't been very useful / user friendly in the past, but maybe you'll get lucky or unlucky as it were..

2150

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My letter Experience

« on: March 19, 2012, 05:37:43 PM »

well it's the first I've heard of something like this. I wouldn't get to freaked, as it may have been a copy of the same letter they first sent you, with the exception of them stating that they will provide the requested info when it goes to court..which is a typical response.

2151

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My letter Experience

« on: March 19, 2012, 05:22:02 PM »

I find it hard to imagine they would file suit over 2 images, but the fact they may have sent a registered letter is a bit concerning. I thinhk ( and I'm not positive) that in order to be "served" it has to be done in person, by an official of some sort. I would be tempted to wait it out and see what happens next, but it's your call. Do you know if the letter was from getty, or perhaps NCS recovery?? or maybe even McCormack?

2152

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: UK Newbie: A possible scam to be wary of

« on: March 17, 2012, 07:44:05 PM »

Getty gets it's reported infringements from Picscout (whom Getty also Owns) it was probably exactly what they said a "mistake" they ( Getty) seems to make plenty of those being in the trolling business. I highly doubt they are in cahoots with a Chinese company, in any way.

2153

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

« on: March 17, 2012, 03:59:19 PM »

I would consider that a win as well< I'll try to contact him this coming week...

2154

Getty Images Letter Forum / This did not sit well with me...worth reading

« on: March 17, 2012, 11:39:25 AM »

Vancouver’s dating website PlentyofFish.com sued over photo of dead US soldier

Vancouver online dating service PlentyofFish.com has been sued by the family of an American soldier whose photo appeared in an ad on the dating website four years after he was killed in Iraq.

The lawsuit filed in Dallas alleges that PlentyofFish.com and the Dallas-based True.com used a photo of Peter Burks,  a Second Lieutenant in the US army, without permission.

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/02/29/vancouvers-dating-website-plentyoffish-com-sued-over-photo-of-dead-us-soldier/

2155

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

« on: March 17, 2012, 06:48:09 AM »

Means one of 2 things...

Template monster took care of it and MF dropped it, or the vet settled out of court and MF dropped it, unfortunately the paperwork does not state which. I had assumed ( which is bad on my part) that they just settled, I had to go back and refresh my memory, as I forgot template monster was involved..

you should get the recap add on for firefox, it will allow you to see items from pacer that have been downloaded already, and you won't have to pay...I'm dangerous when I get into pacer! 

2156

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

« on: March 16, 2012, 08:03:47 PM »

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/idaho/iddce/1:2012cv00012/29042/

I hope these people fight.  It looks like this might be a veternian clinic.

Sorry to report..another has fallen victim to Masterfile as this case was dismissed with prejudice...

2157

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and the Stone Collection

« on: March 16, 2012, 05:57:53 PM »

"With regard to Khan, I'm not sure where you are coming from. If you are thinking that you have "copyright" just because the photographer took photos of "your products" I think that you are a bit mis-informed."

We had a contract which said that I got the copyright oft the pictures. 

Not trying to be a hard ass or anything...but...
Did he specifically provide any sort of form transferring the copyright to you? or was it just in the contract...just like a contract which would be separate, it would need to be signed and dated by both parties...

::edit:: something similar to this as I can't find my pdf that I use.

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/copyrightinc.pdf

2158

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and the Stone Collection

« on: March 16, 2012, 05:41:16 PM »

I got the copyright. He took photos of my products. But it may be different with product photos I did not try other photos yet. 

Yes, in a case of a  work for hire..same would apply to my and my field, if I was under the employ of SG's Butthurt Inc. and developed a site, SG would automatically own the copyright, because I was on his payroll.

My question is did the photographer actaully sign over a release of copyright for you? If not I don't think you would technically own the copyright..Unless he was on your payroll that is.

::edit:: From the US copyright site:

What is a work made for hire?
Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle. The exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.

2159

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / an important point in last week righthaven ruling.

« on: March 16, 2012, 01:56:51 PM »

THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

1. That Counterclaimants Democratic Underground and David Allen have committed no volitional act giving rise to a claim for direct copyright infringement. Counterclaimants neither posted the excerpt nor encouraged the posting. Nor did they have any knowledge of the posting until after this suit was filed. See Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-line Commnc’n Servs., 907
F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (direct copyright infringement requires “some element of volition or causation which is lacking where a defendant’s system is merely used to create a copy by a third party”); see also CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) and Cartoon Network LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc,, 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008).

" Righthaven relied heavily on the fact that it could sue sites that had not officially designated a DMCA agent, arguing that if you don’t do that, you don’t get any of the DMCA safe harbor protections. While you absolutely should designate an agent if you run a blog and allow any commenting on your site, I’ve always suspected that if it went to court, a site that did not designate an agent wouldn’t automatically be liable for postings of its users. That’s because it’s just common sense that liability should be on the person doing the posting, not the tool used to do so — even if the owners of the tool didn’t designate a DMCA agent."

http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2012/03/new-ruling-in-old-righthaven-case-makes-two-important-points-protecting-fair-use-and-secondary-liability/

2160

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and the Stone Collection

« on: March 16, 2012, 01:37:18 PM »

For 900,-- $ you will get a decent photographer for a day and afterwards you will have more then one photo and you will get the copyright too.

I must disagree here, you won't get the copyright for the photos, photographers don't like to let loose of their IP, as it prohibits them from using the photo elsewhere. Most will offer some sort of licensing option, but will never release the copyright.

::EDIT:: Much like when I design /develop a website, I retain the copyright, the end users only has a license to use it, this gives me the freedom to use any elements I wish in other works, I can also have control over the coding / programming. There are times when I will sign a copyright release, but the price is significantly higher.. Naturally this is all spelled out in the contract, so the client is aware of this.