Messages

2176

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Electronic Frontier Foundation: Court Declares Newspaper Excerpt on Online Forum

« on: March 11, 2012, 03:54:34 PM »

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that, “Late Friday, the federal district court in Nevada issued a declaratory judgment that makes is harder for copyright holders to file lawsuits over excerpts of material and burden online forums and their users with nuisance lawsuits.

The judgment – part of the nuisance lawsuit avalanche started by copyright troll Righthaven – found that Democratic Underground did not infringe the copyright in a Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper article when a user of the online political forum posted a five-sentence excerpt, with a link back to the newspaper’s website.

Judge Roger Hunt’s judgment confirms that an online forum is not liable for its users’ posts, even if it was not protected by the safe harbors of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s notice and takedown provisions.  The decision also clarifies that a common practice on the Internet – excerpting a few sentences and linking to interesting articles elsewhere – is a fair use, not an infringement of copyright.

http://asternglance.com/2012/03/10/electronic-frontier-foundation-court-declares-newspaper-excerpt-on-online-forum-is-a-non-infringing-fair-use/

2177

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)

« on: March 11, 2012, 01:05:14 PM »

ummmm okay...I'll be fininshed now...

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

2178

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)

« on: March 10, 2012, 06:40:39 AM »

I fail to see why contacting the police would help, this is a civil matter and not criminal. While I understand Rocks thinking, I don't think it would get you anywhere..Perhaps looking into filing something with the FTC, Bureau of consumer affairs would yield better results. I also would not classify it as harassment at this point, it's not letters are being sent every week, this was the first letter in years.. Once explained to McCormack that the statute has run, I'm fairly certain he'll send it back to Getty and it will be done with. They are not going to risk their program over this 1 instance.

2179

Getty Images Letter Forum / a nice little plug for ELI

« on: March 09, 2012, 07:34:11 PM »

Seems we may have a friend in the islands, this is a newly posted article linking back to ELI.

http://socialmediaclub.org/chapter/social-media-club-hawaii/blog/copyright-infringement-warnings

2180

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)

« on: March 09, 2012, 01:08:13 PM »

IF ( the biggest 2 letter word in the English language) they were to file suit, which is highly unlikely even without the SOL coming into play, you would simply as a first order of business file a motion to dismiss, based on the grounds that the statute has run and expired...end of story case closed. I would hope that Timothy B. McCormack would not be so ignorant as to file in a case like this, as it would be a total waste of the courts time.

Also note that these "attorney's" probably know the staute has run, but they are by no means going to tell you that, they are just hoping they scare you enough to cut a check..They tend to prey on peoples ignorance of the law.

2181

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: UK Query

« on: March 09, 2012, 10:28:41 AM »

You would think they would IF the UK has a provision such as our DMCA, I don't know if this exists..bottom line is if this does not exist or was not set-up properly, Getty will continue to hound the domain owner, who will in turn hound you or your club.

2182

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

« on: March 09, 2012, 08:49:38 AM »

And I just found this..I'm sure there are other versions that were available on CD..Granted it is old, but shows cds were available..what caught my eye was this

" the CD utilizes the latest technology to allow individuals to download low-resolution images as well as present the imagery in a conceptual context. "

"Tony Stone Images Goes Wild With Its Newest Catalog/CD."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Tony+Stone+Images+Goes+Wild+With+Its+Newest+Catalog%2FCD.-a053012028

2183

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: UK Query

« on: March 08, 2012, 04:57:16 PM »

Getty won't care if your a charity, non-prodfit or doing good deeds, it's all about money to them. Not to shift blame although I guess with my next statement, thats what I'm doing, if the URL of the screenshot is not your URL, then they are barking up the wrong tree. so the first decision you have to make, is if you are going to take responsibility or are you going to point this out to them, thus shifting blame to another club? There are some good recent post regarding getty and the UK, worth reading if i were you...same general rules of thumb would apply. Contact getty and while not admitting guilt, state that the image was removed, and in order to address this you will need proof of ownership, and or registration, you will need  the method by which they arrive at their "claim amount" as you can get a very similar image from istock for a fraction of the price. ( Istock is owned by Getty as well)..
Also do some research on the image in question, is it available elsewhere, or has it ever been. does the photographer offer the image for sale??..

With all of the UK chatter lately it's hard for me to keep it all straight, but doesn't the UK have an "innocent infringement" clause..thus reducing the amount awarded if it went to court drastically?

2184

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Resolution of Getty v. Advernet (A blow to Getty & Stock photo companies)

« on: March 08, 2012, 04:17:39 PM »

This is how I read it, and I could be mistaken...

Getty buys the stone collection, but the rights for all of those images don't "come with the collection" unless the photographer transferred his copyright ( which is unlikely in regards to stock photo's)

asked where the signature from the photographer giving Getty the rights, goes un answered, because there is no signature, IMHO it looks like getty "assumed" as much.....DENIED

In this case I also find it interesting, that when a photographer comes on board with getty, they generally use the online process and digitally sign the contract, giving getty whatever rights...however if someone at Getty does not also sign and date this, it isn't a contract, as contracts have to be signed by both party's.. This was asked also , and the guy answering said "he didn't know"

2185

Legal Controversies Forum / Rush vs. Rush Limbaugh: Band Demands Radio Host Stop Using Music on Show

« on: March 08, 2012, 02:09:19 PM »

As if the increasing number of advertisers pulling out from his show isn't enough trouble, Limbaugh also has been served with a cease-and-desist letter from Rush, the Canadian trio with 24 gold albums whose classic rock staples include "Tom Sawyer" and "The Spirit of Radio." The band demands that Limbaugh stop using their recorded music during his radio show and are threatening the conservative commentator with a lawsuit for copyright and trademark infringement.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/rush-music-vs-rush-limbaugh-297364

2186

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)

« on: March 08, 2012, 01:51:51 PM »

Generally speaking the clock starts when the first original letter was dated, they found it before the letter was written, so gives you a little wiggle room. I doubt they will send anything official stating they are dropping a suit.. it's not a suit, it's a "claim" and at this point the can't file suit, as it's apparently too late for that..Just another example of sloppy and unorganized work from Getty.

2187

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)

« on: March 08, 2012, 01:31:28 PM »

If the site was taken down in 2006, they are WAYYYYYY past the statute of limitations and he should know this, being a Lawyer...This might be another letter we should share here on ELI.

2188

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Righthaven accused of acting disrespectfully

« on: March 08, 2012, 07:11:31 AM »

Copyright trolls Righthaven LLC have come under more criticism for their lack of attendance at certain court cases. Observers have commented the no shows amount to a lack of respect with others simply questioning if they can even afford to pay the legal fees. Steve Gibson’s copyright-compiling firm didn’t even send a lawyer to the Las Vegas court hearing that saw a receiver take control of its 278-strong arsenal of copyright and trademarks. Righthaven hasn’t even showed at appeals they themselves filed – something that has angered members of the legal profession fighting against them.

http://africanpokernews.com/2012/03/07/righthaven-accused-of-acting-disrespectfully/

2189

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Obitutary: Righthaven Dies Today

« on: March 06, 2012, 08:27:39 AM »

From the Las Vegas Sun: Like a gunfighter with no bullets, Las Vegas copyright company Righthaven LLC no longer has any copyrights to sue over.
A federal judge in Las Vegas on Monday stripped Righthaven of whatever interests it has in its 278 federal copyright registrations as well as its trademark.
Judge Philip Pro ordered that the copyrights and trademarks be transferred to a court-appointed receiver so they can be auctioned to cover some of Righthaven’s debts.

http://lasvegasbadger.blogspot.com/2012/03/obitutary-righthaven-dies-today.html

2190

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 05, 2012, 05:42:56 PM »

Khan!! See this is the thing right here in a nutshell!! Getty is trying to tell you they own the image, and you owe them money, but you just bought the same exact image from the artist himself. I highly doubt Getty has an exclusive license for this image, and they also have no way to prove where it came from or where it was purchased..in oither words if they were to go to court, they would have no case...which is part of the reason they file very few lawsuits..they know they have nothing to go on and are hoping the scare tactics work..