Messages

226

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND GettyIMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

« on: July 07, 2009, 07:16:21 PM »

I hope you didnt take my post the wrong way.  I wasn't trying to mislead (and I don't believe I did) nor was I trying to fence with you.

... as for archive.org , my experience was different than what you describe.  Apparently the following folks' experience was different also:

http://lawmeme.research.yale.edu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1543

Who knows, maybe they are doing things different these days.  You can always take robots.txt down from your site and see if archive.org resumes displaying your history.

Your statement about "no legal right to demand" doesn't make sense to me.  Why can't someone demand money if they think it is owed?  Of course it doesn't mean you are legally obligated to pay it if you don't think its owed.  I'm no lawyer though, and I will admit I've seen a few things about the law in my day that didn't make sense but turned out to be so (copyright law being one of those).

What specific charge (criminal statute) would you use as the basis of filing a police report?

227

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND GettyIMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

« on: July 07, 2009, 11:05:55 AM »

Hi Ariella,

I'm just as upset as you are over Getty's behavior.  However, no disrespect intended, but your post could be a bit misleading in my humble opinion.

As an example, when you wrote "NO, photos aren't magically created with a copyright.":  You are right that there is nothing "magical" about it.  However, as I understand it, copyright is "automatically" created when a photo is taken (no registration needed).

Also, as I understand it, there are some limitations to the removal process you posted in that robots.txt doesn't actually remove anything (just blocks access), and there have been cases of people being able to access blocked content.

There are several other things you wrote that seem to me to have similar issues.  I hope that anyone reading the information you posted will also read more posts and information on this site (especially Oscar's summary) to get several other points of view.

228

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Used Swishzone.com movie and now Getty Images wants to get me too

« on: June 27, 2009, 12:02:37 PM »

goober:

That is awesome.  I would be better if it were Getty on the other end, but still good to hear.  Your post deserves a thread of its own IMO.  Thanks for the info!

229

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Statue of Limitations?

« on: May 28, 2009, 03:41:21 PM »

Thanks Oscar,

You're right, of course, that the cease and desist isn't relevant.  The main point is that the infringment stopped at that point (image taken down).  From what Im reading on the internet, I understand that in the example I cited, the only damages would be for the ONE infringing year that fell within the 3 year window of the filing of the complaint (in most types of cases anyway).
 re:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/05/statute-of-limitations-part-one.html

apparently there is some controversy regarding this, but according to the link above the controversy is only due to people (probably laypeople like me ) mistinterpreting a particular court case.

Thanks again for the response.  Your work here (and patience) is very much appreciated!

230

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Statue of Limitations?

« on: May 27, 2009, 08:04:46 AM »

Hi Oscar,

If I understand correctly, damage amounts are also affected by the statute of limitations.  For example:
infringement starts in 2000
cease and desist in 1/1/2007 and image taken down
2007 - 2008 you get calls and letters trying to get you to pay
complaint filed on 1/1/2009

such a case, if sucessful, would only be eligible for 1 year worth of damages (the one infringing year in the 3 year period 1/1/2006 to 1/1/2009).

Is this correct?

231

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Info for developers / web hosts

« on: May 14, 2009, 04:06:08 PM »

HI Buddhapi,

I think the security of the robots.txt "method" at archive.org is dubious also.  See my post here:

 http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,198,435#msg-435

232

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Windows Vista sample images

« on: May 06, 2009, 11:33:40 AM »

another point for an "innocent infringer" defense might be the fact that these pictures are located in the following path:

C:\Users\Public\Pictures\Sample Pictures

public to me implies public domain.

233

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Windows Vista sample images

« on: May 05, 2009, 02:55:19 PM »

According to this http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/01/bill_gates_corb.html  Microsoft does get (license? buy?) from Getty.

From the Vista EULA,

"Icons, images and sounds. While the software is running, you may use but not
share its icons, images, sounds, and media."

might there be an argument for a Vista licensee that he was merely using (displaying) the images, and not sharing (emailing to a third party for example) them?

234

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NEED VERIFICATION

« on: April 13, 2009, 01:16:52 PM »

Oscar,

I noticed that MIKEZ909 was worrying about whether or not a judge would find "willfull infringment".  The way I understand it, if the image was unregistered when the infringement began then this is moot ... because "willfull infringement" is only assessed to determine statutory damage limits which arent awardable with images not registered before the infringment began.  Even attorney's fees and court costs arent awardable in this type of infringement.  Is this correct?

235

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Where can we get safe images?

« on: April 11, 2009, 09:11:16 AM »

I think the "100% safe" part is not possible.  However, you might try looking for government photos presented as being in the public domain.  As an example if you start here:

http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Graphics.shtml

read the warning to be careful about copyright the click on the "Defense Department Link"

From this page click on "About Images" and youll see that it says that all images on the page are public domain unless otherwise specified. Notice though, that if you keep reading, you'll see that there is a caveat: "... To the best of our knowledge, the graphics displayed here are in the public domain. ..."

Even if you buy photos you arent safe (as youve already found out).  If you read the contract  you must agree to in order to buy photos on most (if not all) sites I think you'll find that either they won't protect you if you get sued over infringement, or they will limit their liability (limited to price you paid for photo, or won't pay statutory damages).

Bottom line is that copyright law is so completely hosed (my opinion) that you shouldnt buy photos.

My advice is to buy a decent camera and take the pictures yourself.  Its hard to screw up general landscape shots (city skylines, etc).  I think that websites look more real and credible without pictures of people you dont know shaking hands, using phones, typing, etc anyway.

236

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: damages

« on: March 04, 2009, 12:40:34 PM »

except I dont think the information is really removed.  Delete your robots.txt file and all your history will probably show up again. So, presumably, whenever your server is down (or slow or busy with large numbers of requests) making your robots.txt inaccessible, all your history will show up.  If you sell your domain name and the new owner doesnt have robots.txt ...

Have a look at this lawsuit which describes how someone was allegedly able to get to "blocked" material:

http://lawmeme.research.yale.edu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1543

237

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: A Clear Message

« on: February 28, 2009, 10:44:11 PM »

I agree with this.  I will take my own pictures.  A few shots to dress up a website hardly needs a professional photograper.  I probably would have continued purchasing online just for convenience, but I prefer to avoid the headaches.

Oh and as far as the image selling companies covering you if you get a letter or sued over the image ... read the language you agree to in order to purchase .... it looks to me like you have to promise to not hold them liable ... and if you get past that, it looks like liability for anything is limited to the price you pay for the image.  That's the way I read it, anyway.

riddickvictim2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From everything I read on this website, the
> message is quite clear.  Do not purchase
> professional graphics, photos or clipart.  Do not
> support “professional” artists of any kind in
> any way.  If you do, you will be sued.
>
> I have paid hard earned US dollars for every
> single image on my website.  And along comes the
> likes of Mr. Riddick.
> So again, the message that I get from Getty,
> MasterFile, Riddick, Jupiter and their ilk is very
> clear.  Buy professional works of any kind and you
> will be sued.  
>
> It is sad that the UAW has killed the auto
> industry.  It is equally sad that Getty,
> MasterFile, Jupiter, and Riddick are killing the
> image industry.  There will be thousands of
> unemployed auto workers and an equal number of
> unemployed artists.
>
> From this day forward, I will NEVER purchase a
> professional image of any kind from any source.
> Getting back to my website, it is loaded with
> images that I purchased legally.  This was before
> the revelation that purchasing professional images
> will get you sued.  The question that I pose is
> this.   How do I make my website Riddick-proof,
> Jupiter-proof, MasterFile-proof, and Getty-proof.
> I am fairly certain that removing all images would
> adversely affect sales.  Income from sales is what
> my family and these predators are counting on.  Do
> I just start replacing professional images with
> home made images?

238

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Why dont they go after Google?

« on: February 14, 2009, 06:44:42 PM »

I think they use www.archive.org .  There are also some caches that keep copies of your old website for awhile.

239

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: hypothetical infringement

« on: January 17, 2009, 07:36:48 PM »

You're actually supporting the point I was trying to make.  Why do we assume that because this took place on the internet that it has some special treatment under the law?  As far as I can tell the parts of copyright law that do pertain specifically to the internet (DMCA) don't pertain at all to the Getty situation (not the vast majority of the cases anyway).  Personally, I can't see any philosopical, ethical, or legal differences in the cases I cited compared to the Getty accusations. It just seems to me that if you can establish the legal reason why any of the 3 cases I cited wouldn't be liable for damages that it would apply directly to the Getty situation.

 ... just a layman trying to understand ...

240

Getty Images Letter Forum / hypothetical infringement

« on: December 22, 2008, 01:44:44 PM »

I'm still trying to understand how you can be liable for someone else's work on your website.  Here are a few made up examples that I find just as absurd as the Getty example.  Would these examples be different somehow, as compared to someone who unknowingly bought and displayed an infringing web site design?

1) What if a million people who ordered a Ford with a particular trim option, and it turned out that Chevrolet had the copyright on the particular trim design.  Could Chevrolet demand that the million Ford owners remove the trim and pay damages?

2) What about a thousand people who bought and displayed a bumper sticker whose manufacturer had stolen the design?

3) Or how about ten thousand people who brought a Christmas display (from manufacturer who had stolen the design) and displayed it on their lawn?