256
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Major San Diego Newspaper Targeted by Emerging Troll Factory
« on: July 25, 2014, 07:11:59 PM »
Good find Moe, I'll have to keep an eye on this one.
| Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program | |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
257
ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Read the July 21, 2014 Ars Technica Article: ELI Case going to GA Supreme Court
« on: July 24, 2014, 12:16:00 AM »
You are correct Lettered and Matthew made the correction in the comments of the article and let the editor know too.
BTW, nice to see you back
.
BTW, nice to see you back
.
258
ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Read the July 21, 2014 Ars Technica Article: ELI Case going to GA Supreme Court
« on: July 21, 2014, 11:54:45 PM »
This is a great article and I am glad to see the Ars Technica and others are still following the story. Thanks for sharing Matthew!
259
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: is it possible to determine if image is a Getty in advance?
« on: July 18, 2014, 09:08:09 PM »
The only fool proof way is not to use any images that you have not taken or licensed yourself. If you are looking for low cost quality images from a non-trolling company I use Pond5.com for my stock photos. Many are in the 1-15 dollar price range.
hello everyone,
i am doing a little bit of proactive research to minimize the chances of ever having to deal with Getty demand letters.
sometimes i use images that i find on free websites and having read through this forum i have a growing concern of using an image that one day will garner me a getty demand letter.
i have run some tests with reverse Google Image searches and none of my test images linked back to Getty website, but some did link back to Shutterstock and other distributors
so my question is if there is a fool-proof way to determine if an image belongs to Getty?
also, is it possible for Getty to acquire rights to an image after it has already been distributed legally through other sources and then go after those people?
thanks in advance
260
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Have you thought about a charge of MAIL FRAUD against Getty Images?
« on: July 18, 2014, 02:09:10 PM »
Great question and welcome to the forums. In my opinion I do not think it is mail fraud as what Getty Images and McCormack IP Law (referred to herafter as McCormack) are doing is legal. They are asking for money/compensation for an alleged infringement. The reason we refer to it as "legalized extortion" is that they tend to ask for more than what the market value of the image appears to be, more than what we think they could expect to recover in court and they refuse to provide proof that they have the legal right to collect on behalf of the artist they claim to represent. They will tell you when you ask that this information will only be provided through discovery, ie. when we sue you.
Their letters (especially those from Timothy B. McCormack) tend to make bold statements as if the claim had already been to court like...."Your company is guilty of copyright infringement". Getty/McCormack letters also use artificial deadlines and implied threats of an eminent lawsuit to frighten letter recipients into paying. McCormack also likes to quote infringement lawsuits that had large settlements which if you look them up have no relevance to the average innocent infringer receiving a Getty/McCormack demand letter.
All these things are reasons why we refer to these letters as extortion or legalized extortion. Again, I do not think what they are doing constitutes mail fraud but I am of the opinion that if their business practices were thoroughly examined by the Washington state Attorney General's office were brought out through discovery in a court of law Getty/McCormack may find themselves like righthaven and Prenda.
Their letters (especially those from Timothy B. McCormack) tend to make bold statements as if the claim had already been to court like...."Your company is guilty of copyright infringement". Getty/McCormack letters also use artificial deadlines and implied threats of an eminent lawsuit to frighten letter recipients into paying. McCormack also likes to quote infringement lawsuits that had large settlements which if you look them up have no relevance to the average innocent infringer receiving a Getty/McCormack demand letter.
All these things are reasons why we refer to these letters as extortion or legalized extortion. Again, I do not think what they are doing constitutes mail fraud but I am of the opinion that if their business practices were thoroughly examined by the Washington state Attorney General's office were brought out through discovery in a court of law Getty/McCormack may find themselves like righthaven and Prenda.
261
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Shamecasting recommended in CNN Opinion Article
« on: July 18, 2014, 01:44:07 PM »
I was thinking the same thing about the quality control or training purposes message.
262
ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Press Release (7/15/2014) Chan v. Ellis: Appeal Transferred to GA Supreme Court
« on: July 17, 2014, 08:48:17 AM »
Here is the press release announcing that Matthew Chan's PPO appeal is has been moved to the Georgia Supreme Court.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/234166672/Press-Release-7-15-2014-Chan-v-Ellis-Appeal-Transferred-to-GA-Supreme-Court
July 15, 2014
Contact: Oscar Michelen
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 448-9933
For Immediate Release
In an unexpected twist in the ongoing Georgia website censorship case of Matthew Chan, anti-troll website owner of ExtortionLetterInfo.com ("ELI") and Linda Ellis, poet and author of "The Dash", the Georgia Court of Appeals ordered the case be transferred to the Georgia Supreme Court.
The order by the Court of Appeals stated that "the entire record and the briefs of the parties… raised significant and novel constitutional issues addressing… the First Amendment". Further, "the briefs make clear, the appeal raises issues of first impression in Georgia" and there was "very little if any applicable law in other jurisdictions."
In February 2013, Chan lost a case against Ellis where she charged him with allegedly stalking her, and posting her home address, family information, and death threats on ELI. However, many of those posts were made by third-party visitors to ELI, not Chan himself and neither Chan nor the website was ever requested to take down any of the allegedly offensive posts. Nevertheless, Ellis was awarded a sweeping Permanent Protective Order by the local court. That order, required among other things, a wholesale removal from ELI of all 2,000 posts by anyone that ever mentioned Ellis, her poem, or her business practices in any way.
In August 2013, Chan appealed the lower court’s permanent protective order. Oscar Michelen and William J. McKenney, who are representing Chan on this appeal, filed a motion to have the case transferred to the Supreme Court on the grounds that Chan’s rights under the First Amendment were being "improperly restricted and violated." The Court of Appeals denied that motion on the basis that the appeal did not "challenge the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision." It did not appear to the Court at that time "that subject-matter jurisdiction" was "proper for the Supreme Court."
With the denial for his motion to transfer his case to the Supreme Court, Chan filed his briefs with the Court of Appeals as scheduled. A series of briefs submitted by both Chan and Ellis concluded in November 2013 and the parties were awaiting a decision from the Court.
Instead, the Court of Appeals has now agreed that jurisdiction properly lies with the Supreme Court and has transferred the appeal there. Oscar Michelen states, "I am glad the Court of Appeals recognizes that these issues are ones which need to be addressed by the State’s highest court as they touch upon issues of first impression and of Constitutional significance. I look forward to the Georgia Supreme Court’s determination of the merits of our appeal."
Chan’s reaction to the legal twist, "I am gratified that the Court of Appeals agreed with us that the issues raised in my appeal needed to be reviewed by the Georgia Supreme Court. The scope and potential impact of the outcome of this case goes far beyond me and the ELI website. It goes to all website owners and forum administrators in Georgia and possibly outside the state."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 02, 2014
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A14A0014. CHAN v. ELLIS.
After this appeal was docketed, but before the parties filed their briefs,appellant Matthew Chan filed a motion to transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, asserting that the appeal raised constitutional issues under that court’s exclusive jurisdiction. This court denied that motion on the ground that the appeal did “not challenge the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision." Accordingly, it does not appear at this juncture that subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The entire record and the briefs of the parties and of amicus curiae, however,have raised significant and novel constitutional issues addressing the interplay of the First Amendment and the wide dissemination of information made possible by the internet, particularly with respect to the issuance of a permanent protective order and the trial court’s broad discretion to bring about the cessation of conduct constituting stalking. As the briefs also make clear, the appeal raises issues of first impression in Georgia, and there is very little if any directly applicable law in other jurisdictions.Therefore, while the appeal does not “draw in question” the constitutionality of any statute within the meaning of Ga. Const. of 1983, Art VI, Sec. VI, Para. II (1), it is a case “involving the construction of . . . the Constitution of the State of Georgia or of the United States” within the meaning of that provision.
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/234166672/Press-Release-7-15-2014-Chan-v-Ellis-Appeal-Transferred-to-GA-Supreme-Court
PRESS RELEASE
July 15, 2014
Contact: Oscar Michelen
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 448-9933
For Immediate Release
COURT OF APPEALS ORDERS GEORGIA CENSORSHIP CASE
TRANSFERRED TO GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
In an unexpected twist in the ongoing Georgia website censorship case of Matthew Chan, anti-troll website owner of ExtortionLetterInfo.com ("ELI") and Linda Ellis, poet and author of "The Dash", the Georgia Court of Appeals ordered the case be transferred to the Georgia Supreme Court.
The order by the Court of Appeals stated that "the entire record and the briefs of the parties… raised significant and novel constitutional issues addressing… the First Amendment". Further, "the briefs make clear, the appeal raises issues of first impression in Georgia" and there was "very little if any applicable law in other jurisdictions."
In February 2013, Chan lost a case against Ellis where she charged him with allegedly stalking her, and posting her home address, family information, and death threats on ELI. However, many of those posts were made by third-party visitors to ELI, not Chan himself and neither Chan nor the website was ever requested to take down any of the allegedly offensive posts. Nevertheless, Ellis was awarded a sweeping Permanent Protective Order by the local court. That order, required among other things, a wholesale removal from ELI of all 2,000 posts by anyone that ever mentioned Ellis, her poem, or her business practices in any way.
In August 2013, Chan appealed the lower court’s permanent protective order. Oscar Michelen and William J. McKenney, who are representing Chan on this appeal, filed a motion to have the case transferred to the Supreme Court on the grounds that Chan’s rights under the First Amendment were being "improperly restricted and violated." The Court of Appeals denied that motion on the basis that the appeal did not "challenge the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision." It did not appear to the Court at that time "that subject-matter jurisdiction" was "proper for the Supreme Court."
With the denial for his motion to transfer his case to the Supreme Court, Chan filed his briefs with the Court of Appeals as scheduled. A series of briefs submitted by both Chan and Ellis concluded in November 2013 and the parties were awaiting a decision from the Court.
Instead, the Court of Appeals has now agreed that jurisdiction properly lies with the Supreme Court and has transferred the appeal there. Oscar Michelen states, "I am glad the Court of Appeals recognizes that these issues are ones which need to be addressed by the State’s highest court as they touch upon issues of first impression and of Constitutional significance. I look forward to the Georgia Supreme Court’s determination of the merits of our appeal."
Chan’s reaction to the legal twist, "I am gratified that the Court of Appeals agreed with us that the issues raised in my appeal needed to be reviewed by the Georgia Supreme Court. The scope and potential impact of the outcome of this case goes far beyond me and the ELI website. It goes to all website owners and forum administrators in Georgia and possibly outside the state."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 02, 2014
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A14A0014. CHAN v. ELLIS.
After this appeal was docketed, but before the parties filed their briefs,appellant Matthew Chan filed a motion to transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, asserting that the appeal raised constitutional issues under that court’s exclusive jurisdiction. This court denied that motion on the ground that the appeal did “not challenge the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision." Accordingly, it does not appear at this juncture that subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The entire record and the briefs of the parties and of amicus curiae, however,have raised significant and novel constitutional issues addressing the interplay of the First Amendment and the wide dissemination of information made possible by the internet, particularly with respect to the issuance of a permanent protective order and the trial court’s broad discretion to bring about the cessation of conduct constituting stalking. As the briefs also make clear, the appeal raises issues of first impression in Georgia, and there is very little if any directly applicable law in other jurisdictions.Therefore, while the appeal does not “draw in question” the constitutionality of any statute within the meaning of Ga. Const. of 1983, Art VI, Sec. VI, Para. II (1), it is a case “involving the construction of . . . the Constitution of the State of Georgia or of the United States” within the meaning of that provision.
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court.
263
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Canada and Copyright Trolls
« on: July 09, 2014, 12:26:36 AM »
Great job Lucia!
264
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: HEROES OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT – THE PHOTOGRAPHER LITIGATION AGAINST SYFY/NBC
« on: July 01, 2014, 04:31:06 PM »
Thanks for the update DvG
265
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Info on Woolf, Gafni and Fowler LLP
« on: July 01, 2014, 04:28:47 PM »
That is great news, congratulations!
266
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
« on: June 21, 2014, 05:33:30 PM »
I agree with Matthew's comments. Stick around as there is not only support here but a wealth of knowledge as well.
267
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Happy 6th Birthday to ELI!
« on: June 21, 2014, 05:30:50 PM »
Happy Birthday to ELI! Eli is such a valuable resource to letter recipients, thank you Matthew, Oscar, Robert, Jerry, April and all the "family" for all you do to make ELI what it is!
Looking forward to the next 6 years!
Looking forward to the next 6 years!
268
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty update question
« on: June 12, 2014, 11:30:57 PM »
I just looked in pacer and did not see any new suits. There were only two active suits that I saw. The one with the sports photogs suing Getty and the NFL and the patent infringement case where Getty is being sued by Uniloc.
269
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A college student, a Tumblr blog, and a Getty letter
« on: June 07, 2014, 09:24:21 PM »
Welcome to the forums and the wonderful world of settlement demand letters jmoney. Let me start off by saying that your situation is most likely nowhere near as bad as the emails you are receiving make it sound. So take a deep breath, relax and read on. I'm going to give you my general opinions based on the information you have provided. One thing that would help me give more detailed suggestions would be if I knew what the picture was of. For example, a picture of a sprinkler head is not going to have the same value as a picture of a person which may require a model release or a picture of a celebrity.
As far as the tumbler terms of service go they would work and be valid if the person from whom you reposted a blog had the necessary license to the image in question. Your story is a common one but the tumbler terms of service will not help when it comes to this as copyright infringement is a statutory offense, meaning it doesn't matter how the image got there you are liable. The person may or may not have had a license. Again, this may sound bad and scary like the emails you received but it is not, I'm just making you aware. Now let's look at options.
First off you have said all communication so far has been through email. You have said you have not negotiated pricing with them at all and have not admitted any wrongdoing or ownership of the image. Are you saying you have done this by ignoring them or you have responded to them and not mentioned these items? If you have ignored them and not replied to them I would continue ignoring it, as my opinion is I do not consider email a valid form of communication for this type of situation. It is acceptable if it is used as an expedient when followed up by a hard copy in the mail. If you have replied to them I would insist that all future communications be done through the regular postal service so you have hard copies of everything.
Assuming that you have communicated with them you have basically three options. First, you can ignore them from here on out, some people favor the school of thought.
Second, you can respond and engage them. This is usually my option in the majority of cases. There are several threads the forms detailing various methods of engagement. You can reply with a single letter demanding they provide proof that they have the right to collect on the image before continued negotiations all the way to fighting them back. I chose to respond to them, tried to negotiate in good faith and when they showed they were not willing to negotiate, provide the requested proof of claim then bullied and threatened I fought back hard. A complete detail of what I did may be found here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/
The third option would be if you are worried about ignoring it, do not want to engage them then hire an attorney. If you are considering this option I highly recommend Oscar's defense letter program which you can find a link to on the home page. While I did not use Oscar's program and fought Getty myself, well over 800 people have used his program to date. Once Oscar, or any lawyer sends a letter stating they are representing you Getty may no longer contact you in any shape or form except through your lawyer.
Continue reading the forms, educating yourself and ask questions. I hope this helps and if you can provide some more detailed information I can provide more detailed responses.
As far as the tumbler terms of service go they would work and be valid if the person from whom you reposted a blog had the necessary license to the image in question. Your story is a common one but the tumbler terms of service will not help when it comes to this as copyright infringement is a statutory offense, meaning it doesn't matter how the image got there you are liable. The person may or may not have had a license. Again, this may sound bad and scary like the emails you received but it is not, I'm just making you aware. Now let's look at options.
First off you have said all communication so far has been through email. You have said you have not negotiated pricing with them at all and have not admitted any wrongdoing or ownership of the image. Are you saying you have done this by ignoring them or you have responded to them and not mentioned these items? If you have ignored them and not replied to them I would continue ignoring it, as my opinion is I do not consider email a valid form of communication for this type of situation. It is acceptable if it is used as an expedient when followed up by a hard copy in the mail. If you have replied to them I would insist that all future communications be done through the regular postal service so you have hard copies of everything.
Assuming that you have communicated with them you have basically three options. First, you can ignore them from here on out, some people favor the school of thought.
Second, you can respond and engage them. This is usually my option in the majority of cases. There are several threads the forms detailing various methods of engagement. You can reply with a single letter demanding they provide proof that they have the right to collect on the image before continued negotiations all the way to fighting them back. I chose to respond to them, tried to negotiate in good faith and when they showed they were not willing to negotiate, provide the requested proof of claim then bullied and threatened I fought back hard. A complete detail of what I did may be found here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/
The third option would be if you are worried about ignoring it, do not want to engage them then hire an attorney. If you are considering this option I highly recommend Oscar's defense letter program which you can find a link to on the home page. While I did not use Oscar's program and fought Getty myself, well over 800 people have used his program to date. Once Oscar, or any lawyer sends a letter stating they are representing you Getty may no longer contact you in any shape or form except through your lawyer.
Continue reading the forms, educating yourself and ask questions. I hope this helps and if you can provide some more detailed information I can provide more detailed responses.
270
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn Wright and Others
« on: June 06, 2014, 07:08:47 PM »
Very interesting and thank you for the clarification DvG.
Official ELI Help Options |
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |