Messages

256

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: Swedish Police Warn Internet Users Not To Pay Fines To File-Sharing Fraudsters

« on: September 10, 2012, 03:30:23 AM »

Agreed. It's one step away from an email that starts with "Compliments of the day." Or one of those from a hotmail account that states "I am the former wife of the prime minister of Nigeria." Email claims like this go directly in the Spam box.

257

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received second notice last month and asking for input on my response.

« on: September 01, 2012, 09:18:32 PM »

This reads spot-on perfect to me. I'd say put a stamp on that letter.

258

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got 3rd Getty Letter Now I'm Not Sure

« on: August 28, 2012, 04:08:27 PM »

Well done SG! When is the t-shirt going to be available?

259

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Extortionist

« on: August 25, 2012, 02:48:41 PM »

I doubt cmeskee will be back or will be apt to post more. Clearly he was under a pre-conceived notion that every person on here went to the Getty site, pulled down an image, posted it on their site and is now "crying" about it.

As we all know, this is virtually never the case. In the face of FACTS about innocent infringement and the unwillingness of Getty to support their claim he would have to change his position. That's unlikely to happen. So I bet that he will just pay the $39 parking ticket this time and not stick around for it to escalate to $100. (You have to read the article Peeved found to get that.)

Speaking of tickets, that whole story presents an odd conundrum. Someone is so irate over a parking ticket that they dash off a nasty message with their payment. But when the judge violates their first amendment rights, they are unwilling to step up and fight? Ironic that Matt Gibbs thinks people on here are childish for not taking personal responsibility for themselves. But then thinks a $39 parking ticket is unfair because he was "only 10 minutes late." Yeah, that's personal responsibility. If cmeskee IS that same Matt Gibbs, he has a history of choosing the wrong battles and the wrong sides.

260

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Office Adopts Pilot Program Regarding Registration of Photographs

« on: August 24, 2012, 02:13:24 PM »

Haha. This is funny and painfully all too true.

261

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image scraping: The Newsblur angle.

« on: August 17, 2012, 10:49:10 PM »

Why not just send Newblur a cease and desist letter? It's your content and if you don't want them to re-purpose it, just tell them.

262

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Office Adopts Pilot Program Regarding Registration of Photographs

« on: August 16, 2012, 03:06:44 PM »

The Copyright Office believes that
when registration is made for a database
consisting predominantly of
photographs and the copyright claim
extends to the individual photographs
themselves, each of those photographs
should be included as part of the
deposit accompanying the application.

You think? All I can say is it's about time.

As the Office said when it announced
its regulations on group registration of
published photographs:
[T]he Office rejects the plea of at least one
commenter to permit the use of descriptive
identifying material in lieu of the actual
images..."

I would LOVE to know the identity of this "one commenter." Which stock company would it be?

Although the Office had previously
expressed a willingness to consider such a
proposal, the most recent notice of proposed
rulemaking noted that ‘the Office is reluctant
to implement a procedure that would permit
the acceptance of deposits that do not
meaningfully reveal the work for which
copyright protection is claimed.’

Right! It's the 21st Century. Submitting digital versions of all the images in a compilation should be a button click. I can't understand why the stock industry wouldn't embrace this (Unless their goal was to keep the market confused and uncertain about the rights to their images.) It is interesting that it seems like the Copyright Office is indicating that PREVIOUS compilations that were registered without accompanying images were not correctly registered:
This is in stark contrast to the deposit
requirements for registration of
unpublished collections, for group
registrations of published photographs,
and for most other forms of copyright
registration. Section 202.3(b)(10)(x),
which governs the deposit for a group
registration of photographs, provides
that the deposit shall consist of ‘‘one
copy of each photograph [to] be
submitted in one of the formats set forth
in Sec. 202.20(c)(2)(xx).’’ See also
§ 202.20(c)(1)(i) (‘‘in the case of
unpublished works, [the deposit shall
consist of] one complete copy or
phonorecord,’’ a provision that applies
to registrations of unpublished
collections as well as individual
___
Maybe I am just not reading that right.

263

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 11, 2012, 04:37:57 AM »

Since the DMCA doesn't apply to search engines, one could easily fight google on the basis that the DMCA law doesn't apply...

Google is a privately held for-profit business. As we've pointed out, anyone can sue anyone for anything. But I believe Google is free to set policies and determine how they rank web sites. They may have modeled this on DMCA, but they may be simply trying to deliver better quality, less spammy, less piratey, search results.

264

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Heres your Saturday snicker!!

« on: August 05, 2012, 11:53:50 PM »

uhhhhh, "cringe"?

265

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Are Screenshots from the Wayback Machine useful as evidence?

« on: August 01, 2012, 12:43:35 PM »

SG -- It's worth mentioning that Telewizja Polska is an Illinois corporation. I think this case was all in the US.

266

Getty Images Letter Forum / Are Screenshots from the Wayback Machine useful as evidence?

« on: July 31, 2012, 01:41:14 PM »

Today I came across an interesting article about the Waybackmachine on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine

It said:

"In an October 2004 case called "Telewizja Polska SA v. Echostar Satellite", a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska’s website. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska’s assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial.[15] However, at the actual trial, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings, and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported webpage printouts themselves were not self-authenticating.[16]"

So based on this, it seems to me that the troll's use of the wayback machine (or Internet archive) is limited. I suppose they'd have a hard time proving either the length of infringement OR even usage with shots from Archive.org. I guess this is why they are so anxious to have you tell them how long you used an image.

267

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: July 26, 2012, 12:56:35 PM »

The bottom line to all this is that in the U.S., unless you have a copy of Getty's agreement with the photographer, you don't really know WHAT rights Getty has. Even some photographer from National Geographic claiming that they never transferred their rights to Getty doesn't mean much. They could have been on a work-for-hire gig with NatGeo, and the rights were never theirs to transfer.

This is why it is essential for anyone being pursued for "infringement" should insist on a copy of the agreement with the original rights-holder. This is not trying to "out lawyer" the lawyers. This is simply stating, "prove to me you hold these rights." In the US this is met with, "we only share this information should the case go forward." The correct response to this is a shrug and and "so be it."

As much as we'd all love to see a class action suit go forward and be successful in the U.S., their just isn't enough meat on that bone yet. The differences in the situation in Israel seem small, but they are pronounced enough to make all the difference. (Primarily it is that the company threatening people has no standing at all.) Go find 100s on demand letters that were paid for images that Getty did not hold any rights to. THEN you have a class action in the U.S.

268

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today

« on: July 25, 2012, 12:19:23 PM »

Wow. Getty's new motto:

"We Copyright the Sky"
©2012 Getty Images

If it were me, I'd write them back and say, "Good One. I thought I had really infringed. Just for fun, please send me the proof of registration and the agreement with the photographer." Then I'd leave it at that.

Can you imagine them suing for this? I believe they'd be laughed out of court.

269

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Public Records Requests for Getty Images Update

« on: July 21, 2012, 01:31:45 PM »

disgruntled employees, unhappy photographers and other such matters.

This part jumped out at me as just yesterday people were lamenting the lack of insiders that either feel compelled to share any insider information OR haven't yet found ELI. These documents may well provide an introduction.

270

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: July 21, 2012, 01:26:37 PM »

Or they've decided to file.

  

But don't worry. If that is the case I have a feeling you have enough friends around here that would be willing to help out. I know I'd kick in what I could to the Greg Troy defense fund.