Messages

256

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Victory for College Students

« on: March 21, 2013, 04:08:23 PM »

I started my own thread before reading this. I read it here:


http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/21/the-supreme-courts-small-but-helpful-step-towards-copyright-sanity/

In discussing this, David Post writes:

though I suspect that 33 pages construing 5 words in the Copyright Act will only appeal to hardened copyright aficianodos or the hopelessly insane).

I'm toying with the idea of reading the 33 pages.

257

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter Received But No Such Image

« on: March 21, 2013, 02:52:11 PM »

My site has hundreds of links, could the bot have found the image on one of those sites?

Mike

Yes. But linking to an image is not copying it under US copyright law. So that would be the bot's problem not yours.

258

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter Received But No Such Image

« on: March 19, 2013, 08:39:59 PM »

Yes. It has to be 'displayed'. It also has to be 'copied'. But the side pursuing the case is likely going to say that the fact that someone can load the uri for the image and see it means it's "displayed".   So having it on your server is more important than embedding it in a page you intended to call the uri so that it "displayed" in the page.

259

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from photographer over Getty image

« on: March 19, 2013, 04:31:09 PM »

The thing to bear in mind is since we don't have history with this photographer, we can't predict what they will do. So I think it's best to not over react to a suggestion that words their request for money as "it would be polite to".  If they come back and say they are asking for a settlement, then you can begin actually negotiating. Learning whether the image is registered at the US copyright office, when it was registered and would be useful things to do. That information would help you know what you might do. It might also be useful to see whether you have any comments by the photographer made back when you posted the image. If they commented more than 3 years ago, that would mean they've used up the time they are permitted to file the copyright claim.

Mind you-- if you did copy-- at some point you might decide you should offer *something* but give yourself a bit of time to decide how much.

260

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter Received But No Such Image

« on: March 19, 2013, 04:22:37 PM »

We've heard of this happening.

One way the bot can get a screen shot is if the image is displayed in the frame of an ad from your advertisers banner ads. You are not liable in this instance.  If you are in the US, you are not liable unless you hosted on your server. If it has not, you are in a darn good position.

Do you run ads?

261

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from photographer over Getty image

« on: March 19, 2013, 03:05:38 PM »

I'd suggest writing back. Thank them for their letter and then let them know you looked into the matter and telling them the image is now not displaying at your site.  Say little more.  I don't think you need to enter into a debate about whether paying them would be "polite" or "not polite" or so on. Just ignore that for now.  If they wish to say more, let them write back.

It reads as if Getty is not involved. The artist may have just listed with Getty, but Getty didn't send you the letter and Getty doesn't seem to have been listing it in the past. You don't need to say anything about them in your letter to the artist.

262

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Letter relating to Twylah Tweet storage

« on: March 19, 2013, 02:27:50 PM »

I received a letter demanding money for an image I hotlinked.  I sent one letter -- but they persisted. I then wrote this in the sencond letter:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/recieved-a-demand-letter-today-what-do-you-think-of-my-response/msg9271/#msg9271

I got a 3rd letter-- which was mostly just a clerical error on their part.  They can get as "nasty" as they like. But if the image was not hosted on your server-- and in this case not even on Twilah's server, and you made no copy, the law is on your side, not theirs.

Bear in mind: Amazon v. Perfect 10 is a 9th district ruling not the supreme court. But really, Getty would have to take your case to the Supreme Court and I don't think they'd risk that.

263

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new tag #gettyflubs

« on: March 17, 2013, 08:18:26 PM »

Is there a tagging feature for the admin inside Simple Machines Forum?  If not, is there an addin? (If not... one could likely be written. Clearly what we would want is for the administrator to identify something as a "flub".  We might want to think of a "type of flub" category.

* hot linking.
* mis-identified image.
* no license.
* after we have two or three in a category we can write a post discussing the 'type' of flub and pointing to the tags.

264

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a letter... No longer own the site

« on: March 14, 2013, 11:05:37 AM »

Is it better to be that aggressive up front?  I had planned to be short, but cordial in my response so that it didn't come off as overly defensive.  We wanted to come across as an innocent party, because I do believe that we are.

I think your letter is fine. You could add "and did not own it on the 'date screenshot was taken'." Nothing more is required unless they respond to that letter. Oddly... they might.  But in that case, you can wait to see what they ask. If they want to know why you were on the whois, respond that you used to own it, but did not own the site or control the contents after the sale.  You might have to deal with them coming back for snippets of information. Depends on how hard they want to fish in your well.  The fact is: They probably have nothing.  Worse for them, even if they have something, *if* they took it to court, given the change in control of the site, if all they have is information you tell us they shows you, they would have one heck of a time establishing *who* controlled the site *when* any copying was done. Because they won't know *when* copying was done. If so... well... they can't possibly know *who* to sue.

(Presumably,  if contacted, the other company would say they just bought the site and the image must have been left over from you!! Heck, they might even thing that-- they wouldn't actually know.. right? So, Getty has bubkiss!)

265

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Extortion letter

« on: March 04, 2013, 10:16:28 PM »

Perhaps I should say that I reblogged the image, which is like retweeting on Twitter.  I was not the original post, I only shared the post on my Tumblr blog.  The original site was on the post.  If someone clicked on my blog post it would take them to the original blog post.

I'm not familiar with the mechanics on Tumblr. But if your action did not create a fresh copy on anyone's server, but only posted a hyperlink you did not copy under use copyright law.  Or at least -- that's what the ninth circuit says.  When you write back cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc.  Unless they come back showing a hyperlink on a server you control well.. you they have no evidence you copied as that term is defined under use copyright  law (and likely you didn't.)

If they write saying that the law covers displaying too-- quote the exact same case. Hotlinking is not displaying a copy under *US copyright law*-- not even if Getty would like you to believe that the words sound like it might be.

266

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Defending with the letter

« on: March 04, 2013, 09:46:34 AM »

I wrote a general discussion of how the letter program works here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/information-to-send-or-not-to-send/msg13883/#msg13883

267

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter from a "Photo Attorney" who is on Caroline Wrights team

« on: March 04, 2013, 09:42:17 AM »

Shelly-

Most people freak out. That's why the racket works. 

268

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Extortion letter

« on: February 27, 2013, 01:55:44 PM »

Certainly the amount requested is likely ridiculous as most demands are. That said, there are a few issues that could make the issue go away 100% and  very quickly:


Did you upload the image to tumbler? Or did you hotlink?

If you hotlinked (as many do on tumbler) and you are in the US, there is zero infringement no matter what the image is, where you got it an so on. So, let's resolve that first.

BTW: Do not write to Getty yet. Do not volunteer *anything* to your detriment. That is do not try to "explain" how you got the image and so on.  Quite often, Getty has practically no evidence.

(I'm wondering how they identified you as the owner of the tumbler blog. But presumably they did.)

269

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Getty Demand Letter, part 2

« on: February 23, 2013, 11:33:58 AM »

I did not enjoy writing my first letter because I felt too much anxiety.  However, I enjoyed writing my second, and really enjoyed the 3rd. The third getty images letter was written in response to a letter that was probably automatically generated by some computer script that automatically sends things out to people who had not paid. It came from the generic collections department.

In contrast, the 2nd getty images  letter at least mentioned they'd read my response to their first letter and was somewhat tailored. 

In my response to the third letter, I suggested that their collection people contact the person assigned to my case to obtain the my response to their 2nd letter and requesting they provide the information I had requested in the 2nd letter. That person responded quickly telling me that my case was still being mulled over (or something to that effect.)  That was roughly a year ago. I haven't heard since. I don't expect I will.

270

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn E. Wright's Photo-Attorney Extortion Letter Taken Down by Scribd

« on: February 21, 2013, 05:59:26 PM »

This isn't 100% relevant... but.. with respect to briefs:
"    State v. Brewington and Figurative Speech

Federal Judge Says Westlaw and Lexis Don’t Infringe Copyright by Posting Briefs"

http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/15/federal-judge-says-westlaw-and-lexis-dont-infringe-copyright-by-posting-briefs/

The reasoning wasn't released. But it will be interesting to read to see just how weak copyright might be for legal briefs. If it's weak for briefs, I imagine it won't be tremendously strong for legal demand letters and so on.