Messages

2626

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 13, 2011, 08:45:06 PM »

Matt, Oscar, you guys rock! I wish to thank you both for taking time out of your weekend to address this.. I can't help but have the feeling you won't be hearing from her again..

2627

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:32:14 PM »

looks like some feathers got ruffled...

"immediately along with any reference to my name, my business name
and my clients' name."

Isn't all of this public information anyway??

2628

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Creditor Moves to Dismantle Copyright Troll Righthaven

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:14:05 PM »

well absolutely nothing, I just happened to post it in the wrong spot...but thanx for asking

2629

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Getty Images letter yesterday...

« on: November 13, 2011, 09:32:43 AM »

an offer won't get you much except for opening a line of communication..as for your argument, that won't get very far either. Even if the site did come from another company site, and they did give you permission ( written or otherwise) to use the image, that doesn't mean they had the right to grant you permission.. we se this happen all the time ..."we "thought" we could use it"..."we didn't know it was copyrighted.." fact of the matter is  that if you did not create it yourself, someone somewhere owns the rights to it. Get educated thru the forum, then make a decision how to proceed

2630

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Attorney complains about anti-Righthaven campaign

« on: November 12, 2011, 06:36:13 AM »

A Las Vegas lawyer for copyright company Righthaven LLC complained Friday that opposing attorneys are engaged in “scorched-earth, anti-Righthaven litigation tactics.”

Attorneys at Randazza Legal Group in Las Vegas, which represents several Righthaven lawsuit defendants in Nevada and Colorado, stepped up the pressure on Mangano on Oct. 25, when they asked a Nevada federal judge to sanction him.

The sanctions motion charged that Mangano regularly uses stall tactics so Righthaven can avoid paying judgments to defendants who defeat the company in court.

The motion also alleged Mangano continues to prosecute Righthaven lawsuits over Review-Journal content – causing defendants to spend money fighting the suits — even though Righthaven has no hope of winning the suits.


http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/nov/11/attorney-complains-about-anti-righthaven-campaign/

2631

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar Letter Program

« on: November 11, 2011, 05:22:55 PM »

If you have retained Oscar, I think it would be safe to tell Getty verbally, that you have retained counsel at any time.. They are well aware of who he is. Not to say they won't contact you again, because legally they can, until they get something from the lawyer himself..

2632

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Website Traffic Statistics Trivia

« on: November 11, 2011, 03:36:12 PM »

Those are some pretty impressive numbers for a blog. I wonder if you have thought about monetizing this traffic at all. Since the subject matter is about stock images and photography, I bet ads for GI and MF would show up in an Adwords block. And any visitors to your site that were to click on those ads would transfer a little change from those companies to your pocket.

I'm grinning ear to ear just picturing ads for Gi and MF appearing, and us being able to click them.. I can hear the ching ching sound echoing in my head!

2633

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Claiming Copyright to National Archives Images and Selling Them

« on: November 11, 2011, 03:14:24 PM »

hmm interesting read indeed!! it;'s from 2007 and I wonder what if anything was done about this..

It seems that Getty Images learned a few years ago that they could buy 4x5 negatives of images from the US National Archives for $5 each. They bought thousands. Now they are selling these same images through their stock agency and claiming copyright on them. The vast majority of the images in the National Archives were taken by government employees and are public domain.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/05/getty-claiming-copyright-to-national.html

2634

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Judge scolds Righthaven lawyer, adds another $32,000 judgment

« on: November 11, 2011, 03:03:33 PM »

oops!!!

Copyright troll Righthaven has once again been hit with another big bill. The case, Righthaven v. Leland Wolf, targeted the It Makes Sense Blog for allegedly posting a photograph that appeared in Righthaven client the Denver Post without its permission. The court has found in favor of the defendant and has ordered Righthaven to pony up $32,147 in attorney's fees and $1,000 in costs.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/judge-scolds-righthaven-lawyer-adds-another-32000-judgment.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

2635

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Feeding the copyright troll machine

« on: November 11, 2011, 02:55:02 PM »

it's a top secret double probationary situation! I'd tell you, but would then need to eliminate you...Lets just say I was doing some homework...you might even get a FAQ from me at some point... Just as soon as my paycheck clears!!!! What no pay?? 

2636

Getty Images Letter Forum / Feeding the copyright troll machine

« on: November 11, 2011, 02:38:14 PM »

 I just posted a short list on my blog, of companies that currently use picscout, not that these companies are all trolls ( some clearly are), but my feeling is that by doing business with them, it is just feeding the machine. As we all know Getty Image purchased picscout a few months back..

You can see the complete list here: http://palmbeachdns.com/wp/

2637

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Marshals execute against Righthaven bank account

« on: November 11, 2011, 08:01:37 AM »

The U.S. Marshals Service has made some progress in seizing the assets of copyright company Righthaven LLC, disclosing Thursday it has served a writ of execution on a Las Vegas bank branch.

A court filing said a writ of execution of a judgment against Righthaven was served Tuesday at a Bank of Nevada branch and that the writ says "seize all assets in the Righthaven LLC operating account and any other bank accounts belonging to Righthaven LLC." The bank branch's operations manager was served with the writ.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/nov/10/marshals-execute-against-righthaven-bank-account/

Can't help but think someone is hiding a stack of cash in the mattress!

2638

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: List of Public Domain stock footage companies

« on: November 08, 2011, 10:42:53 AM »

I would be very weary of this...

BECAUSE CLKER.COM AND ITS CONTENTS ARE FREE OF CHARGE, WE PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING, CLKER.COM AND ITS OWNERS PROVIDE THE CONTENT AND IMAGES 'AS IS' WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTENT IS WITH YOU. SHOULD ANY PART OF CLKER.COM OR ITS CONTENT PROVE DEFECTIVE, OR NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR, CORRECTION AND OTHER COSTS THAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO YOU OR YOUR PRODUCT OR CLIENTS OR CUSTOMERS FROM USING CONTENT OR IMAGES FROM CLKER.COM OR ANY DERIVATIVES OF YOUR WORK THAT INCLUDED OR WAS DERIVED FROM OUR CONTENT.

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW WILL CLKER.COM, IT'S OWNERS, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY LOST PROFITS, LOST MONIES, OR OTHER SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PICTURES/IMAGES/SOFTWARE TO OPERATE WITH ANY PROGRAMS) THE SITE OR ITS CONTENTS, EVEN IF YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY.

also bear in mind "Royalty Free" does not mean FREE, only that you pay once and don't have to pay a royalty every time you use the image.

2639

Getty Images Letter Forum / My Tuesday Rant

« on: November 08, 2011, 08:52:34 AM »

As some of you may know, I own a web dev  /hosting company, I go to great lengths to explain to my clients, the risks of getting images without a proper license as a courtesy to them. So yesterday I get an email with the subject line of "Photo from Google Images...attached" this is AFTER our discussion on proper licensing and AFTER they told me they found an image on dreamstime that they were going to purchase. The reason they grabbed the image from google??

1. I told them to read and understand the terms of the license, well dreamstime has a 12 page document concerning the terms, my client was to lazy to read the terms.

2. someone told them that google images was public domain, i guess they just ignored the "Images may be subject to copyright." statement on google.

I proceeded to tell the client I would happily use the image, provided they read, sign and return  my hold harmless agreement...

End of rant..

2640

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What is the liability of a new company that got letter intended for old?

« on: November 08, 2011, 08:14:56 AM »

Interesting scenario!

I would think they would not have a leg to stand on.. I am not an attorney FYI but this is what I would do.

Visit sunbiz.org and get the images form the defunct LLC, these should show the names of the business owners / officers along with dates, then get the images for your current INC, which should also show dates of incorporation and owner/officers. This should be suffiecient to prove that you did not own the company at said time and take you out of the loop. My guess is that Getty's lawyer will not buy into this, at which time you can tell him that you will retain counsel and will also be seeking to be re-imbursed for any legal fees...

That last part may be over the top and please remember i'm not a lawyer..but a case like this might just be what we need in terms of them slipping up..I fairly certain if they were to persue something like this it would not be good for them..

More thoughts on this???