Messages

2686

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: October 26, 2011, 06:28:04 PM »

check domaintools.com, they use them as well, but domaintools does abide by robots.txt for future reference..

2687

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: October 26, 2011, 05:19:21 PM »

I would fight it tooth and nail...
1. the site wasn't live
2. the page in question was not accessable to the general public.
3. GI has no business spidering directory's that are not associated with the site.

I like to think they have no business spidering anything if robots.txt instructs them not to, but they don't play by the rules and go so far as to diguise picscouts user agent, thus skirting robots.txt..

for future reference you may want to password protect your sub-directories ( the client will have to learn to deal with a username/password), and instead of hosting the images, you can link to them right from the photo-agency's site, as this would not constitute infringement, while at the same time allowing you to use the images as previews..

2688

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty letter to me but image was apparently served in another party's ad unit

« on: October 25, 2011, 07:39:04 PM »

I've seen a couple of posts, that had ads being served from elsewhere, and don't believe they have a case, if this is the case, it's just like linking to an image on another site, it would not constitute infringement...he's a snippet from another post..

Definition of "copy"
 
Several important rights exist under the United States copyright law only for “copies” of works — material objects in which the work is embodied.[13] Section 106(1) prohibits the reproduction only of copies of works, and section 106(3) prohibits the distribution only of copies of works.[14] Thus, as the Ninth Circuit held in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., a link (even a deep link or inline link) to an image does not involve reproduction of a copy of the image by the person on whose web page the link appears.[15] An instruction to a browser to jump to an URL is not a reproduction or distribution of a copy of what is at the referenced URL.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

I think that this means that actual copying and distribution of content are infringements.  But, content that is only linked to on the Web is not considered an actual copy, nor is it a form of distribution.

I would point this out to them, and see where it goes.. Me being me and so fed up with this whole situation would probably threaten to counter-sue them if they don't give you something in writing dropping the whole matter, but thats just me.

2689

Getty Images Letter Forum / AvePoint, Inc. v. Getty Images

« on: October 25, 2011, 03:19:23 PM »

Has anybody caught wind of this?? I'm a bit curious..

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vawdce/7:2011cv00424/82236/

2690

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Karma is a wonderful thing

« on: October 25, 2011, 03:11:12 PM »

A quick update to this case....

Infringement Suit Against AP, Getty Images Approaches Settlement

A copyright infringement case against Associated Press and Hellman & Friedman’s Getty Images is near settlement, according to an Aug. 22 court filing.
Patricia Ann Lopez, an artist who specialized in courtroom sketches, sued the two entities in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, in April. She claimed they made use of some of her courtroom sketches without authorization and compensation.
The artist, based in Okhay Owingeh, New Mexico, has covered a number of significant trials in federal court in which cameras are not permitted. Among the trials where she’s served as a sketch artist are the 1998 trial of Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing, the 2001 murder trial of Andrea Yates, and the 2005 Abu Ghraib-related court martial trials.
She says she maintains the copyrights to her drawings and licenses them to the media, while retaining future rights.
In her court filing she said AP and Getty had been offering for sale or license “hundreds” of her drawings, charging as much as $12,000 for a one-month license.
The two defendants never filed answers to her complaint. In a request for an extension of the deadline for them to respond, counsel for Lopez said that settlement discussions are underway. According to that filing, the artist “believes such negotiations are more likely to prove fruitful if they can be conducted prior to defendants being required to prepare and file answers.”
The request was unopposed by counsel for AP and Getty. The court responded in an Aug. 24 filing, granting the request for extension and saying the reasons for seeking the later date were “meritorious.”

2691

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Image Demand For Image Removed Months Ago

« on: October 25, 2011, 08:37:05 AM »

Hi Buddhapi!  How specifically do you do block their robots, for those that are not very computer savvy?  I've also read one can enter code that in theory should block robots, but in reality they don't.  These robots just ignore them.   Have you heard this too?  I'll give it shot though if you, or someone on this forum, can give specific instructions (or guide someone where they can locate such instructions) as to how to enter the blocking code.

Also, I'm aware one can enter code so Google doesn't take screen shots, but does that in any way affect a company's ranking as far as how high up a company appears in Google search results?  I am not clear on that.  

google's ,domaintools & archive.org bots/spiders do adhere to robots.txt, see the previous post for directions.

This will have no effect no your current rankings, as the pages will still be indexed, my main site still sits in the #1 position under multiple search terms.

In regards to GI /Picscout, this robot does not following robots.txt guidelines, and actually disguises itself as a regular user, I'm currently looking into whether there may be a legal issue here, my take on it is if I am giving specific instructions to block certain robots/spiders and they skirt these directions it's borderline hacking, not only are they in effect trespassing, they are also stealing my bandwidth and server resources. There are a few tricks that can aide in blocking picscout, if you are interested, please send me a PM, as this is not something i want to post openly.

2692

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Image Demand For Image Removed Months Ago

« on: October 25, 2011, 08:30:42 AM »

I can't speak for the time frame issue, but I assume they are backlogged in sending the letters. And although, they still may have a case in some respects, I still think a judge would take into consideration that the image was removed prior to.

Once they find a site with an infringing image they do indded use archive.org and domain tools to look to see how long the image has been there, which is another reason to have archive.org remove your site, instructions for this can be found here: http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php

very simple process, you can also direct domaintools from archiving your site as they respect robots.txt instruction, but the files they already have will remain... instruction for this can be found here: http://www.domaintools.com/webmasters/surveybot.php

specifically items "D" & "E"

and to prevent google from cacheing you page see this: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=164734&from=35306&rd=1

2693

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Image Demand For Image Removed Months Ago

« on: October 24, 2011, 07:57:08 PM »

they also use domain tools, which is a pay service and you can't request removal, best you can do is block their robot from idexing your site in the future..

2694

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / udge In South Carolina Poised To Dismiss Righthaven Suit There As Well

« on: October 22, 2011, 09:05:11 AM »

Ah, the hits just keep on coming for Righthaven. Having already had judges in Nevada and Colorado dismiss Righthaven cases for lack of standing, the one remaining state where Righthaven had tried its questionable legal tactics was South Carolina, which had prompted a somewhat epic countersuit. Not surprisingly, it's looking like it's a trifecta of losses for Righthaven, as magistrate judge Jacquelyn Austin has made it clear that she's not buying whatever it is that Righthaven is selling. She's given the company until October 28th to explain why the case shouldn't be dismissed for lack of standing.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/11311216436/judge-south-carolina-poised-to-dismiss-righthaven-suit-there-as-well.shtml

2695

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Appeals court rejects Righthaven’s ‘urgent motion’

« on: October 20, 2011, 03:52:02 PM »

what a shame!!!

An appeals court Wednesday refused to block a creditor’s collection actions against Righthaven LLC, the Las Vegas newspaper copyright infringement lawsuit filer.

In the latest in a series of legal setbacks for Righthaven, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Righthaven’s “urgent motion” of Sept. 27 that the court stop attorneys for prevailing lawsuit defendant Wayne Hoehn from executing their judgment against Righthaven for $34,045 in legal fees.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/oct/19/appeals-court-rejects-righthavens-urgent-motion/

2696

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I got hit by GI. $9860!

« on: October 19, 2011, 08:14:45 PM »

I think you nailed it SG, he now has an account and an invoice, I'd be willing to bet it goes to collections, this may be a new tactic.

In regards to archive.org ( wayback machine) file names don't matter as it shows the site, and is very easy to get a screen capture, I would highly recommend you visit the site and request they remove the archive of your pages.. There are also other sources where your site is archived, but this will help..

Another item if the same image appeared on all of the pages of the site it would be considered 1 infringement as opposed to one per page.

2697

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got hit by the letter as well!

« on: October 19, 2011, 07:58:34 PM »

Small claims court probably does not apply, this is not a bill you owe, this is a claim, it would need to go to trial of some sort, they wouldn't be filing a claim, they would be filing sa suit, 2 different beasts I believe.
royalty free or rights managed, it would depend on if the image is registered with the US copyright office, this would dictate the amount of damages they could pursue. If it's not registered they cannot collect damages, and the judge would decide what the fair market value would be..

In regards to hiring Oscar, there are no guarantees it will go away, but I can tell you that GI has not filed many suits, and I don't think they have EVER filed suit for 1 image. I can only speak of my case and I retained Oscar to draft my letter, and I have no intention of paying them one single dime..

2698

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got hit by the letter as well!

« on: October 19, 2011, 01:14:26 PM »

They generally don't supply "evidence" they like to keep you in the dark and scared...truth is a majority of the images are not registered, and they would never be able to collect damages. I'm curious as to what the photog will say in the matter, please keep us posted on the end!

Oscars letter runs 195.00, I can't speak of the time frame, as it would depend on his schedule and also how many other letters he has on his desk at the moment. I know my letter was drafted and sent within a week..

2699

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got hit by the letter as well!

« on: October 19, 2011, 12:32:53 PM »

Only you can decide whether to pay it or not...my opinion is that whomever pays allows them to win, the more wins they get the more letters they send out. The "final" is just how they operate, they generally send 3 letters, then escalate it to either NCS Recovery ( a collection agency) whom you can tell to go pound salt as it is a claim not a debt, this will force them to throw it back to GI, who will then send it over to McCormack, who is their lawyer...such is the circle of life at GI. You could make a low ball offer ( they'll refuse) but you will at least have record of this, which is helpful.. Oscars letter will go a long way, as it will stop any further communication from them, and it's highly unlikely they will file suit over 1 image, I would seriously consider this option, this way it's out of your hands...

2700

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Judge threatens to dismiss another Righthaven copyright lawsuit

« on: October 19, 2011, 09:36:26 AM »

A judge is threatening to dismiss another copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas for a familiar reason: Lack of standing.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/oct/18/judge-threatens-dismiss-another-righthaven-copyrig/