271
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help with Masterfile Letter
« on: January 11, 2013, 07:32:05 PM »
I am in the office Monday morning Donna call me at 516 741 3222 at around 10am NY time
| 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.
272
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My commentary on the recent PDN Article
« on: January 11, 2013, 07:30:06 PM »
WOW! Killer posts BuddhaPi!
273
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Support Call: Don't Be This Bimbo and Waste My Time
« on: January 11, 2013, 07:28:25 PM »
What this letter/email trail shows is the effectiveness of Getty's programs. Look how this woman who has hired a lawyer and run a business is so intimidated and in full belief that McCormack is going to file suit. Despite all the info (FOR FREE) on ELI, videos, forum posts, memes, etc., letting her know what is going on she still needs to "vet" Matthew before sending her documents. I wager she settled with them after her lawyer told her she should just pay and make it go away because his/her fees will exceed the settlement amount. So this person was totally taken in just because McCormack asked the lawyer if they would accept service. (Robert - too late to re-award that Asshat of the Month award?). But her ineptness is also proof of why we need to make sure that ELI stays current and informative as we approach our fifth year. The vast majority of folks do not call Matthew or me - they just call Getty or their normal business lawyer and send a check.
274
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Attempts to Squelch Settlement Agreement & Release
« on: January 11, 2013, 07:12:11 PM »
When will they ever learn?
275
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Latest image scraper – a troll by any other name
« on: January 11, 2013, 07:09:05 PM »
Trust lucia - she is the bomb on this issue!
276
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: We are the latest victim of the Getty Image extortion scam
« on: January 11, 2013, 07:07:17 PM »
Please don't lose sleep over the letters. Read through the forums, you will see that single image letters have never been put into suit and they cannot hurt your credit rating.
277
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New for 2013 ~ The Copyright Troll Asshat of the Month Award...
« on: January 11, 2013, 07:03:08 PM »
Cringe time!
278
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NON-US COMPANIES?
« on: January 09, 2013, 10:15:56 AM »
If one is a subsidiary of the other, that is enough for them to make the claim against the US corporation. If they are wholly distinct and separate entities, that would be a defense to any lawsuit by Getty (which will never be brought, as you will learn if you read these forums in depth).
279
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help with Masterfile Letter
« on: January 09, 2013, 10:13:34 AM »
Calm down, don't panic, don't pay that amount, call me.
280
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: PDN Article Featuring "Kindly Uncle" Glen Carner
« on: January 09, 2013, 10:11:55 AM »
You would have to have a pretty steady and significant sales stream to show that your sales history is "market value." Three or four sales of the images over a year or more is not enough to establish that this is what the image is worth, when you consider that it would be easy to show that similar images are being bought every day for far less. In one of the key cases in this area, Davis v. The Gap the court (NY Federal Appeals Court, The Second Circuit) established that fair market value of a lost license fee is the appropriate test in assessing "actual damages":
"We recognize that awarding the copyright owner the lost license fee can risk abuse. Once the defendant has infringed, the owner may claim unreasonable amounts as the license fee -- to wit Davis's demand for an award of $2.5 million. The law therefore exacts that the amount of damages may not be based on "undue speculation. The question is not what the owner would have charged, but rather what is the fair market value.
Davis v. The Gap,246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001). Another interesting section on this case talks about how de minimis (minimal or trivial) infringement is not infringement at all:
"The de minimis doctrine is rarely discussed in copyright opinions because suits are rarely brought over trivial instances of copying. Nonetheless, it is an important aspect of the law of copyright. Trivial copying is a significant part of modern life. Most honest citizens in the modern world frequently engage, without hesitation, in trivial copying that, but for the de minimis doctrine, would technically constitute a violation of law. We do not hesitate to make a photocopy of a letter from a friend to show to another friend, or of a favorite cartoon to post on the refrigerator. Parents in Central Park photograph their children perched on Jose de Creeft's Alice in Wonderland sculpture. We record television programs aired while we are out, so as to watch them at a more convenient hour.8 Waiters at a restaurant sing "Happy Birthday" at a patron's table. When we do such things, it is not that we are breaking the law but unlikely to be sued given the high cost of litigation. Because of the de minimis doctrine, in trivial instances of copying, we are in fact not breaking the law. If a copyright owner were to sue the makers of trivial copies, judgment would be for the defendants. The case would be dismissed because trivial copying is not an infringement."
I have often cited Davis to Getty and others as precedent establishing (1) that while a court will look to a company's licensing fee, in the end it is the fair market value of the item that will count and (2) minimal infringement is not infringement at all.
"We recognize that awarding the copyright owner the lost license fee can risk abuse. Once the defendant has infringed, the owner may claim unreasonable amounts as the license fee -- to wit Davis's demand for an award of $2.5 million. The law therefore exacts that the amount of damages may not be based on "undue speculation. The question is not what the owner would have charged, but rather what is the fair market value.
Davis v. The Gap,246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001). Another interesting section on this case talks about how de minimis (minimal or trivial) infringement is not infringement at all:
"The de minimis doctrine is rarely discussed in copyright opinions because suits are rarely brought over trivial instances of copying. Nonetheless, it is an important aspect of the law of copyright. Trivial copying is a significant part of modern life. Most honest citizens in the modern world frequently engage, without hesitation, in trivial copying that, but for the de minimis doctrine, would technically constitute a violation of law. We do not hesitate to make a photocopy of a letter from a friend to show to another friend, or of a favorite cartoon to post on the refrigerator. Parents in Central Park photograph their children perched on Jose de Creeft's Alice in Wonderland sculpture. We record television programs aired while we are out, so as to watch them at a more convenient hour.8 Waiters at a restaurant sing "Happy Birthday" at a patron's table. When we do such things, it is not that we are breaking the law but unlikely to be sued given the high cost of litigation. Because of the de minimis doctrine, in trivial instances of copying, we are in fact not breaking the law. If a copyright owner were to sue the makers of trivial copies, judgment would be for the defendants. The case would be dismissed because trivial copying is not an infringement."
I have often cited Davis to Getty and others as precedent establishing (1) that while a court will look to a company's licensing fee, in the end it is the fair market value of the item that will count and (2) minimal infringement is not infringement at all.
281
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new copyright thug to add to the list?
« on: December 12, 2012, 11:05:40 PM »
mdc: Be aware that he can only get the statutory fees he describes and legal fees if the images were properly registered with the Copyright Office at the time of the infringement and that even then a court can reduce penalties to $200 per infringement for innocent infringement cases.
282
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Settlement Purposes Only Letter - 3rd Letter
« on: December 12, 2012, 11:00:00 PM »
All good and accurate advice. To our newest victim, the other reason why registration is important is that without registration at the time of infringement Getty cannot recoup their legal fees or other statutory penalties so the likelihood of being sued plummets.
283
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I don't think the Getty case stands up technically
« on: December 08, 2012, 10:21:34 AM »
As has been repeated here endlessly, Getty has only sued about for or five times since they started this program in late 2004/early 2005. To my knowledge they have never sued over a few images. So the threat is not that you will be sued, it is that they will just continue to harass you with different letters form different sources.
284
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Personalised" response from Doug Bieker
« on: December 08, 2012, 10:19:37 AM »
The Canadian Statute would apply if you and the site are based in Canada. Getty does not traditionally file suits in Canada either. Normally Canadian residents receive letters from Getty's Canadian office. A US lawyer really shouldn't write a Canadian resident about a Canadian copyright law violation unless he is admitted to practice in that jurisdiction. That's why we don't accept cases from Canada for our letter program.
285
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: December 08, 2012, 10:14:25 AM »
Great work Greg!
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. |