Messages

2791

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 26, 2011, 08:38:00 PM »

Maybe Oscar will stumble upon this and offer up some insight as to whether it would hold water...if so I myself would be willing to pitch in to get a draft prepared, if not pay for it myself..as mentioned i have over 200 hosting accounts, so thats a good number of letters to be sent right out of the gate, plus anyone else here who would to take part..

2792

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 26, 2011, 08:32:03 PM »

I remember that fiasco well, they have since "re-worded" these terms:

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

The key here is "subject to your privacy settings" so there is a way around this, however most laymen never look at the terms much less understand them..I rarely post images on FB and if i do I make sure they suck for the most part, or I just visit newzshooters site and grab them from there! ; ) Just kidding newz! I don't steal images or content..

2793

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 26, 2011, 11:21:11 AM »

They are indeed reining in those costs, which I think is part of the reason for the letters, Getty is hurting in the way of sales, since nowadays everybody has a digital camera of some sort, the sales have gone down, so they resort to this method...it's all about the bottom dollar, they don't care who they step on or put into a grave..

Hell even in my business I've had to think outside the box to get sales back, but would never stoop to such low levels..

I'm active on a photography forum and see questions about pricing almost daily, it's always the standard answers, how are the photo's going to be used, how often, where, when, does the potential client want to purchase copyright...prices are always based on these elements.

2794

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 26, 2011, 10:45:10 AM »

ok I'll jump in here.. I think what newzshooter is stating is getting twisted here. It's not so much what the photo is worth, but how the photo is used..

For example if i go to getty cause I need an image for my site and only my site, it will be on one page, no other use..the image will be less expensive..Now say I also want to use that in my publication / magazine, the magaizne has 50k subscribers, so now in essence i'm using the image 50,000 times, hence it will cost more money...now say I also want to distribute the same image on my site, in the magaizine and I also want to include it on a DVD for digital subscribers...thats another use, the price goes up..

kinda like how car rentals used to be it would be x amount to rent the car and x amount additional for miles...more use more money, very simple concept.

The problem with getty ( with me anyway) is not what they charge, but the WAY they go about trying to collect and the extremely high amounts, regardless of usage or anything. Trust me big company's ( Ford,  Movado, ect...) pay tens of thousand of dollars for images in advertising per year..it's just another cost of business

Another new model I've seen recently and I'll use dominoes for an example, they recently ran a photo contest, for 1 year free pizz or something silly, the catch was to submit your photos..the winner get the pizza, but ALL of the photo's become the property of Dominoes, copyright and all to use however they see fit...this is horrible for photographers and I'm quiet sure no pros would enter such a contest, hell i'm a hack and wouldn't enter it, as they were not going to compensate me in any way shape or form, but use my images in all of their adds, billbords, commercials ect....

2795

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 26, 2011, 07:02:11 AM »

in regards to images, yes the images on google search are cached from the server..howerever in the regular web search of google, they cache the entire site html files and all, so all Getty has to do is pulled the cached version of your site from googles servers and get a screen capture..easy enough to request google does not do this along with archive.org aka the wayback machine..There are a ton of other site that also cache our site and these caches are on their servers..

http://www.googleguide.com/cached_pages.html

2796

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar to ask Attorney Gen. of NY to investigate Masterfile. EVIDENCE AVAILABLE!

« on: August 25, 2011, 09:16:49 PM »

Getty and the likes will continue to send demand letters until the laws in the US are changed to make them send a cease and desist first, until that happens the letters will continue rest assured

2797

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 25, 2011, 09:12:56 PM »

I beg to differ. Google does indeed cache pages and images, do a simple google search and in the results are cached links, in order to not have them cache your pages you must request it, there are various other sites that also cache pages, but I won't advertise them here..

2798

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible loophole in Getty and Masterfile Copyright Registrations?

« on: August 25, 2011, 05:47:08 PM »

Thanx for yet another well thought out post!

Greedy
Extorntionists
Theiving
Tenacious
Yahoos

2799

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Judge again suggests Righthaven is practicing law without a license

« on: August 25, 2011, 02:13:56 PM »

Judge to Righthaven: "are you an attorney?, are you allowed to practice law?"
Righthaven: no but I stayed at a holiday inn express last night"

If you dig a hole deep enough, the sides will cave in eventually!

2800

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 24, 2011, 08:57:07 AM »

Depending on your isp setup, every time you access a site it can take mirrors of it on their proxies, gateways etc.

I dont mean the actual proxies on your own computer, the ones the ISPs, search engine, wayback machines etc use. If they find something in the ISP caches they just go to the site, take a screenshot and done.

There may be a simple work-around to this...I already have archive.org and google not cacheing my pages, however you raise a good point with ISP's and proxies. I believe if the pages are served securely (https) they won't be cached..now to do some research to see if this in fact true. Mind you I have nothing to hide, but I do host well over 200 domains, so this may aid my client base, and also help prevent the theft of my bandwidth, along with installing a bot-trap on the servers..

2801

Getty Images Letter Forum / Is this plausable??

« on: August 23, 2011, 06:04:22 PM »

this has been going thru my head since I read the original post, what are your opinions could this actually be plausable and legal? I know most of us aren't lawyers, and I may just run this by one..

Send Getty a letter stating that you DO want their bot to crawl your site as long as it conforms to certain conditions such as not indexing image directories or crawling directories that are listed as exclude in the robots.txt file of the site. However, you wish to be paid $100.00 per non-compliant visit and you will be logging the activity. This is a legal “offer” to allow them to spider your site. Their spider, upon entering your site after the offer notice may constitute acceptance of the offer. Bill them and sue them for non-payment. Let’s get EVERYONE to send this letter so that they need to manually deal with this situation and hire tens of millions of dollars in labor to comply. Do not accept any web forms to opt-out, but make them do this all by hand and bill them until they comply, but sue them anyway for not complying.


and while we're here, what are your thoughts on this. If I have specific instructions in nmy robots.txt file to block certain spiders/bots/scrapers, and picscout ignores this, doesn't this equate to essentially hacking?? as well theft of my bandwidth??.. I've already so far as to block the whole range of IP's associated with  Israel, this isn't enough for me, I'd really like to come up with a way to turn the tables, and get them where it hurts..

thoughts, feedback, IDEAS

2802

Getty Images Letter Forum / Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 22, 2011, 04:38:14 PM »

In todays news, thank to another poster from bringing this to out attention!

http://www.windsorstar.com/business/fp/Canadian+tech+firms+combine/5290109/story.html

2803

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 22, 2011, 08:33:48 AM »

I dont assign them the right to sue, I cant, I am the only one with a right to sue. Of course I can instruct them to represent me and get the best possible outcome for my images. Dont confuse people being stupid and doing the wrong thing with the ones that do know what they are doing.

If I read this correctly, this means that GI can only send out the demand letters and not file suit on behalf of nay artists.In order to file suit they (GI) would need to be the actual copyright owner, and also have the image registered. From what I understand Getty does not have most of the works in their library registered. Perhaps this is because they can't register images that are already registered by the artist?

2804

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Grass-Roots Action - Background and a plan

« on: August 19, 2011, 09:31:53 PM »

Thanx for sharing this, there's some  good info and ideas here, I especially like #14, I wonder is something like this would actually work, perhaps Oscar can throw in his 2 cents, although it might be out of his normal realm. I also like the first option, but at 135.00 for every 10 sites, this would be unrealistic in my case, unless I could somehow group my clients together and have them all pitch in.. As a web host I'm already covered by dcma, this would be more of a service to my clients as some of them just don't "get it"

2805

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 19, 2011, 07:18:49 PM »

You Rock! Period.