Messages

286

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer sues Getty for extortion letters over her work

« on: August 04, 2016, 05:44:54 PM »

Another great gift, and I must say it's freshening t see some new blood jumping into the fray...Engel Nyst.

Were you a Getty or other troll victim??? I remember many years ago being filled an enormous amount of energy to aim towards Getty and others, seems it has waned over the years, but I still hate those douchebags.. I'm betting that, those fucktards Jonathn Klien and pot growing Timothy McCormack are glad they got out of this..

287

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: August 02, 2016, 11:43:39 AM »

"Looks likely that Getty was doing no or insufficient due diligence before sending out the letters. "


Getty has been doing this for years, why do you think we started this forum? There are too many cases to count where Getty was in the wrong, thus making them the largest copy-right troll in history, right next to Righthaven, and Prenda. I hope Carol sticks to her guns and takes them down, and puts them out of business!

288

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer sues Getty for extortion letters over her work

« on: July 30, 2016, 09:29:13 PM »

We've also seen a case ( buried on this forum somewhere) where a person received a letter from Getty, they contacted the artist directly, who informed him that he was no longer affiliated with Getty, yet his images were still available for licensing on the Getty website...needless to say the artist was rather pissed, as he was not making money from the images, or any alleged infringement Getty collected on...this was prior to Getty buying Picscout.

289

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer sues Getty for extortion letters over her work

« on: July 30, 2016, 08:36:35 AM »

I've already gt my foot in the door, I've contacted her and she kindly replied, I think Oscar may be contact with her attorneys..

290

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer sues Getty for extortion letters over her work

« on: July 29, 2016, 03:16:11 PM »

exactly, but they are trying to pass the buck as it were, saying alamy was their ( LCS) customer. I think she's on pretty solid ground, and Getty wioll offer to settle if they haven't already.. If they do settle chances are good we'll never see the amount or terms, which would be unfortunate..

291

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer sues Getty for extortion letters over her work

« on: July 29, 2016, 08:50:50 AM »

What I'm getting from Getty's statement is that Carol is suing the wrong company, that she should be pursuing ALAMY. I have not looked into the alamy connection and whether or not getty owns them, they certainly own LCS and picscout...another issue Getty did not address was the fact that over 18k images appeared in the getty library and on their website. Give their past loss, and when this whole extortion thing comes to light in a court-room, I think Getty will have a rough time of it...at least I hope they do!

292

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer sues Getty for extortion letters over her work

« on: July 27, 2016, 06:13:59 PM »

THis made my day, my week, maybe the whole entire year!!

293

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: July 21, 2016, 11:38:20 AM »

Oscar rarely pokes his head in anymore these days, I actually sent him an email requesting he address your initial question, which he did,  I know he's busy with other matters, if I communicate with him in the near future, I'll ask him to return if he has a few moments.

294

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: In The News

« on: June 18, 2016, 11:03:03 AM »

If anyone wanted to do a whitepaper on bad marketing concepts, Poet and Author Linda Ellis would be the perfect subject, from her cheesy trinkets, to her framed garbage, in addition to her online reputation and how she behaves..she's an idiot at every level.

295

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: June 15, 2016, 03:46:13 PM »

ok so from a "users" standpoint, you don't have an issue with the followin scenario?:

photographer licenses image with getty, and agrees to their terms of exclusivity, meaning the image cnnot be offered elsewhere.

same photographer then licenses same image with say pond5, thus ignoring, forgetting or whatever,the terms they agreed to with getty.

I come along purchase and use the image from pond5.com ( because frankly Getty sucksgoat balls and is way over priced)..

Getty finds said image and comes after me for infringement..

Are you telling me you're okay with this?...Please also keep in mind, even though Getty would have no case, they would certainly lose, Getty rarely files lawsuits , they just continue targeting low hanging fruit that have no legal knowledge, and are likely to cough up cash to make it go away

296

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: June 09, 2016, 04:15:51 PM »

doesn't get much better than that!

297

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: June 08, 2016, 08:36:45 AM »

have a look through this thread...

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-for-sale/15/

298

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: June 02, 2016, 10:47:52 AM »

‘stinger’ said,
There are examples on this blog where Getty is alleged to have tried to collect royalties on images taken by NASA, which are public domain.

Thanks, ‘Stinger’.  Its an extensive blog.  Where would I find these cases, please? 

use the search feature, why should we have to do your homework for you?

299

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: June 02, 2016, 10:44:15 AM »

It leaves me with a question I’ve asked before.  If a picture user receives a Getty demand for unauthorised use of a picture and the picture user knows they have not made unauthorized use of that picture, Getty would have no evidence.  If it hasn’t happened, they could not prove it did.  There would be no evidence, end of problem.  Or am I missing something?  Is the problem that, the receipt of such letters is scary and some people pay up just to be done with it?

I'm not sure what you're not understanding here..I'll use my own "case" as an example:

I purchased images in good faith years ago, and received the Getty letter, turns out the image in question was/is in the Getty library, however I purchased from another source, I immediately supplied Getty with the license agreement via email while I won the phone with them, they then accused me of "creating the license myself" while I was talking with them..how fucking absurd is that? They continued to hound me. I refused to pay. SOL ran out.

Getty had no evidence, yet the still wanted my money, so much so they offered me a "reduced settlement amount" of $850.00 with 3 months remaining on the Statute of Limitations.

However, if a picture user has made unauthorised use of a picture, whether by mistake or not, and receives a Getty request/demand for the fee, is the problem that they would like to find a way of not paying it?  Or, at least, not paying so much?

As stated ad nauseum on this forum ( use the search feature), it's mostly a combination in the heavy handed methods they use and the amount they demand. Over 80% of Getty library is NOT registered, or not registered properly, hence they would not be able to collect the amounts they request, if awarded a "win" in a court of law. How is it they demand 1k- 1200.00, knowing full well a judge would award the minimum of $200.00 IF they were to win?

300

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Office Resurrects Troubling Plan To Strip Websites Of 512 Safe Harbor

« on: May 27, 2016, 01:09:44 PM »

Well the positives of this are pretty obvious...much lower cost, and streamlined automated process..where I see issues that should be addressed:

1. existing registered agents should be moved into the new system, hell they already paid the 105.00 or more, IMHO they should be grandfathered in and not have to renew.

2. An option should be offered to designate an agent for various time frames,much like registering domains, for example have a 3yr., 5y.r, 10yr., lifetime option, and adjust the cost accordingly. While offering the ability to change account info and assign a new agent if need be.

3.  There should be a "grace period" if the agent expires say 30, 60, or 90 days.

4. Each record should indicate when the initial registered agent was assigned, along with dates of renewals, including all current agents in the existing database, trolls will jump the ones, that go into the new system, which does not show the original dates, and claim that there was no valid agent at time of discovery.

Most of the general public don't even know about DMCA, registered agents, or other legal aspects, and most probably don't care, until it's too late, which is unfortunate. Ideally I would like to see domain registars, offer up the option to designate a registered agent up domain registration, but that will never happen, as it only applies to US companies/individuals. This way it can easily be renewed along with your domain in one shot..