Messages

286

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: photoattorney.com / Carolyn Wright

« on: May 25, 2012, 04:40:01 PM »

Another excellent find today, Buddhapi. You're firing on all cylinders this Friday! Thanks for tracking this down. These folks sure know how to talk out of both sides of their mouths, don't they?

287

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: DISH Skipping TV Commercials is Copyright Infringement?

« on: May 25, 2012, 12:54:08 PM »

Fascinating! Dish Networks applying the Chan Doctrine of getting out in front of issues.

288

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll and Georgia Attorney Cindy Wan-Hsin Hsu

« on: May 25, 2012, 09:17:05 AM »

I really find it hard to believe ( well not really) that of all this time and all of these trolls, not a single one of them has the spine nor the balls to publicly address the forum, to even attempt to defend their good names. This tells me they really are spineless, don't care about their reputations, or they know deep down inside that what they are partaking in is ethically and morally wrong, and are embarrassed.

Amen to that. As I've posted before... at least a mugger on the street has the courage to extract payment face to face.

And how could they NOT know that what they're doing is morally wrong and, in so many cases with the letters we've seen, ethically questionable as well. No wonder they're so terrified of complaints to the AGs and state review boards.

289

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A win for the bad guys

« on: May 22, 2012, 03:05:11 PM »

S.G., thank you for your interesting, thoughtful, and informative post. I especially liked your point about laws always being behind the curve of technology, especially when so many legislators and judges are still relatively computer ignorant.

I've been writing on the Internet for many years, going all the way back to the early days of AOL, CompuServe, and GEnie, and I have to say I miss the old west days before the lawyers and politicians and big corporations realized there were big bucks to be made on what was once a marvelously free-wheeling and free-sharing and very magical thing (I use the word "thing" for lack of a single term that encompasses what the web has always been for me: a tool, a resource, an entertainment, a creative outlet, and so much more).

I have to admit the web has lost much of the magic for me that it once had, and I hate to see it being taken over in so many ways by the greedy bastards who see easy bucks to be made as well as by the power hungry politicians who would control the web to advance their agendas.

Well, enough. I'm high on the soapbox today and that's rarely a good thing for an old man who enjoys ranting almost as much as he used to enjoy a full night's sleep without having to get up to take a leak.

290

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Carolyn Wright, welcomes new trolls

« on: May 22, 2012, 09:39:27 AM »

I pictured more of the old gangster movies, the guy in the pin stripe suit with the fedora hat leaning against the lamppost saying “Hey bud, comere.”   You know, they one who wanted shop keepers to pay for insurance so nothing “bad” would happen.

Exactly... the men who had the balls to stick a gun in your face when trying to extract big sums of money out of you.

We letter recipients of course deal with trolls of a different nature. We are confronted by regular people who are apparently without conscience or courage but who are comfortable lying and trying to use the courts to buttress their extrajudicial business scheme to extract big sums of money.

Like most dishonest people (sociopaths and psychopaths excepted) these copyright trolls become less comfortable when their names and images are made public.

As well they should.

291

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Meltzer-Grant Initial Contact Letter & Settlement Offer Letter

« on: May 21, 2012, 06:11:31 PM »

Perhaps the corporate attorneys associated with these copyright extortion schemes and settlement demand letters have been smart enough all along to realize that people might start filing complaints against them with the offices of the state Attorney General as well as the state bar associations regarding their attempts to extract payments from easily frightened mom and pop website owners.

Going through my file of correspondence with Getty Images over my one little image, I see that none of the letters were ever signed by anyone other than "Copyright Compliance Specialist."

How telling it is that the honcho attorneys at Getty are smart enough to retain the services of quick buck copyright trolling attorneys like Seattle's Timothy B. McCormack who are apparently now whining about taking heat when pissed off people file complaints with the Washington State bar association to throw light on their lies and misrepresentations?

By "retaining" not too bright local lawyers who are happy to do or say just about anything to scare big money out of people who are easily frightened by a letterhead and a batch of bullshit from an attorney, the big boys at Getty keep their hands clean and their legal careers and reputations intact. Brilliant!

With the above in mind as well as the theory that what goes around comes around, would it be a bad idea to file complaints against the head compliance office lawyer(s) at Getty?

If it's a good idea, which lawyer(s) should be targeted?

292

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another UK Getty 'Love Letter'

« on: May 21, 2012, 12:24:52 PM »

Buddhapi, you're right. I'm not sure that 800 British was the right figure to use, now that I've reviewed the posts. In any event, taking 20% of whatever the number was is a sea change, if Getty's accepting that percentage in the U.S. as well as in Great Britain.

Then again, perhaps it's all handled on an individual case basis, and this acceptance of 20% is not significant. Such a complicated game this is!

293

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another fine example of Timothy B. McCormack the puking out garbage

« on: May 21, 2012, 10:50:35 AM »

Great post, Buddhapi!

294

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another UK Getty 'Love Letter'

« on: May 21, 2012, 10:47:53 AM »

Let's see... first, I'm converting to U.S. dollars so my brain won't explode trying to do this in British currency...

With that in mind, 20% of $800 is $160.

This seems to me to be a huge change for Getty. If memory serves, I've never heard of them accepting an amount this low before to end the matter.

Granted, we're talking about a non-U.S. case here, so that may have something to do with it, but I'm wondering if Getty's shifting policy and accepting what many would call reasonable "settlement offers" from the folks they're trying to extract big money from? Given how the courts have ruled lately in the porn/IP cases, Getty would be wise to adjust downward their policies on settlement figures.

Gettyouty, I'm happy you're happy with the outcome of your case.

295

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI Letter and 30 day preview agreement

« on: May 18, 2012, 09:21:13 AM »

I like the copyright abandonment idea. Great research, Scraggy. Thanks for sharing!

296

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI Letter and 30 day preview agreement

« on: May 17, 2012, 05:58:41 PM »

Good post, SG!

Even at my advanced age, I was unfamiliar with the phrase "Assuming arguendo" and at first thought it had something to do with Argentina, Tango, and perhaps love making requiring strenuous or agile positions.

But then, because I'm now a diligent legal scholar -- thanks for the motivation to learn intellectual property law from the copyright trolls at Getty Images and their outside counsel Timothy B. McCormack -- I visited Wikipedia and learned that...

Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument. The phrase "assuming, arguendo, that ..." is used in courtroom settings and academic legal settings to designate provisional and unendorsed assumptions that will be made at the beginning of an argument in order to explore their implications. Making an assumption arguendo allows an attorney to pursue arguments in the alternative without admitting even the slightest possibility that those assumptions could be true. Often, these assumptions would be that the facts or legal arguments endorsed by a hostile party were true.

This seems to me to be more smoke and mirrors and manipulative fear tactics from the largest image company in the world to extract huge payments with an extrajudicial business scheme that's morally worse in my mind than using a gun in the dark of night to rob unarmed victims.

And, like most bullies, Getty Images and its troll Timothy B. McCormack prey on the small and weak. Of course they lack the balls to try to pull this sort of thing on a company that has its own legal department.

In this regard, I almost choked on my upper denture when I first read last year in my initial settlement demand how Getty Images wanted to "amicably settle this dispute between our two companies." Ha, what a freaking laugh that was... the largest image company in the world versus my little mom and pop website.

That may have been my very first "assuming arguendo" moment, and in my ignorance I didn't even know it!

Assuming arguendo does sound sexy, though, doesn't it?

Pass the Viagra.

297

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI Letter and 30 day preview agreement

« on: May 17, 2012, 02:58:55 PM »

We are aware of our obligations under the law and civil procedure requirements in filing formal proceedings. Assuming arguendo, registrations are not in place, which is not admitted, nothing prohibits us from obtaining an expedited registration prior to filing suit.

Oh, interesting. It seems we're seeing evolution at work as Getty tries to counter ELI's wealth of information as to how to stand up to these copyright trolls. I found especially funny their "We are aware of our obligations under the law" because they also find every way to twist and pervert copyright law to extract ridiculous sums of money from scared people.

Isn't it remarkable how many ways these lawyers can find to pretend they have a copyright registration or a right of exclusivity?

The big point of all this: IF they had the proper documentation, you can be damn sure they'd shove it in your face with these outrageous demands.

My conclusion after dealing extensively with Getty and their outside copyright troll law firms like that of Timothy B. McCormick is that they have nothing but bluster, misrepresentations, and downright lies.

You can put sugar on a turd, but, by golly, it's still a turd, so, copyright trolls, show your cards if you expect to take the pot.

Otherwise, fold and go sulk with your troll buddies who can dish it out but whine like cockroaches snorting Raid when what you're doing is made public.

298

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll and Georgia Attorney Cindy Wan-Hsin Hsu

« on: May 17, 2012, 01:21:18 PM »

That $35,000 has to be a typo since there are so many better images available for free or for pennies all over the web.

I like to give copyright trolling lawyers the benefit of the doubt whenever possible since I'm sure one of them somewhere, somehow, must be honest and decent at heart. Looking at her photograph so happily sipping a latte, perhaps Georgia Attorney Cindy Hsu is that honest and decent copyright attorney?

I bet she probably really meant to type $3.50 or $35.00 to reflect the actual value of the images in question! And that we'll have a correction from her soon.

299

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My Position on State Bar & Attorney General Complaints Against Lawyers

« on: May 16, 2012, 06:17:31 PM »

Is an argument explaining why writing a letter is inappropriate online somewhere?

If such an argument is available, I'd sure like to see it.

Like most bullies, it seems that copyright trolls can dish it out with their scary and threatening letters full of misrepresentations (if not downright lies) but they can't take it when someone stands up and dishes it right back in spades.

My old man used to tell me, "If a bully starts giving you a hard time, make a tight fist and hit him right smack on the nose." That was good advice more than 50 years ago when he gave it to me, and it's still good advice today when you're dealing with bully copyright trolls.

Good video. Thanks for making it, Matt.

300

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: CEG Email?

« on: May 15, 2012, 11:27:53 AM »

How insidious is it that these trolls encourage us mom and pop webmasters to consult "with your own attorney"? As if 98% of us have an attorney on retainer to deal with the many legal disputes (yeah, right) generated by our blogs, to begin with.

No, the point with this sort of manipulation involves the fact that these copyright trolling lawyers know that most local attorneys understand little or nothing about intellectual property law and are going to tell you to settle, that litigating may well cost you even more than what the troll lawyers are demanding.

I just hope all the new people getting their first letter from Getty have the presence of mind to do a little online research first so they can find ELI and educate themselves instead of relying on a local attorney, whose advice most likely will be quite bad.