Messages

301

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

« on: May 30, 2012, 11:49:00 AM »

To all those who complain that Googling their names now pulls up ELI on the first page (and sometimes as the first response) I remind you that this site  will also praise and laud those who behave and litigate responsibly. We're just waiting for that to happen.  Soon, we hope.   

It would be nice to have a "whitelist" like that. There will be times when we ourselves could have a legitimate claim against someone infringing our intellectual property, patent, etc. Everyone here agrees that it is a legitimate cause to protect one's intellectual property, but of course there are differences regarding how to go about it.

302

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: go-daddy's misguided use of DMCA

« on: May 30, 2012, 10:55:06 AM »

I have seen first hand that some of the "Free Wallpaper" sites that have Vincent K Tylor / Hawaiian Artnetwork images on them are hosted with go-daddy, yet they are still online...just say'in

I know of 6 different websites hosted on ThePlanet.com in Spartansburg, SC, that are up and happily spreading the joy of free HAN/VKT wallpaper.

I know of 4 different websites hosted on HostGator.com in Minneapolis, MN, that are also cheerfully spreading the HAN/VKT wallpaper.

I will gladly share the email, phone and contact person information with anyone who's interested in stopping this flagrant copyright infringement. Or just Google the ISPs, they're not going anywhere.

303

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 30, 2012, 10:50:07 AM »

Thanks everybody for your insights. Lucia, especially your great summary of options we have to protect our server data from unwelcome intrusions.

I'm trying to think of reasonable ways for a website developer to be able to continue a useful workflow without exposing themselves to the trolls. We have seen, for example, that even commercially licensed Wordpress templates can get a body in trouble.

I guess one practical way to protect oneself during the development stage of a website project is to completely password-protect the directory that the website is in so that only a select group of people, e.g. the clients and designers, can view the project online. In theory the bots won't be able to break into an .htaccess-protected directory. This gives the developer time to research the images well and make the best effort to clear all images (and other content, for that matter) before actually "publishing" the page. That would work, wouldn't it, Lucia?

A lot of the people getting caught in this were in the development stage or had employees or designers make an innocent infringement during development. The question of what constitutes "publishing" is also a gray area, but one can drown in that gray sea. The best protection is, of course, to only use images that are under full licensing and legal control of the responsible parties.

304

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 29, 2012, 11:21:24 AM »

I think that anything that's displayed on a web page (even dynamically) can be picked up by a bot.
Anything that's "publicly" displayed is hopelessly "fair game".

S.G.

Yes, I believe that any public page, even dynamic ones, can be picked up by a bot. Google has gotten very good at indexing dymanic pages, which used to be a problem for search engine optimization purposes when Google's crawlers weren't so good at it.

Google's crawlers will only crawl the pages that are public, though. There are many ways in which a dynamic pages can exist and still not be intended for public view. Maybe one keeps a page private in one's blog because one doesn't want pictures of one's children on the free internets, as an example.

PicScout will go there too, and even if there was an infringement in the page, I have a problem with calling that a "published" page. Google's crawler would not have seen it. No human could have seen it except by ... well, HACKING into the server. Which IS against the law.

305

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: May 29, 2012, 11:13:00 AM »

Thanks for doing that.  So much for not suing over 1 image....

This is true, this is no longer the best rule of thumb. I think it's more about the amount of the claim than the number of images or infringements. Like Matthew commented on another thread, it's all about risk analysis. They're shooting for $30,000 in this case, so the fact that it's one image doesn't change the economics outlook for Masterfile's legal henchmen.

I don't think they'd go to court for less than a certain amount to make it "worth their while". There are also non-monetary considerations, such as the possibilities of loss of face, damage to their brand, financial blowback and setting bad precedents for their "business models". They probably go in knowing fully well it's likely to end up in a settlement that pays them enough to keep their current posturing and continue with the letter program.

They are definitely sending a statement about the former "never-for-one-image" rule. Like Matthew says, they can take people to court anytime they want and they want us to know that. However, as Matthew also says, the question is whether they can make it stick.

306

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 29, 2012, 12:22:40 AM »

That's a great link. Thank you Soylent Green!

So there we have a possible tactic. Password secured image directories that only the website's pages are authorized to access for display. The bot can't get evidence legally from the directory even if it can defeat the security.

On the other hand, if someone is committing an infringement on a public page, then you can look for it on the public part of the web like the Google image search engine does, or you can visit the page manually to collect the evidence legally.

The ideal goal is to have a level playing field. Those of us who own intellectual property need to be able to protect it and seek relief when we have been infringed upon, but I strongly disagree that these bully tactics should be legal.

For the most part we are seeing a whole lot of innocent infringement instances being totally overblown in these threatening letters (and calls!) This copyright troll approach is like treating dandruff by decapitation.

307

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor Affidavit for Hawaiian Art Network to Enforce Copyrights

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:55:35 PM »

Thanks, S.G. Your insights are helpful. Maybe I should give the Copyright Office a call and find out how hard it is to get the specific information on any such bulk registration.

Part of what I want to know is how hard is it to do the research that they expect you to do to verify ownership of an image. If they're interested in protecting their IP, then you would think they'd try as hard as possible to make it easy to verify they own an image.

308

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:48:23 PM »

The issue is that ignoring "robots.txt" is not illegal under any US law.

Exactly. I'm saying it should be, but that's probably an ACLU-size case. It's not a recourse at present, but it's something to think about if this tort abuse epidemic continues. Don't forget it's not just about pretty pictures: Music, software, fonts, video, and even text are items that are already being trolled from every angle imaginable.

I'll give you another example: if you have a secure database with people's medical records and PicScout is able to defeat the security and decrypt it, do they have to right to sell it to insurance companies that want to know who they should turn down? Is it legal just because they CAN break into it and decode it?

The notion of asking PicScout for performance accountability is analogous to challenging a speed ticket by asking for the radar gun's maintenance records, model, technology, age of equipment, record of false positives, etc. The idea is to diminish the credibility of the technology they're using as much as possible, in order to weaken the weight of the evidence it produced.

309

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor Affidavit for Hawaiian Art Network to Enforce Copyrights

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:29:40 PM »

Yes, S.G., I posted the contents of the registration for VA00016196555 Hawaii 2000 the other day. Those are exactly the five works that come up under the 3 names he's using in the database. Two of the listings appear to be for collections, as in bulk registrations, and the other 3 are apparently single images. Still, I don't understand how one is supposed to verify that any single image is part of a bulk registration. Am I missing something in the database search that would provide specific details about each image under a number?

One of the issues that appears to be important is whether or not ALL the images in the collection have been published. Yet one would need a detailed list of each specific image with publications dates. So how is one supposed to get that, does anyone know?

310

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Copyright Services International / HAN Case

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:10:21 PM »

That image is available in hundreds of sites and in thousands of instances if you count the amazing availability of very large sizes that it's offered in. Check out this Google Image search I did using your example's URL as the point of departure:

http://tinyurl.com/7rxf6vx

If you hover the mouse over each of the images, you'll see the tooltip with the URL. Many of them are in foreign countries, but hardly all of them. This image has spread over the internet like some kind of epidemic in a horror movie.

What's more stunning is that this is true of many of VKT's images, particularly the older ones, that HAN is now harassing people for. For example:

http://tinyurl.com/6obbs7v

Okay, that's weird, isn't it? That one is also a VKT image. How about this one?

http://tinyurl.com/75vvmxm

I have never seen anything like it. VKT could set a world record for having his IP infringed upon.

With regard to that registration question, please use the Google search bar at the top of the forum page and look for instances of "copyright registration". There are several good posts discussing the issue of bulk registrations. If what you're asking is how you're supposed to know that image is actually part of the collection that was registed in bulk, my answer is I don't know and please tell me if you find out. It seems ridiculous that they expect a person to verify ownership when they bury the information in a totally cryptic manner.

Don't stress out. I know it's hard right now. A lot of the people that contribute to this forum know exactly what you feel like because they went through the same experience.

The more you read, the better you'll feel. It's not likely they'll come after you for a grand. They're asking others for 5-20 times that much. They're just trying to scare you into sending them a check.

Read through the forum posts carefully and don't forget the sticky posts at the top. You will feel more confidence as you know more about what's going on, and you will be able to make rational choices and avoid unforced errors.

If you feel you need faster results, call Matthew Chan (see home page) and pay his very reasonable fee for a consultation. You also have the option of joining Oscar Michelen's letter program (also on the home page). Scroll down to the bottom of the left column to see the links for the updated help options.

Good luck, hang in there and check here often for new developments. There's a lot here about HAN/VKT that will be of interest to you.

311

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 28, 2012, 10:37:14 PM »

Buddhapi, I understand what you're saying, and I agree you can't stop them from trolling all the want from outside the fence. However, the cases are not being brought to courts by PicScout, it's their clients using PicScout's "evidence" who are taking people to court in the U.S.

I don't know how it works in other countries, but my layman's understanding is that illegally collected evidence will usually get thrown out of court here. If you have a precedent that makes PicScout's evidence illegal except when supported with a proper warrant, then any evidence they collect for a customer in the United States without one will be useless. Again, they would only be hired in the US in cases where the legal bases are covered properly, such as when a warrant has been issued.

I understand you can't shut down a foreign corporation, but you can regulate its products here as we see fit. France punished Google for their inadvertent snooping, for example. They're more concerned with individual privacy that with Google's right to create a better user experience by reading their email.

Soylent Green, I agree that website content is intended for "public consumption", and anything you publish on the internet where the public can see it is fair game. However, PicScout goes too far when they ignore the robots.txt convention because that is exactly where you are saying "this is no longer public, no looking". Most people are not savvy enough with their servers to password secure directories or block access by IPs, so the robots.txt method is the most likely solution they'll use to keep information private on their server. I don't think it's fair play for PicScout to say "just because my spybot is really studly I have the right to crash into your private directories." That's like saying that if someone burglarizes your house because you didn't invest in a really fancy security system, it's your bad and you shouldn't have anything to complain about. And if they happen to be the FBI and they find something illegal in your house, they can now use this evidence to bring criminal charges. I don't think it works that way at all.

Lucia makes a good point about how difficult it can be to even track these trollbots because they go around faking their identity and switching IP addresses. I'm sure we haven't even started to see their dirty little tricks. They're fundamentally hacking on a level that's currently a legal gray area.

However, a person being sued for copyright infringement doesn't need to prove PicScout did it. They just have to ask how the evidence was obtained and let the plaintiffs explain. If I were the defendant, I would vigorously encourage the plaintiff to be VERY specific about how PicScout got the evidence and would even ask for receipts, contracts, and even communications between the plaintiff and the provider of the evidence. Also, I would ask for a lot of details about the actual crawl, such as dates, specific logs, filenames, file sizes, time spent, bandwidth sucked, technician's name and qualifications, and a very specific record of how many false positives the PicScout has generated and how they arrived at these performance benchmarks.

Again, I'm just a layman and I don't know if any of this could hold any water in our court system. Just throwing some ideas around. The Google cases got me thinking because there are some analogies about the civil rights issues involved.

312

Getty Images Letter Forum / How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 27, 2012, 03:21:41 PM »

It's now all over the media, and I really don't see that much difference between this and the PicScout business model:

http://tinyurl.com/7rykvhf

http://tinyurl.com/78vf6ro

How is this different from the Google Street View people storming into these people's houses, sticking a USB stick in their laptop, and downloading anything they please?

How is PicScout's rudebot any different when they bang into your server to suck out information that's none of their business and it has been made clear that they are not to go there?

VKT loves to say that just because he leaves his keys in the car's ignition, that doesn't give you the right to climb in and drive off. Really? So just because our servers can't be easily secured from PicScout's gross intrusions, that gives THEM the right to come in and take whatever they want on our bandwidth nickel and sell it to anyone for their trollish purposes? The guy's trying to have it both ways and I'm not buying it for a second.

How is it that gathering "evidence" against a person in this manner does NOT require a warrant or court order, and how can it be argued that any evidence thus collected could be admissible in court?

Even the Department of Homeland Security has to get a warrant or court order to be able to collect electronic information, or any kind of private information, for that matter. That doesn't necessarily stop them from doing surveillance, but they are well aware of what would stick in court and what would get thrown out.

This needs to be made specific: PicScout evidence collected without an appropriate court order or warrant is NOT admissible in court. That won't stop them from rudely snooping, but it would make their business model change DRASTICALLY. They would only be worth hiring in the US if there is a very specific case where the surveillance can be justified and is approved by judicial oversight. No more gill netting for the trollbot.

Fair is fair. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights for some very good reasons. I'm not done using my civil rights so I think I'l stand up for them.

313

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pro photographer + expert witness Sedlik comments on copyright infringements

« on: May 26, 2012, 08:55:23 PM »

"You must also separate your published images by year of first publication, so images published in December must be separately registered from images published in the following month."

That's VERY interesting. Vincent Tylor has registered many of his images in bulk, no specific titles or dates, just citing a "Date of Creation" of 2000 and a "Date of Publication" of 2001-01-01 for the batch. The registration date is actually 12/17/2009:

Type of Work:      Visual Material

Registration Number / Date:
                   VA0001696555 / 2009-12-17

Application Title: Hawaii 2000.

Title:             Hawaii 2000.

Description:       Electronic file (eService)

Copyright Claimant:
                   Vincent Khoury Tylor.

Date of Creation:  2000

Date of Publication:
                   2000-01-01

Nation of First Publication:
                   United States

Authorship on Application:
                   Vincent Khoury Tylor, 1962-    Domicile: United States;
                      Citizenship: United States. Authorship: photograph(s)

Rights and Permissions:
                   Michele Lynn Tylor, Hawaiian LandMark Images, P.O.Box
                      510164, Kealia, HI, 96751, United States, (808)
                      823-1263, (808) 821-8838, [email protected]

Names:             Tylor, Vincent Khoury, 1962-   
                   Tylor, Vincent Khoury
                   Hawaiian LandMark Images

================================================================================



This batch supposedly includes this specific image, but I don't understand how one is supposed to know that:

http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/detail.aspx?ID=2

It used to be on Webshots too, but look at what happened:

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2554702150105859398?navtype=search

I think we broke his Webshots page admiring his work too much. No problem:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100412161417/http://www.webshots.com/g/tr/ed-sh/44158.html

Thank you, Wayback Machine!

Note several buttons screaming download and a little copyright note underneath in humble body text size and font. Kinda gives the wrong impression.

So really, how is one supposed to find out this is VKT's image if it's not specified anywhere in the database and he keeps taking his own legitimate pages down? That only leaves the wallpaper sites as a source. After you see 2000 instances of the image being used all over the world for years, one gets the impression that the image belongs to the public domain. I even found it used on a jigsaw puzzle!

http://tinyurl.com/bv3rv2d

Compralo subito! 3 disponibili! Condizioni dell'oggetto: Nuovo!

His registration of the images should be a lot more clear and specific if he wants people to know they belong to him. IF.

314

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images and scented trees update.

« on: May 26, 2012, 10:44:20 AM »

Heck, I even ban bad bots who visit robots.txt!

Wow, that's a strict policy! I like it! Thanks again for the physics explanation. I really did have the wrong idea about what the ridges do. The link you shared did a great job of explaining your point. I'll never look at an "air bounce" the same way again.

315

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images and scented trees update.

« on: May 25, 2012, 10:45:16 PM »

I've thought about that too, Buddhapi. In theory, if you point a link right back at their server the bot should follow that and go crash THEIR server. Or maybe a link to the Getty images or HAN homepage. However, I'm sure the crawler knows not to go bang into those servers. Maybe a link to the DHS cybercrime website? I bet they'll find some stock images there.

Should I post the IP numbers I've gathered so far? I know most people don't maintain their own servers, but maybe they can ask their webmasters to look into these prophylactic tactics. I'm amazed how often these things bang into my root directories!