Messages

316

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How many have been sued for use of one pic?

« on: October 23, 2012, 12:21:15 AM »

No, Robert, anyone can pay the fee as long as the end user agrees to the representation. The draft letter is usually sent for approval to the end user also. Lisa, There has never been an expense beyond the initial fee for the letter, because it has never gotten beyond that in a Getty claim over a single image (or two or three or fifteen). Ever. You should also spend some time looking at some of our videos to get educated about the letter defense program.   

317

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My proposed Getty letter response and settlement offer

« on: October 13, 2012, 11:53:31 AM »

Good advice Matt - as always

318

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I'm done worrying about it.

« on: October 13, 2012, 11:51:42 AM »

You will soon receive Step 2 - a letter from NCS IP Solutions or Timothy McCormack.  Much has been written about both on this site.

319

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Court victory against Getty Images Master Delegate in Israel

« on: October 13, 2012, 11:47:51 AM »

Great News! I agree with Scraggy that he should hold off on the video for now until it is all completely resolved.

320

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What exact IS Google's DMCA policy?

« on: September 25, 2012, 09:26:00 PM »

I would be very surprised if the filmmaker did not get a release. If the release is unlimited (as most are) then it doesn't matter that they altered the "spin" of it or overdubbed her.   Believe me, most young actors and actresses are not going to haggle over terminology in a release. They are just excited to be paid for being in a film. Limiting it by saying it can be edited to be discriminatory or obscene is a good idea, but who defines what is discriminatory or obscene? And it would mean having to go to court to establish they violated the limits of your release. When a person is obviously acting into a camera, it would be hard for anyone to honor a DMCA notice saying "I didn't give them the right to use my image in this fashion." 

321

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 25, 2012, 09:07:09 PM »

SG - just want to clear up that in a quirk of the law the "innocent infringement" reduction to $200 applies only to statutory damages not actual damages. While courts in assessing actual damages often take into account how and when the work was infringed, there is nothing in the Act that reduces actual damages based on the innocence of the infringement. With Getty claims the best argument remains "de minimus" infringement and that actual damages means what price the marketplace usually places on this type of image ($1-$50) not Getty's exorbitant pricing scheme.

322

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 25, 2012, 09:02:21 PM »

This is crazy.  I don't know who would ever put up their actual images on this thing. He appears to be trying to create his own private copyright office while also getting the right to use the images. It would be interesting to see how he describes this "registration" in any trolling letter he sends out.

323

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Attorney J. Stephen Street Extortion Letter: Hawaiian Art Network/Vincent Tylor

« on: September 25, 2012, 08:58:03 PM »

It would be nice to see a big win there. I suspect seeing Smith's name on the letter might scare up more money as people search and find the lawsuit. That's why its important when any of these cases come to court that the judge be told the WHOLE story-  that this one case is not  just one case but part of a larger strategy by the digital warehouses to "send a message." 

324

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Dan B. Levine from Copyright Defense League

« on: September 22, 2012, 06:39:38 PM »

Nice job Matt!

325

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Attorney J. Stephen Street Extortion Letter: Hawaiian Art Network/Vincent Tylor

« on: September 22, 2012, 06:38:16 PM »

Absolutely ridiculous.  I don't think that registration would hold up in court and you would have a very good argument that Tylor failed to properly protect his copyright in the image if it so plastered all over the web.

326

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 22, 2012, 06:35:54 PM »

Having the right to an image includes the right to make derivative use of the image. So cutting it up and putting it into a banner would not be a defense. The change would have to be "transformative" under the law to allow you to make an unlicensed use of someone else IP. Contrary to the popular urban myth there is no 10% rule (that is, that if you change a work of art by 10% it s not infringement).  But read on through the forums to see that single image cases have been not pursued in court by Getty

327

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is the domain owner liable or the company represented on the domain?

« on: September 22, 2012, 06:31:00 PM »

Getty always prefers to go after the website not the developer or technical domain owner.  The chances are that the Mom and Pop e-trepreneur will not know about digital images, their value, copyright, website hits/views etc. They are simply more likely to be scared into paying up or getting their developer to pay up. Under the law BOTH of you could be responsible for any alleged copyright infringement - you for selection and placing the image on the site and the end user for making a use of the image without license or permission. So the rightsholder could go after either of you , both of you  or neither of you.   

328

Getty Images Letter Forum / Clarification About Claims Made Against Canadian Businesses or Individuals

« on: September 21, 2012, 11:37:32 AM »

OK, so every so often I get contacted by folks from Canada who want assistance with these trolling claims. There is some confusion as to when I can and cannot get involved, so I thought I would try and clear that up. If the claim is made to a Canadian entity or national from either Masterfile (which is based in Canada) or Getty's Canadian Office or which asserts claims under Canada's Copyright Law, then I CANNOT get involved.

A Canadian lawyer must be the one handling those exclusively Canadian claims.  But if a Canadian entity or national receives a claim from a US based company asserting infringement of US Copyright Law, then I can help them with their demand letter as US Copyright is Federal. So it doesn't matter where the recipient IS, it matters which law the letter asserts.

Obviously, if a lawsuit is filed in Canada, then a Canadian lawyer is needed. Similarly, if  lawsuit is filed outside where I am admitted to practice I would have to retain a local lawyer to move my admission into that state as has happened a number of times around the country.  Hope that clears up this jurisdictional issue.     

329

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Copyright Extortionists Chart

« on: September 16, 2012, 11:49:11 PM »

Nice job Matt.  Maybe a board game is next in development! "Trollopoly?"

330

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: National Photo Group LLC Documents uploaded

« on: September 14, 2012, 08:08:00 PM »

There's lots of easy money to be made in those airport paparazzi pictures. There's a bunch of photographers who live in LAX waiting for the redeye from NY and La Guardia for the reverse route.