Messages

331

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS / Trunk Archive Closed My Case

« on: December 12, 2015, 04:50:13 PM »

you will most likely receive additional letters, especially since you responded to them already, they now think they have a fish on the hook. By you telling them you are being advised by your lawyer is not sufficient, kinda the same as them telling you they own the image. Now if your lawyer sends them a response, that would be different, as then you would be represented by council, and they would have to send everything through him/her. I'll reiterate again, it's not in their interest to file suit, it would cost them more then it's worth, they know this or they would be filing suit daily.

I'm not "rejecting" anything I'm simply disagreeing, I don't see how "commentors" can make it fair use..they did not post it, using it to "illustrate a topic" ( your words) is not fair use... Using Public domainis fine on this forum, but public domain images do not fall under copyright and that term is often misused as is Royaly Free..

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty-free

332

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS / Trunk Archive Closed My Case

« on: December 12, 2015, 03:50:23 PM »

Fair Use is never a slam dunk as it is open to a judge to decide.
a blog article about "Fall Trends" doesn't sound to me be educational, and if the site serves ads, it would be deemed commercial for all intents and purposes.. If the image is "public domain" ( which I highly doubt) they have NO CASE whatsoever..don't offer them anything in that case, simply respond with solid proof it is in public domain, but again unless it is a picture from NASA, the government or like 100 yrs old, it's most likely not public domain.

offering them 250.00 will only give them cause to continue to hound you, that offer will be quickly rejected..

Keep the following in mind:
1. LCS does not have the authority to file suit, the owner of the image would need to do that.
2. They would have to file suit in your home state..meaning, they would have to hire a local lawyer, and spend the 495.00 to file
3. chances are good if they filed, and won, they very might well only be awarded the minimum 200.00.
which in real terms put them in the negative.

Keep reading the forums, get educated and learn so bits of the law and how these turds operate. To my knowledge TRunk Archive has NEVER filed a single lawsuit as of yet, and they send out 100's if not 1000's of letters.

333

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS / Trunk Archive Closed My Case

« on: December 12, 2015, 08:26:36 AM »

couple of points..

LCS is actually Picscout, which is owned by Getty, but a seperate entitiy, Trunk archive is not related to Getty in any way other than being "clients" of Picscout.

Chances are good that Vogue either licensed the image from Trunk or Vogue may own the image outright ( I would research this if I were you) Either way you infringed by not licensing the image.

LCS is correct in stating there is a 3 yr statute from the date of discovery.however IF ( and it's a big IF) they were to file suit and you explained to the court that the image in question was actually removed BEFORE you were ever notified, it MIGHT put you in a better light to the judge.

I think you would have a hard time arguing "fair use" as you have to meet certain criteria ( explained in other posts here).. but it's highly unlikely they will file suit, they are just a bunch of asshole trolls that seek low hanging fruit to grab cash.

you need to search the copyright database to see who owns the image and to see if it's even registered, if it's not, you're on better ground in terms of a lawsuit.

334

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Why wouldn't a Troll request domain ownership data from DBP?

« on: December 02, 2015, 09:37:15 AM »

I agree with matthew, who gives a shit what the trolls are doing and or thinking? They aren't worth the time of of day. Don't be that low hanging fruit and eventually they will move on ( in most cases)

335

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Because Getty Images DOESN'T want their email shared, I will share it

« on: November 20, 2015, 10:07:18 AM »

funny you posted that...you do know that Tommy Chong is kinda a spokesperson for McCormacks pot growing operations, and even has his name / face on one of the "flavors"..  and please stop insulting pigs

336

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Because Getty Images DOESN'T want their email shared, I will share it

« on: November 19, 2015, 10:04:06 AM »

Stinger..Are you saying that Seattle Lawyer and Pot farmer Tim McCormack can't spell???
Well I beg to differ!



I wonder if the Federal Government ever caught wind of his interview where he admits to along with his "friend" to smuggling drugs across state lines in the dark of night?? Wouldn't that be a kick in the nuts?

337

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Does "innocent infringement" fall apart with copyright registration?

« on: November 13, 2015, 07:31:33 PM »

Sh'es blowing smoke up your ass...stick to your registered agent defense, there is no need to discuss anything beyond that.

It would be completely up to the judge to decide, and chances are good , he/she would award the minimum of 200.00, especially after hearing you side of the story.. If it was me, i would cease any engagement with these trolls, and if they decided to file suit ( which I highly doubt) I would immediately file a counter suit for them not properly following DMCA guidelines.

338

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS / Trunk Archive Closed My Case

« on: November 06, 2015, 12:24:19 PM »

most people don't have a registered agent, it is really only beneficial if your site has a forum of sorts or allows users to post. Users meaning anyone not employed by or the actual owner of the site.

339

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS / Trunk Archive Closed My Case

« on: November 05, 2015, 09:31:48 AM »

I own the copyright of "asshat", you owe me a six pack....or else!

340

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Defining the "date of infringement" ...

« on: November 04, 2015, 04:14:53 PM »

fairly simple process: https://archive.org/about/exclude.php

341

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Defining the "date of infringement" ...

« on: November 03, 2015, 06:06:07 PM »

for sure that's what they will claim, but the fact of the matter is, the infrngemtn wasn't discovered until much later.

342

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS / Trunk Archive Closed My Case

« on: November 03, 2015, 11:13:15 AM »

well done!

343

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: atradius now involved

« on: November 03, 2015, 10:27:46 AM »

Therein lies the issue, this is a "claim" that monies is owed...it's not a "debt"

344

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Defining the "date of infringement" ...

« on: November 03, 2015, 10:06:34 AM »

I think it's fairly easy to quash this, many servers do not have the time / date set properly, they would somehow need to "prove" that this date is accurate. scrubby this from archive.org would make it more difficult.

345

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Stockfood America- phone calls and letters from law firm (not McCormick- advice?

« on: October 27, 2015, 09:46:01 AM »

Something else to be aware of...Lets just say that your web development firm did in fact license the images in question ( which I highly doubt) that license is generally "non-transferable".. in other words they can't license it, then give it you and a bunch of other people.. If they had licensed the image properly, one would think they would know this.