Messages

331

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

« on: May 30, 2012, 04:00:50 PM »

Perhaps. But I question how many images are actually being sold at these "rights managed" prices. When you see claims close to $1000 for a shot of a sprinkler head, you really have to wonder where is that market coming from. Now if I remember correctly the original Meltzer-Grant issue was over a picture of Sarah Palin. That photo may have had a little more value than a sprinkler head (insert your own political joke here). But on some of these "rights managed" images I would push back for sales data to establish the market rate.

332

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images/Memorial Day Welcome Home surprise...

« on: May 30, 2012, 03:46:05 PM »

No, however if this is a half-inch image on a still of a proposed brochure on a second or third level web page with few visitors, isn't there such a thing as de minimis infringement?

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/infringement2.html

If the use of this image is as minor as described, I would start quoting precedents and essentially tell them to pound sand.

333

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: HAN / Copyright Services International Settlement Notification Phone Call

« on: May 29, 2012, 10:24:18 PM »

Hi Glen,

Although I disagree with your business model and the value you place on your clients' images, I respect you for coming on here to tell your side of the story.

You no doubt are aware that this will be a hostile audience. But if your goal is to reduce copyright infringements and start turning suspected infringers into customers, I would say posting here is a great first step.

Buddhapi has some great questions. I'm also curious about why more takedown notices have not been issued to the sites that are supplying the images. It has been pointed out on here that several of these sites are hosted through goDaddy.com. And they will take a site offline with just a single DMCA claim. I also wonder why so many small businesses are being targeted and yet none of the cases your company has filed have been against the wallpaper sites? Wouldn't it make more sense to cut off the supliers?

Anyway, I do hope you hang in there. Your feedback could prove benificial to everyone. Welcome to ELI.

334

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: HAN / Copyright Services International Settlement Notification Phone Call

« on: May 29, 2012, 01:03:07 PM »

Obviously this phone call tactic is in direct response to the ELI site putting up all the documentation and exposing the troll's methods. However trying to pimp people for money via a phone call and a follow-up email is going to appear to be just what it is --  a scam. The good thing about the trolls sending email demand follow-up letters is that it makes it that much easier for a target to copy a sentence, punch it into Google and then find themselves here.

335

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

« on: May 29, 2012, 12:55:00 PM »

I would be curious to learn if any stock agency is pursuing claims against people with their images in a protected directory. I always presumed that Picscout would hunt down the images, pass the relevant "hits" to the stock company. From there the stock company would have an employee actually visit the public-facing page where these images appear, take screenshots and any other notes.

If that is the workflow, I think you would have a hard time making the case that the images were in a private directory if you were publishing them on an HTML page for the world to see. On the other hand, if you are producing a password protected page and the images are in a protected directory, I don't think PicScout is able to spider those images. They are not "hacking" into your system. They are "just" ignoring your robots.txt directive. And unfortunately at this stage, robots.txt is seem as more of a suggestion than an enforceable rule.

336

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

« on: May 25, 2012, 01:02:20 PM »

I scanned through the network arguments and I could totally picture a judge rolling his eyes. This is the silliest complaint I've ever read. (And that comes after looking at many stock-troll's complaints). What's next? If we get up to go to the bathroom during a commercial will we be guilty of copyright infringement?

337

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

« on: May 25, 2012, 12:50:08 PM »

I'm just shocked that Mr. Burns had a child. "Smithers!"

338

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty to possibly be sold or go public?

« on: May 24, 2012, 07:46:07 PM »

Yes this is a huge development and a mixed bag. Like Oscar says, going public may give them an influx of capital at a time when it has never been easier for companies to "buy" our elected officials votes. (Thanks to PACs and the phenomenally bad decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United.) But on the other hand, it sure does open up the books. To my mind it is also easier to change a companies behavior when they are publicly traded.

The other thing that going public means is that any one of us can buy a share of Getty and that entitles you to be on the shareholder quarterly report phone call. You get to ask your questions. "Do we really think suing our potential customers is part of a sustainable business plan?" or "Shouldn't we try to shut down a source of give-away images BEFORE wasting resources trying to collect on a hobbiest or a fan site?"

339

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photo Attorney Leslie J. Burns Settlement Demand Letter for Phototake

« on: May 24, 2012, 12:48:12 PM »

If Buddhapi is correct about the image (and I'm pretty sure he is), that pic is also available in black and white as a print for $12.99 from http://visualsunlimited.photoshelter.com/image/I0000vRSHryhDjGg.

Hey, I'll scan it and colorize it for the letter recipient for free. So we have now established the cost: $12.99. I hope Leslie Burns doesn't do anything ridiculous like invoice for three times that amount. Because I hear there is no legal reason for that amount (or form) of a demand.

340

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

« on: May 24, 2012, 12:28:40 PM »

I think that is a very reasonable and fair approach.

341

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: List of ethical microstock companies

« on: May 23, 2012, 09:50:02 PM »

I quizzed two people at Pond5.com. They both said that the company was independently owned and as far as they knew it didn't partake in the trolling activities as defined here.

342

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Aloha Plastic Surgery submits counter claim

« on: May 22, 2012, 06:43:00 PM »

Awesome News! Thanks for keeping us posted Buddha.

I just hope that Aloha sees this all the way through. I think the likely judgement against HAN will usher in a sea change for the whole trolling industry.

I wish I could see the judges expression when they find out how many sites have been seeded with HAN/Tyler images and offered as free downloads. And what about how few of them have actually been contacted about taking these images down. Or maybe HAN will try and argue that it is their right to provide their images to free baitpaper sites. That will be classic. I gotta get the popcorn popper going.

343

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Tejas Research, LLC v. Getty Images

« on: May 22, 2012, 06:35:17 PM »

WAR OF THE TROLLS!

Patent Troll vs. Copyright Troll

Who will sink lower, faster?
Experience the thrills and chills of never-before-seen troll-on-troll action!

344

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

« on: May 22, 2012, 01:45:09 PM »

Yes I think a fight on the constitutionality of copyright law may not have been the best move. It has long been accepted that other forms of expression are protected and our laws change to cover new technology.

I think "consumer copying" has been tested and won. We do have the right to buy a cd and make a mix tape for our own enjoyment. We can transfer our laser discs to VHS and then DVD for our own use.

I think what the RIAA was testing and fighting against was the legality of "sharing." And in that case they ultimately prevailed. (Although as SG points out it was to their own detriment for a lot of reasons. Suing your present and future customers, it a bad and unsustainable business model.)

The thing is, the record companies are in a position to throw out a lot of sales data and paint a picture in which piracy of songs cost them a lot of money and that they were taking action to stop it at every turn. Compare this to a company like HAN. There images are freely available from numerous sites, and they have not issued takedown notices. Many sites promote the "free" use of these images. The images themselves can be purchased for $10 as a print. And finally I am confident that there is no way that they can provide the sales data to show that these images had a track record of selling for the outrageous amounts they wish to collect.

So they are very different situations. But like I said, it is worth watching where the case goes from here.

345

Getty Images Letter Forum / A win for the bad guys

« on: May 21, 2012, 12:19:37 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/court-wont-reduce-students-music-download-fine-144922490.html

The Supreme Court has refused to take up a Boston University student's constitutional challenge to a $675,000 penalty for illegally downloading 30 songs and sharing them on the Internet.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal ... for illegally sharing music on peer-to-peer networks. In 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000, or $22,500 for each song he illegally downloaded and shared. A federal judge called that unconstitutionally excessive, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston reinstated the penalty at the request of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Brothers Records Inc. and other record labels represented by the RIAA.

Although this isn't specifically about the stock photo industry, I thought ELI readers would find it interesting. I was quite surprised that the higher court was unwilling to hear about excessive fines. Also, there is a big difference between using an image on your site that has been seen by 20 people and sharing a song with millions of free downloaders.