Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Oscar Michelen

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 82
346
In response to the Muench case, the Copyright Office (by way of Marybeth Peters) has put forth an official regulation regarding group registration of photographs. Part of the reason why courts did not give great deference to Marybeth's letters to Nancy Wolff was that they were not official regulations promulgated by the Copyright Office. To correct that, the Office issued 76 CFR 4072 an interim rule establishing a pilot program regarding the registration of copyrights for photo collections.  Here the link to view the reg.: http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2011/76fr4072.pdf 

The copyright office will allow registration of photo compilations to provide individual protection to the images contained in the compilation but only if each photograph is identified separately and have a common author. For automated databases, the regulation requires that the entire image be uploaded and not just a description of the image. The reg is silent as to whether the author's name must be listed as well. While this type of regulation is entitled to more deference than the informal letter PACA previously acquired from their wholly owned subsidiary, the Copyright Office, to the extent it allows for  something other than what is required by the Copyright Act, I still think it is not enough to give individual protection to the works included in a compilation registration. 

347
Don't worry Greg.  By last count, it was running about one cringe per ten bouts of laughter

348
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Sold!
« on: August 15, 2012, 10:06:18 AM »
I see no change in Getty's operations from this, except that they may intensify their efforts with new cash. Don't forget Carlyle Group has to be fully aware of their settlement letter program so they know exactly what they are buying for their $3.3 billion. These guys are big players - world political manipulators-  and George Bush the First was very involved with them before during and after his presidency. This is pocket change to them and considering they are war profiteers I don't think they will be upset over extortion letters.   

349
OK - part of the problem with forums like this is that copyright law is highly specialized and has many nuances. Also, this is not the place for a 60 page dissertation on the meaning of the term "exclusive and non-exclusive."  Let me just say that what I meant and what I stand by is the Getty can have been granted the exclusive right to sue but not have other rights exclusively like the right to re-print the image meaning the totality of its rights are not exclusive.  I have often argued with Getty (many years ago when we actually talked on the phone) that if they did not have an exclusive right they could not sue under the Copyright Act and they always argued that they had exclusive rights.  The argument never went any further because they never showed me their rights agreement and once I realized they never registered the images anyway, it became a moot point

350
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Complaint
« on: August 13, 2012, 11:45:37 AM »
Small claims is not allowed to hear claims of emotional distress only for direct loss such as monetary damages

351
Rob: That paragraph is standard "boilerplate" language for the affirmative defense of comparative fault - Getty is alleging that if they are at fault then a third party is also at fault and Getty should only be responsible for their share of the fault.  Getty has strung dozens of standard boilerplate affirmative defenses to their answer in this complaint.  These two are particularly interesting:

FIFTH SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
5. The FAC is barred, in whole or in part, because Getty Images’ conduct
was reasonable, justified, and in good faith.
SIXTH SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
6. The FAC is barred, in whole or in part, because even if some material
allegedly owned by Plaintiff purportedly was used by Getty Images without consent
(which Getty Images denies), such use was made with innocent intent

If plaintiff's counsel is smart here, he will show the court the thousands upon thousands of times Getty has told Mom and pop businesses that good faith and innocence are not defenses to an infringement claim.  Also maybe folks who get a letter where Getty makes those statements can shove this answer back in their face and say "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" (if people still use that phrase)

352
Stinger: If I got this result in absentia imagine what would have happened if I had shown up! In all seriousness, however, I was not going to spend the client's time and money to fly to California for a five minute appearance. Our local counsel also informed me that Judge Real relies on the court papers and that an appearance is only necessary if you have something new to add. 

353
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Extortion Worldwide
« on: August 05, 2012, 09:16:50 PM »
Matt - I am alot of things but I am not "rag tag" thank you very much!  ;)

354
OK  - let me start by saying what I have said several times before - we are regularly contacted by folks interested in the class action angle and a few times per year are contacted by class action lawyers.  I share alot of information with them (all client names and identifying info are redacted of course) and they never come back to me with any further interest. It has gotten to the point where I have a file called "class action response" that contains the redacted letter(s), a brief synopsis of the Getty issue and some bullet points of pro/con of a Getty class action. So now I just send folks that file when they indicate an interest in proceeding.  SG is absolutely correct that Getty can have different arrangements for certain collections which  while non-exclusive still allow Getty to sue or make a claim on behalf of the copyright holder. As to those two collections, I do not recall seeing them with any frequency built we do not catalog the claims based upon the images.  We only keep a look out for cases involving The Stone Collection as I believe Getty has registered that collection (though of course I feel the registration method used is invalid but that's a whole other story).  I will however tell my staff to keep an eye out for those collections and will let you know. Where I think there may be some room for a class action is where Getty charges sales tax in addition to the claim amount.  Since we last posted about it, we have not received any Getty letters where they demanded sales tax so maybe Getty has stopped doing that. 

 

355
The goal of this site and forum was to educate folks about what was going on to let people know that they did not have to fold and pay Getty. It has now grown to be a great community of energetic, vibrant, witty and intelligent people all willing to work collectively to fight these trolls. I agree with Matt that expanding internationally may be too much right now, but I also think that as the team has grown, we have been able to expand into other topics and that is the future of the ELI site - a go-to place to learn how to fight copyright trolling! 

356
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: August 05, 2012, 08:56:28 PM »
Nicely done Greg.  Even if the AG closes the case its worth making Getty go on record and have to address these complaints in writing.

357
Robert - great job in getting these and posting them. Nice to see how many folks mention ELI.   

358
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Heres your Saturday snicker!!
« on: August 05, 2012, 08:42:59 PM »
That video is so generic and contains no worthwhile info, what client would possibly be persuaded to sit through that, never mind actually retain Tim based upon it? I don't even know what to say about that gif posted by SG!

359
People cite to the Magistrate's opinion because they haven't done their homework (or they like what it says), A district Court judge's opinion is the final say on something ( within the same case). Magistrate Judge's make rulings along the way to help defray the district judge's workload.  So a magistrate normally oversees discovery - when rulings are more lenient as to what one side can see or what may be relevant, but then a district  court judge decides at trial what is admissible. That is the only real decision that matters. But if you were able to subpoena someone from The Internet Archive to come to court and explain how it worked and had them conduct the search and tell a court what the search revealed, I believe that would be admissible. You could also perhaps retain them as expert witnesses on internet archiving and storage of web pages - then I think it would definitely be admissible.   

360
Great to have this on the site. No real meat here.  Just basic denials.  The good stuff should come if it gets into the discovery stage and we get to see if there is evidence of "seeding" of the images!

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 82
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.