Messages

361

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Image in question is a modified image hosted by a 3rd party

« on: May 03, 2012, 09:45:37 PM »

Lucia,

If I were you I would squeeze them for a reply. If they are going to waste your time sending you a letter about a hot-linked image, they owe you the courtesy of a follow up. Pointing out that you have been waiting for a determination for FOUR MONTHS and that you find it very unprofessional considering they gave you a matter of days to respond to their initial letter. Ask them if you should just call the CEO directly.

362

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Newbie to the club

« on: May 03, 2012, 01:16:14 PM »

This is where you could really make use of a petulant voice, "I don't have time for this. Let me speak to your superior." If you just keep driving this point home and forcing this up the chain of command, I am certain they will back off this. (As long as what you said about the time frame and the use is accurate.)

If it were me I would drive it all the way to get Jonathan Klein on the horn. I would record everything and let them know you were doing so. I would also spend some time reporting what was happening back to TechCrunch. I know the prospect of paying hundreds of dollars for a simple mistake is scary, but you are in the unique position of being able to really have fun* with it.

*If your idea of fun is making the CEO of a copy-troll company clearly define his company policy and either reverse himself or scream his head off at the minion who decided to pursue this non-issue.

363

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Removing images from web page, hard drive and archive.org??

« on: May 03, 2012, 01:07:41 PM »

I still keep my sites on Archive.org precisely for this reason.

364

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 03, 2012, 01:06:27 PM »

I understand that, and I guess my use of the term "fair use' was incorrect. But like "fair use" there is a bit of a blurry line between infringement and inspiration. If I see your picture of a kitty with a slice of bread around his head and I crop this image and put it in a collage of other kitty's, I have infringed. If I see this kitty and it gives me the idea to paint a cat between two slices of bread, I have not.

So when someone says "only 20% of the image remains" I wonder how different it really is. I mean you'd have to completly change the animal, not just the bread. (I also wonder how picscout picked it up.)



By the way this image is for educational purposes and is from the original article at http://www.tntmagazine.com/news/weird/cat-breading-putting-your-cats-head-in-bread-trend

365

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Newbie to the club

« on: May 03, 2012, 12:49:34 PM »

This is where you could really make use of a petulant voice, "I don't have time for this. Let me speak to your superior." If you just keep driving this point home and forcing this up the chain of command, I am certain they will back off this. (As long as what you said about the time frame and the use is accurate.)

If it were me I would drive it all the way to get Jonathan Klein on the horn. I would record everything and let them know you were doing so. I would also spend some time reporting what was happening back to TechCrunch. I know the prospect of paying hundreds of dollars for a simple mistake is scary, but you are in the unique position of being able to really have fun* with it.

*If your idea of fun is making the CEO og a copy-troll company clearly define his company policy and either reverse himself or scream his head off at the minion who decided to pursue this non-issue.

366

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network files 2 more suits

« on: May 03, 2012, 12:33:15 PM »

If we could get any one of these people hit with HAN suits, to strike back, it would be great. I would be willing to do some spec work  putting together evidence for a counter-suit on deferral for them. I have a strong enough indication that HAN knows damn well that the defendant did not remove the copyright symbol and claiming that they did is an outright lie. I'd like to get to the bottom of who uploaded the images to these "Free Wallpaper" sites. You cannot claim to be the "exclusive representative" of an image AND allow the image to be uploaded to all of these sites. And if you are aware of these wallpaper sites, it is your duty to issue takedown notices.

367

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in Switzerland: this time with LAWYERS letter

« on: May 03, 2012, 12:18:01 PM »

This simply means someone (you? your web developer) created a robots.txt file instructing visitors from archive.org not to create a "snapshot" of your site. Various web servers will send out automated web agents to spider through your site and either index the content (for search), archive the content. or even scrape the content for their own use. You can request these agents not to do this through the robots.txt file.

Unfortunately, bad agents will visit your site and ignore the robots.txt file. If your hosting company charges you for bandwidth, they are essentially stealing from you. Sadly, at this time it is not illegal to ignore robots.txt. So what it means is that although archive.org doesn't have a snapshot of your site, if you got a letter then you adversary likely does.

368

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 02, 2012, 05:12:55 PM »

For number 1 I guess people would have to see the two images to determine if it was really as heavily reworked so that only 20% remained. There _might_ be a reasonable "fair use" of the original if it was more for reference than actual content. I don't know what you are asking in #2. If it is mailing to the wrong address and he is still somehow getting it, I guess you could ignore it. But they will eventually send a Fed Ex to that same address and I presume someone will sign for it.

And for #3 if you could get your brother to play along he could simply reply that an outside marketing individual (you) took it upon themselves to create the site. He could point out that the site is not registered by the LLC and suggest they contact you.

I don't know where you'd want to take it from there. I can visualize a scenario where you refer the copyright troll back and forth for a while until they buzz off.

369

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Newbie to the club

« on: May 02, 2012, 05:01:59 PM »

How I would handle this:

Explain to them very clearly that this was a development site and was never intended to be public-facing. The images were F.P.O. (for placement only) while you waited for approval. Point them to the video of the Getty CEO stating that they are fine with people using their images in such a way. Tell them you purchase stock footage from stock companies, but you will not be extorted for something the head of their company himself is a legitimate use.

Ask them to please clarify their position. If they insist on continuing on their present course you will have to cease doing business with Getty and their affiliate companies and escalate this issue to the CEO of Getty and ask him to clarify the company's position.

That ought to get everyone over there squirming.

370

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: SuperStock Settlement Demand Letter

« on: May 02, 2012, 04:50:23 PM »

To funny. When I read "Sloopy" I impulsively started singing (in my mind, not out loud, thankfully) "Haaaang on Sloopy. Sloopy hang on."

371

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Image in question is a modified image hosted by a 3rd party

« on: May 01, 2012, 09:05:14 PM »

First, TylerDurden is an awesome screenname for this site. Second, as BuddhaPi suggested, you are pretty much in the clear. They may continue to pester you a bit. But if you are emphatic and tell them if they continue to bother you there will be consequences. When you start throwing around the knowledge that they cannot collect on an hot-linked image hosted on another site, they will probably slink back into the shadows.

Now you need to ask yourself if you want to do a solid for your vendor and give them a heads up so if there is an issue with the image, maybe they can head it off.

372

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: SuperStock Settlement Demand Letter

« on: May 01, 2012, 08:59:17 PM »

I just realized I called buddhapi by the name of BubbahPi. LOL Wow... all I can say is I didn't have much coffee at that point. My intent was to popularize the correct pronunciation of your screen name. I always read it as Budd-Happy until I spoke to Matt one time. Now I realize it is Buddha-Pi. But Bubba-Pi? Where do I get off!?!

373

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: SuperStock Settlement Demand Letter

« on: May 01, 2012, 12:56:50 PM »

Yes, very nice work by SEO zen masters BubbahPi and Matt. A search for "superstock demand letter" pretty much leads here and to that video.

I wonder if in future videos you might want to include the city and state of the troll-attorney. That way it will help people searching for information about a law practice to see what sort of business they are in.

374

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My company does not exist anymore

« on: May 01, 2012, 12:48:06 PM »

I am not a lawyer, but my layman's understanding is that this is precisely the advantage of an LLC. In my opinion you need to tell them to buzz off.

The site belonged to a company that is now defunct. That company was responsible for the image, not you. In fact, I think there might be consequences for THEM if they pursue you for something that the corporation did.

I wouldn't even get into a negotiation about price.

375

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

« on: May 01, 2012, 12:24:28 PM »

I received your PM and I am glad to see you did exactly what I hoped you would do (before you even got my reply). Thank you for posting this publicly. If more people had the guts to step up and do this, there would be far fewer victims that just roll over.

Your letter is a great example of the research and effort someone should undertake to fight these extortion letters. It can serve as a guide for anyone else faced with a similar claim.

It takes courage to publicly speak out against something like this. But only by enough people getting vocal about these copyright trolls will the policy ever change. Since you are both a stock footage vendor and customer, I think some sort of dig about no longer doing business with companies that threaten to sue their customers is appropriate. I have made it my mission to inform as many web developers, graphic artists and video producers about the practice of GI, MF and HAN. I also don't fail to mention that even a purchase from iStockPhoto (owned by Getty), contributes to copyright trolling. And then I point them to freelance photographers and the resources I have collected at: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/

Anyway, good luck and welcome to the club.