Messages

376

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Picscout

« on: July 12, 2012, 05:43:45 PM »

I think that OP is saying that they're after him about an image that he never put on his site, let alone licensed.
I'm not sure what to make of this one.

S.G.

377

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The continuation of my Getty/NCS IP Solutions Saga...

« on: July 12, 2012, 05:39:25 PM »

Since they won't prove their claim, that simply shows that they have no such proof.
Additionally, the chance of being sued by Getty in Canada for such a small amount of money is pretty minuscule.
I think that what NCS is doing is illegal in Canada; they shouldn't be sending collection letters on non-debts.
In any case, if they cannot validate (prove) that this is a real debt, they shouldn't have contacted you again.
You should report this to Consumer Affairs.

S.G.

378

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Picscout

« on: July 12, 2012, 05:33:55 PM »

I must agree with Oscar here, of course.
It's important not to mix American laws and Canadian laws.
There are very important distinctions, and we musn't make assumptions.
Let's not confuse everything.

I can tell you for certain that a collection letter from the United States sent to Canada about something that isn't actually debt is nothing to worry about.
It's just idle threats.

S.G.

379

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Picscout

« on: July 12, 2012, 02:46:40 PM »

I posted a bit for Canadians recently.  I think that it will be helpful:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/preparation-for-'next-round-of-extortion'/msg9489/#msg9489

As for collections, I don't think that it's legal to make collection efforts for non debts in Canada.
I'm guessing that you got a letter from NCS in the United States?

The FDCPA applies to the United States only.  But, Canadians have their own legislation:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/h_ca02149.html

S.G.

380

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Drops Case Against Photographer/Graphic Artist

« on: July 12, 2012, 01:36:53 PM »

MF's case was so weak that Oscar wouldn't take the poor guy's money.

How long before "kindly grandpa Steve Pigeon" starts posting on here, trying to help the poor infringers? lol

S.G.

381

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 12, 2012, 11:18:57 AM »

Technically speaking, film has always been orders of magnitude higher in resolution than scans.  But, I guess that's not really the point.

Whether the image is public domain, or owned by an artist/photog, Getty has no right to collect based on the accusation of "infringement" unless Getty owns the image.
To me, there's really no distinction.  Practically everyone that paid Getty was a sucker.

S.G.

382

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Former Righthaven CEO Secretly Hires Lawyers For The Company He No Longer Has An

« on: July 12, 2012, 01:25:57 AM »

I wasn't even checking this section of the forum, as I thought that Righthaven was "dead".
Then, I see Buddhapi's posting.  Guess what?  It's still ongoing!

Steve Gibson has filed an "objection to the receiver's notification terminating" his job.  Gibson says:

"Even if the Receiver’s termination of me as CEO was somehow within her authority and done within the parameters of permitted procedure, the Receiver’s position that that somehow divests me of authority would be wrong.
A limited liability company is ultimately governed by its members and the members have chosen Net Sortie Systems, LLC (“Net Sortie”) as its statutory manager.
I am the manager of Net Sortie. While the manager manages the CEO, in the absence of a CEO, the manager would assume management of all affairs of Righthaven..."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/03114319558/former-righthaven-ceo-fights-back-claims-as-manager-manager-righthaven-hes-still-power.shtml

---

Is Gibson just one of those guys that just has to win at any cost?
It's good to be tenacious, but this is baffling.  Would a normal person have time for this?
The court system has no methodology or desire to control rogue lawyers?
This is simply shameful.

S.G.

383

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Drops Case Against Photographer/Graphic Artist

« on: July 11, 2012, 07:23:25 PM »

Lucia makes a good point.
This has always been mostly about bullying people that won't fight back.

S.G.

384

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Drops Case Against Photographer/Graphic Artist

« on: July 11, 2012, 01:40:56 PM »

Steve Pigeon does get involved a bit more that people think.
Masterfile files the greatest number of lawsuits in the industry, and Mr Pigeon usually provides and affidavit in each actual lawsuit.

I personally doubt that legal cases are "escalated" to Mr Pigeon, though.  I don't see how he'd have any more influence on an alleged infringer than somebody else.
I agree that this was a bit of PR opportunity for him, a la "look how we work with our industry to solve problems".

Mr Pigeon also stated that his organization never dropped a case like this in the past.
This isn't true; some people simply won't pay and MF can't sue everybody, nor do they always win when they sue.
I understand that why they would want to give the impression that they always get their quarry.

I have no doubt that McDougall was fed up with the place by the time that he left MF, though.
I kind of feel sorry for him going to Corus... their salaries are low IMHO.

S.G.

385

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 10, 2012, 09:57:32 PM »

Well, it's apparent that Getty's moral compass is rather twisted.

I think that their rationale would be that:
1) the image is public domain, but Getty provides a value-added "service" by "enhancing the image", cataloging and retailing it.
2) because they believe that they have suffered a "loss", they're within their rights to ask for compensation
3) it's not "illegal" for a copyright extortion victim to agree with the above, pay willingly and sign a confidentiality agreement.

That company is twisted, but that's how they think.  I feel sorry for anyone that paid under those conditions.

I don't think that it's illegal to sell public domain images to suckers.
However, if they are operating a formal program that has misled people for years in this regard (that they've infringed on images that are in fact public domain), there's always the spectre that people could unite and litigate over it.

There's been several threads in the past about this, they're worth revisiting.
But, people didn't fight.  So it was merely discussion.

S.G.

386

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 10, 2012, 08:51:32 PM »

Getty's been selling public domain images as its own for ages.
We started talking it about here years ago.

Here's a more recent posting by Buddhapi:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-claiming-copyright-to-national-archives-images-and-selling-them/msg3671/#msg3671

S.G.

387

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another copyright bot: 80 legs.

« on: July 08, 2012, 11:11:25 PM »

Good posts.

Since so much 'bot trolling is going on, it's time for a gentle reminder.
If you receive trolling-type emails from anybody, keep in mind that you do not have to respond.
Do some research prior to responding to anything that might be trolling/phishing.
Especially avoid giving any further contact info such as addresses, phone numbers, your workplace, etc.

S.G.

388

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another copyright bot: 80 legs.

« on: July 08, 2012, 08:06:03 PM »

I'm kind of highjacking the thread here.
But here's one that creeps me out a bit:

Cyveillance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyveillance
http://secpriv.com/who-is-cyveillance-and-why-should-you-care

S.G.

389

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another copyright bot: 80 legs.

« on: July 08, 2012, 11:13:35 AM »

Great info here.
(Apparently, Riddick was quite the font thief.)

S.G.

390

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new collection Agency working with getty

« on: July 07, 2012, 11:37:13 PM »

Good discussion.  There's certainly a distinction between a "legal demand" and a "debt collection".
However, I think that one needs to look closely at what McCormack is actually doing.
The problem for him is that he's sending literally hundreds of these letters out.  But, he does no actual litigation in regard to these.
He sends letters and makes phone calls trying to get money for years until the limitation expires.

Additionally, these same cases are then "assigned" or "sold" to collection agencies.
This really blurs the line between a "legal demand" and a "collection".
I think that Getty's made a big mistake by doing this.

I feel that McCormack is actually in the "collection" business, regardless of how he words it.  Other people may think so too. 
If he's essentially doing the same thing as a collection agency, the FDCPA may be interested.
Here's a thought experiment; try running what's essentially a collection agency, but abuse the rules and use the excuse "I didn't say 'collection agency' or 'debt' anywhere.
You'd be put out of business, lawyer or not.  I'm pretty sure that the litmus test for this is not just "wording" in the letters.  It's what a person is actually "doing".
Now we know why he's worried about his phone calls being recorded.  I totally get it now.
He better be really careful.

S.G.