Messages

391

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Ongoing List of Copyright Trolling Firms and those associated with them

« on: August 05, 2015, 10:09:04 AM »

I have a new name to add to the list for McCormack

Ann Hicks: Paralegal to McCormack.

Might you have a redacted letter to go along with this name?

392

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Gratitude And A Few Questions

« on: August 03, 2015, 03:20:45 PM »

First off, I want to than everyone for the information from this great forum! It helped me shift out of paranoid and fear mode into pro-action  after receiving Getty's fist demand letter. I sent off a response with the guidelines of this forum, to negotiate a reasonable amount to pay for my inadvertent posting of a single photo on our web site. I also include a sentence saying that we will only accept written forms of communication and will not discuss this matter using email or by telephone

My questions are as follows:

Now that I have received and responded to their initial letter, I read on this forum that they will send about 11 more out to me. Do I just reiterate my initial response to their first demand letter as these other letters keep pouring in?

well you could, they will never offer up proof, you could also state you will be billing them for your time if they do not provide the requested information

Does it even make sense to respond at all?

not really it falls on deaf ears and copyright clerks that can hardly read, much less form a response.

We have another site that we used a template for, that we purchased in 2004 (I have an email receipt). Are those images safe from the 3 year statute of limitations since the site has been up since then?

The SOL only begins after the discovery of the infringement, if you bought the template from template monster, they were sued and settled with getty and should take care of this for you..Regardless you should pro-actively vet every image on your server. someone else

Can these trolling turds (sorry for the colorful language) also come after videos that use stock images in a slideshow that fade in and out?

turds is way to nice, I prefer to call Getty Images and their employees douche bags..yes they could, they would probably loose in court, but then again they hardly ever file suit..it would greatly depend on the video and content within.

Sorry for all the questions, but I am a newbie.

Thanks in advance

393

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images is now also August Image

« on: August 03, 2015, 03:15:18 PM »

Problem here is that when the trolls do read this, you've admitted grabbing the image and using it ( this will be used to bolster thier case ALSO the address of Picscout a company Getty owns and uses to discover these infringing images, the letter comes from Picscout on behalf of August images.. the good thing here is Picscout does NOT have the ability to file suit, that would be totallty on August Images IF they indeed own the copyright, which they may not, they may only have the right to license the image. Simply because there are many images showing up in an image search without a watermakr doesn't mean it is open season on these images...hell my street alone has cars parked all over it without names, but I can't just go take one...this is where so many people get tripped up..there is nothing for free in this world plain and simple.. I would be suspect to any site that offer "FREE" images.

394

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

« on: August 03, 2015, 08:58:30 AM »

This is not a "small claims court" issue, it's a federal issue, and "proving" fair use is not always a simple matter and is largely open to interpretation by the federal judge that hears the case, if it goes that far.. Care to share the 2 lawyers names with us?

395

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has any one seen THIS in an extortion letter before? Courtesy of Deboer IP

« on: July 30, 2015, 05:41:54 PM »

This douchecanoe John Deboer is a member of the Texas Bar Association ( https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=310218) he is not admitted in any other state, therefore he cannot sue you in your home state, and add to that that the copyright holder is in Colorado also adds to the situation. I found the image available for sale in print format for as little as $45.00, so they have certainly "devalued" this image IMHO.. there isn't much difference between decorating your office with a print where 10000 people a month may walk by it, while it hangs in a lobby, or if 1000 visitors to your site seeing id decorate a page.. surely a judge would consider this...any whoozle I'll be doing a post at some point..

396

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has any one seen THIS in an extortion letter before? Courtesy of Deboer IP

« on: July 21, 2015, 10:35:39 AM »

and greg can forward it to me! ; ) Maybe I'll sit down and right a nice post about DeBoer IP, and give that douchebag some FREE SEO. I've been itching lately to stir the pot anyway.

397

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Ongoing List of Copyright Trolling Firms and those associated with them

« on: July 20, 2015, 08:41:04 AM »

Well if you plan on dissolving the company anyway, there is no way they can sue that company, depending on who you set it up, would determine if they could come at you personally.

398

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Cartoon Stock Letter - Same Old Story

« on: July 20, 2015, 08:38:52 AM »

Get yourself a Pacer acct to search or seach justia.com, they generally list all lawsuits filed, but not much else. Pacer allows you to get all documents and filings, but can get expensive if you're not careful.

399

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty's Change in Tactics

« on: July 18, 2015, 09:08:36 AM »

Personally if the image was linked i would not have even removed it, I would have simply replied to them this little fact and told them to fuck off (citing perfect 10 v google) and furthering that with the fact that if they continue to pester them you will invoice them each and every time you have to waste time on a dead matter.

400

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trunk Archive - Three demand letters plus "Confirmation of Rights". What now?

« on: July 10, 2015, 09:16:09 AM »

seem Samantha Clemens is your typical "clerk" the below thread has her sending letters from a different stock company...she works for picscout, who attempts to collect on allegded infringements...might do a bit more digging on my new friend Samantha Clemens.

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/1059477-image-copyright-takedown-issue-unauthorized-image-use.html

and this:

http://salomafurlong.com/aboutamish/2015/06/bloggers-beware/

401

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trunk Archive - Three demand letters plus "Confirmation of Rights". What now?

« on: July 10, 2015, 09:08:31 AM »

FYI..the "signed -RHF only gives them the ability to case you round and round, it does not give them the power to file suit, the owner of the copyright would need to do that..in federal court..in your state...

402

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

« on: July 08, 2015, 11:49:41 AM »

plain and simple the owner of the copyright is the only one able to file suit.

403

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

« on: July 01, 2015, 04:17:42 PM »

Robert,

Thank you very much for your "nuggets"!
see my responses below:
1. I was wondering if they would have to file against me in my state, and now I know that they would have to do that. I have read that a copyright suit is tried in a federal court. What court would that be?

It would be the federal court where you are located, they would also have to have an attorney licensed in your state, or hire an additional attorney
 
2. My registrar is not Go-Daddy. My registrar says the following regarding their privacy add-on: "We display a generic email and physical postal address in your domain's public WHOIS record … any email and flat mail received will be forwarded to the email address of your choice." They do not say they will tell the sender who I am or where I am located.

most registars are spineless, and will give up your info fairly easily. A threatening letter to your registar would probably make them cave..bottom line if they want your info bad enough, they will get it.

3. Here is a link to the page on which I had used the image. It was the third one down and has been replaced by the one from nasa.gov. The page is something I wrote on October 3, 2011 to tie together other material on the site and put forth a possible explanation for how 12 different futures will split off from this one shared reality through linking 12 pairs of stargates via wormholes. A wormhole has never been seen or discovered, so one has to rely on conceptual illustrations.

The image I used was not a photo. It was a computer conceptual drawing of a wormhole, just as is the NASA image that is shown there now. This image is one of four on that page and one of 555 images that were on the site at the time I got the demand letter. The entire site is educational.

The court would need to decide fair use, and it would have to meet the 4 major components ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use ). I certainly hope you culled those other 554 images and removed any that do not have a license or are in the public domain..lest you very well may get more letters.

4. Science Photo Library IS part of Getty Images, sheltered by that corporate compartmentalization I have observed and spoken about elsewhere. I have a pdf file showing that image as it was on GettyImages.com when I was first contacted. It is watermarked gettyimages, Science Photo Library. I just tried to find that page again and it has been taken down. On that page (I have a pdf of it), Getty states that it can't license that image. Seems like I caught them in an "oops" position, which they have since covered over. I don't know how to attach the pdf to this post.

I think you are mistaken here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Photo_Library )

"Science Photo Library (registered as Science Photo Library Limited) is a privately owned stock photography and, more recently, stock footage agency, founded. in 1981.[1] Its headquarters are in Maida Hill, in west London, U.K..
In addition to its commercial aims, Science Photo Library uses its media to sponsor and contribute to events aimed at popularising science to children, through educational multimedia competitions,[2] and to the wider public through exhibitions such as From Earth to the Universe[3] as part of the International Year of Astronomy, and its 2011 collaboration with RIA Novosti to showcase archive material covering the first human spaceflight by Yuri Gagarin.[4]"

It is very possible that the artist Richard Harris did license his image to Getty at some point in time, and he may have also licensed it to Science Photo Library.. There is also a chance that he no longer works with Getty, hence it may have been on their site, they are not the most organized.. again bottom line is chances are good that the artist himself holds the copyright, meaning only he can sue, not Getty, not Picscout, not Science photo.. have you checked to see if this image is even registered with the US copyright office?..if it is not this makes it even better for you.


5. So the onus is on THEM to prove that I didn't purchase it elsewhere? I would think that I would have to prove that I had licensed the image from somewhere if this went to court. I didn't license it from anywhere. I do have pdf's of the pages from the other sites that are licensing it. I thought the strength of my argument is that they (Science Photo Library/Getty) don't have exclusive rights to that image and therefore can't seek damages for its unlicensed use. The image is credited to a Richard Harris.

The onus of them is to prove you infringed, this is not a business, why would you have any records/invoices from 4 years ago?? you probably wouldn't, and this could be easily understood by any judge..especially if you have licensed a bunch of other images in the past, I think a judge would tend to believe you if you can show you have licensed images in the past.

7. I thought there might be trolls here, which is why I didn't list my actual physical location.

Under Oscar's letter program (if I have to make use of it), would this be considered a Getty or Picscout letter or something else? The email I got this morning said it could be several weeks before I heard from the attorney. I don't intend to reply to the email telling me that. I'm now waiting to see what the attorney does and if I get anything in postal mail or not.

yeah i would not respond to ANY emails, under any circumstances..let them do the footwork, I can't speak for Oscar as to whether this would fall under a "Getty" Letter..

404

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

« on: July 01, 2015, 01:08:03 PM »

couple of nuggets for you...
1. They would have to file suit in your state.
2. Registering by proxy is largely an upsell by registars, if you used go-daddy you can be assured they will give up your info with a simple request to do so.
3. they don't have to offer up any answers to you in regards to fair use. They have to prove the infringement, but you can claim fair use as a defense. I'm not sure how the image was used, so i can't give an opinion as to whether it may fall under fair use.
4. Getty has nothing to do with this, it's not their image.
5. if there are more than 1 site offering a license for this , they would have a hard time proving you did not purchase it elsewhere.
6. The image being used "worldwide" doesn't mean anything in the scope of things.. other people may have licensed it,pilfered it, or linked to it.
7. Rest assured knowing People from Getty and Picscout and various other trolls visit these forums daily.

405

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...

« on: July 01, 2015, 12:53:16 PM »

yeah that screen shot in that link proves absolutely nothing in terms of infringement, it only shopws that the image in question "appeared" on the site, who's to say that image was not linked from an outside source..if so they have NO case whatsoever.. I'd be willing to bet they don't have the source code either, just a crappy screen captpure..