406
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images and scented trees update.
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:56:35 PM »
Just updated about this on another forum topic
| 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.
407
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Tejas Research, LLC v. Getty Images
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:55:50 PM »
Here's an update on the Car Freshener v. Getty lawsuit. Getty's initial motion to dismiss was denied in 2011. Car Freshener's lawyers have written the court complaining that Getty has refuse to provide initial discovery that would let them know if they have the right entities or if others have to be brought in. They also allege that Getty has been difficult in revealing the exact relationship they have with their photographers. They are also objecting to certain documents they want that Getty wants to label confidential. The court has authorized them to file a motion if they cannot work these issues out with Getty. Getty responded to that filing by of course denying they were being difficult and stating that CF's lawyers are asking for burdensome information which they cannot retrieve (like they want every image that has the tree, a portion of the tree, an obscured view of the tree, etc etc) They said they are willing to continue to try and resolve these issues with CF's lawyers. They are also fighting over where to take the deposition of Getty personnel. Getty wants it done in Seattle and the plaintiffs want it done in NY. Both sides agreed that having a settlement conference in front of a federal magistrate would be helpful. One of the sticking points it appears in the settlement talks is that Getty wants to be able to continue to sell the images. The terms of this proposed on-going business agreement appear to be what's holding up the settlement. The court set August 21, 2012 at 3PM as the time for the next court conference. The documents can be viewed on PACER. The case is pending in the Northern District of NY under Index No. 09 cv 01252.
408
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll and Georgia Attorney Cindy Wan-Hsin Hsu
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:25:25 PM »
Did you notice her fee structure page is down now?
409
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Aloha Plastic Surgery Submits Counterclaim
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:22:04 PM »
I hope Aloha and their lawyers have a good faith basis to make that claim. You can't just say anything you want in a Federal complaint; you must have a factual basis for it or a good faith belief that you will develop factual support for it in discovery.
410
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A win for the bad guys
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:19:56 PM »
In reply to Moe Hacken, here's a link to my recent blog post on the IP address case which I think could have far reaching application
http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/05/courts-denounce-copyright-lawsuits-based-solely-on-ip-address/
I think the case that this forum is discussing has no impact on the Getty Images and related matters for a number of reasons most of which have been addressed by the earlier posts. First of all, this case was poorly argued. Who in their right mind is going to raise the constitutionality of the Copyright Act? Article I, Section 8 clause 8 of the US Constitution authorizes Congress: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" It is from this clause that the Copyright act is derived. Secondly, who doesn't know that music is copyrighted? Thirdly,peer to peer means you are distributing the work, a big no-no; and finally the verdict came down in 2009. Since then courts have not viewed RIAA lawsuits as favorably as they have. We are seeing a trend in courts away from troll-like lawsuits and an awakening by the Federal Bench to the harm these lawsuits cause.
http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/05/courts-denounce-copyright-lawsuits-based-solely-on-ip-address/
I think the case that this forum is discussing has no impact on the Getty Images and related matters for a number of reasons most of which have been addressed by the earlier posts. First of all, this case was poorly argued. Who in their right mind is going to raise the constitutionality of the Copyright Act? Article I, Section 8 clause 8 of the US Constitution authorizes Congress: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" It is from this clause that the Copyright act is derived. Secondly, who doesn't know that music is copyrighted? Thirdly,peer to peer means you are distributing the work, a big no-no; and finally the verdict came down in 2009. Since then courts have not viewed RIAA lawsuits as favorably as they have. We are seeing a trend in courts away from troll-like lawsuits and an awakening by the Federal Bench to the harm these lawsuits cause.
411
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty to possibly be sold or go public?
« on: May 24, 2012, 05:47:33 PM »
Getty going public could be very interesting as shareholders could have issues with the way they do business as a gadfly or two could start to raise a stink about the extortion letter practice. At the same time, that extra infusion of capital will likely make them more aggressive in their lobbying for change to the Copyright Act.
412
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another fine example of Timothy B. McCormack the puking out garbage
« on: May 24, 2012, 05:37:52 PM »
Great post buddhapi! People should really think before they blog.
413
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photo Attorney Leslie J. Burns Settlement Demand Letter for Phototake
« on: May 24, 2012, 05:35:01 PM »
Holy Mackerel! I am always amazed at the speed in which this forum receives news then dissects it and then jumps all over it to find stuff to call people out on! Finding that quote from her website where she says what not to do was GOLDEN, SG!
414
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Roll the Dice? - Is Getty likely to win an award GREATER than initial demand?
« on: April 13, 2012, 12:13:49 PM »
OK - just a quick few comments on this - You can only get legal fees in copyright litigation as a plaintiff is the "work" was properly registered with the Copyright Officeat the time of the infringement. So in the vast majority of cases, Getty would not be entitled to legal fees even if they prevail. By Federal law, you must register the work before you file a lawsuit, though the Supreme Court of the United States has recently held that this error can be corrected without a jurisdictional issue dismissing the lawsuit. Rule 68 can be a useful device which I have used in a few lawsuits to success. Here is the text of rule 68:
Rule 68. Offer of Judgment
(a) Making an Offer; Judgment on an Accepted Offer. At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.
(b) Unaccepted Offer. An unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn, but it does not preclude a later offer. Evidence of an unaccepted offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.
(c) Offer After Liability is Determined. When one party's liability to another has been determined but the extent of liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party held liable may make an offer of judgment. It must be served within a reasonable time—but at least 14 days—before the date set for a hearing to determine the extent of liability.
(d) Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer. If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.
The main problem with Rule 68 is that it requires you to accept having a JUDGMENT (publicly available) entered against you though if the other side accepts the offer, you can usually work out that it just go away. However, if you win (or they get the same or less than you offered) you can get all your fees and costs back form the date of the offer.
Rule 68. Offer of Judgment
(a) Making an Offer; Judgment on an Accepted Offer. At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.
(b) Unaccepted Offer. An unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn, but it does not preclude a later offer. Evidence of an unaccepted offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.
(c) Offer After Liability is Determined. When one party's liability to another has been determined but the extent of liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party held liable may make an offer of judgment. It must be served within a reasonable time—but at least 14 days—before the date set for a hearing to determine the extent of liability.
(d) Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer. If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.
The main problem with Rule 68 is that it requires you to accept having a JUDGMENT (publicly available) entered against you though if the other side accepts the offer, you can usually work out that it just go away. However, if you win (or they get the same or less than you offered) you can get all your fees and costs back form the date of the offer.
415
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn E. Wright's Photo-Attorney Extortion Letter Taken Down by Scribd
« on: April 13, 2012, 12:06:44 PM »
Yeah Matt. nice job!
416
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: It’s High Time to throw someone under the bus…
« on: April 13, 2012, 12:02:54 PM »
Technion is a very good engineering school and just won a huge contract to build an engineering school in NYC. Say what you like about the evils of PicScout (and I have been on the forefront of those saying it) you have to admire the technology that allows this program to scour the internet and find and match pieces of images with digital image catalogs. I'm surprised that it developed by any human being and not by Darth Vader or even Emperor Palpatine!
417
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got My Getty Letter - Thank You For This Site
« on: April 13, 2012, 11:59:35 AM »
Good luck and keep us posted!
418
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??
« on: April 13, 2012, 11:58:56 AM »
Recall that archive.org and other sites exist that could establish the actual screenshot at a particular point in time. Also, the sites own information could show when and how images were uploaded so it should not be so hard to show that this screenshot is a fake. Not only is Lettered correct IMO that the focus should be on damages, but these companies have plenty of fish to trawl for without having to fake websites.
419
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in Germany
« on: April 13, 2012, 11:55:39 AM »
Not having any experience in German law, I appreciate the info on this!
420
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a letter, stressed
« on: April 13, 2012, 11:54:17 AM »
Look forward to helping you with it!
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. |