Messages

406

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: FunnyJunk Attorney Charles Carreon's Wife, Tara Carreon Shows Her Stuff

« on: June 28, 2012, 08:46:51 AM »

This appears to be her:

407

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today.. What do you think of my response?

« on: June 26, 2012, 02:12:04 PM »

Is the general consensus that I should keep responding to them every time they write? Or should I only keep my one response for my records and ignore them unless they provide more concrete evidence?

I wrote 3 times-- all by email. If they had kept sending, I might have stopped.  The third letter was fun.

For your convenience, this is the 2nd email which I sent after they emailed me a response to my first letter. You might want to proof read better than I did... but it's the email:

Mr Sam Brown,

Thank you for your cordial respond to my Nov. 29 email discussing your GettyImages demand letter dated Nov. 24, 2011, which discussed a case your company has assigned a case number 1144-28, and involves an image GettyImages describes as "Catalog Image No eb2511-001". You are correct that I mistook the text of UK law for a portion of US law and so that portion of my response has no relevance.

However, it is still the case that there has been no infringement with regard to the image in question.   I will begin by focusing on this point which I made and which is based on the 9th circuit court of appeal rulings in Perfect 10 v. Amazon :

With regard to the image discussed in your letter, there has been no infringement of US copyright  law on my part.

I believe the substance of what I communicated regarding the meaning of the ruling in Perfect 10 v. Amazon which is, in essence this:   When a site like Google hosts html that instructs a users browser to point to (i.e. "display")  an  image hosted by a third party, the first party (e.g.,  Google) does not violate either the copyright owners right to copy or their right to display as those terms are defined under US copyright law.   Like Google's actions with regard to full size images in Perfect 10 v. Google and Perfect 10 v. Amazon, my web page included html that instructed a browser to point to an image at a third party site.  Under US copyright law, this action does not violate the display right of the copyright holder and it does not violate their right to copy.

I note you provided your opinion about whether DMCA offers protection to my blog.  I believe introducing this issue is irrelevant to the matter at hand. However, because you brought this up, I believe I need to respond.

First: I have not investigated whether DMCA protects my hobby blog and so do not know whether your interpretation of DMCA and my blog is correct.  I reserve the right to make this determination at such time as it appears to be relevant to any discussion regarding  Getty Images "Catalog Image No eb2511-001".

Second: I have read over both the 2006 Ruling regarding  PERFECT 10, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants from   "United States District Court, C.D. California"  and that regarding Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. 487 F.3d 701, No. 06-55405 (9th Cir., May 16, 2007).   I note that DMCA is mentioned and discussed by the District court in footnote 10 of the District Court ruling where they say,

"Google also contends that it qualifies for protection under each of the four DMCA safe harbors, 17 U.S.C. § 512(a)-(d). In light of the ensuing analysis concluding that Google is neither vicariously nor contributorily liable, it is unnecessary for the Court to deal with the DMCA issues."

The plain meaning of the text indicates that any protection that might have been afforded Google by the existence of  DMCA was irrelevant the courts ruling because Google had not violated any of the copyright holders rights under copyright.  I  have not copied or displayed "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" as those terms are defined by US copyright law  So, whether Google, Amazon or I are or are not protected by DMAC in the event that we might inadvertently violate someone's copyright would seem irrelevant.  I'm puzzled that you brought your opinion about the applicability of DMAC up.

I would now like to point out that in my first letter I also brought up the issue of fair use.  In the event that GettyImages might believe contrary to court rulings that including html instructions to an image at a third party site constituted  infringing use under US copyright law, my particular use would in any case fall under fair use for reasons I mentioned in my first email to you. You have not address this point. 
 
Because you have so far stated you do not consider the matter closed,  I believe must request information from GettyImages.  While continuing to maintain that I have neither copied nor displayed "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" as those words are defined by US copyright law, I request the following information regarding GettyImages "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" required to ascertain whether GettyImages has standing to pursue any claim or negotiate any settlement and to assess whether the suggested amount of the settlement would be reasonable.

My specific requests are below:

1) Please provide me with proof that the GettyImages "Catalog Image No eb2511-001"  has been registered at the US copyright office or copyright office in any country either individually or as part of a collection,  including any collection name, registration numbers, dates of registrations,  renewals of registrations, names of copyright holders and any and all records indicating the copyright ownership may have transferred to any new owner and on which dates copyright ownership transfer may have occurred.  Your Nov. 4th letter indicates that the photographer was "Mother-Daughter Press".  I believe such items should be easily accessible in files GettyImages maintains for the image in question; your obtaining and providing these should be little more than a clerical matter.

2) Please provide me documentation that Getty Images now holds and has held the exclusive license this image spanning whatever time period you believe is relevant to your allegation of a copyright violation related to the image discussed in your first letter to me. I believe such items should be easily accessible in files GettyImages maintains for the image in question; your obtaining and providing these should be little more than a clerical matter.


3) Please explain your basis for requesting $875 for whatever use you infraction you allege with regard to this image.

I believe there is reason to doubt Getty images holds an exclusive right to license images, and also suspect the settlement demand is excessive in light of a number of factors including, but not limited to the following:

a) A digital copy of what appears to be the image in question is available free of charge by visiting ("Mother-Daughter Press & Gay Bumgarner Images" ( i. e. http://www.gaybumgarner.com/)   , searching for "cardinals", clicking the image itself and then clicking "download" . The Mother-Daughter Press & Gay Bumgarner Images"  website appears to be owned and operated by the party listed as  "photographer" of your "Catalog Image No eb2511-001"  and the  57.5 kb available for free is larger than the 14kb copy hosted at the third party site I linked.  Absolutely no usages restrictions are indicated when that digital image is downloaded. (See attachment 1 below.)

b) A digital copy of what appears to be the image in question can be downloaded for free accessing it through  photoshelter.com's user interface.  Photoshelter.com lists the image as "PhotoShelter ID: I0000NJj3T3XcwKU"  (See http://www.photoshelter.com/lbx/lbx-img-show?L_ID=L0000f7CHJUlwcGk&_bqG=0&_bqH=eJxLjMot9wh1D0izLI3wzQgNdPKrKgxPNM02S_G0MrIyMrWy8on3dLH1MQCCNHNnD6_QnPJk92w1H8_4YP.gEFsg7Rzi6esKE4h38QyydQx2BvF9PN09Qpz8I7AaUFCQbmtkCgC88CZL&LI_ID=LI000.2F242ES7zc )

c) Much lower costs licenses permitting web display of larger higher versions of this image are available through photoshelter.com (see attachments  2  below.)

I believe that since GettyImages has already presented me with a demand letter for $875, providing records and an explanation of  the basis for demanding $875 along with records documenting who owns the copyright and your companies exclusive right to license the image should amount to little more than a clerical matter.

I close by noting that it remains my position that there has been no violation of the copyright holders rights to copy or display this image in the matter you described in your Nov. 24, 2011 letter.

Sincerely,
Lucia Liljegren

After sending that, I recieved another letter which I suspect is a sign that their system is programmed to just keep sending out letters over and over unless someone hits a "kill" button in the program.

This was my third letter which I sent to Mr. Brown and the Getty Compliance Team.

To Mr. Brown and the Getty Compliance Team,

Today I received a letter dated Jan 27, 2012 discussing the case you have assigned Getty number Case #:  1144028.  Based on the wording of this letter, it seems to me your compliance team is unaware of on going communications between myself and a Mr. Sam Brown Copyright Compliance Specialist.

As I communicated to Mr. Brown: There has been no violation of copyright on my part.

Before I reiterate the previous discussions, I would like to be sure that those on the Getty side of the conversation have read the previous communications.   I request that personnel in the Getty Compliance Team obtain a copy of my previous correspondence with the Getty Compliance Team and Mr Sam Brown. My first email to your groups was dated November 29, 2011, Sam Brown's response dated December 19, 2011 and my reply to Mr. Brown sent December 20, 2011.

If my reply on December 20, 2011 has gone astray, I will be happy to resend that email both to Mr. Brown and to other members of your License  Compliance Team.   

After member of your team have had the opportunity to read the correspondence and become aware of the facts of the case, I will be happy to continue further discussion. In addition to wishing Getty employees to be aware of the facts of the case before I spend time discussing matters on the phone or email, I remain eager for Getty personnel to provide information I requested of Mr. Brown in my second email. Your firm drawing together the information I requested will greatly reduce the amount of time both your firm and I will need to waste on this matter.


Sincerely,
Lucia Liljegren

Mr. Brown responded very quickly after I sent this.  He wrote this

Lucia,
 

It would appear our recently-received letter was sent in error as your December 20, 2011 e-mail (received) is still under review in our department. I apologize for any confusion our recent mailing may have caused.
Regards,
SAM BROWN
Copyright Compliance Specialist
Getty Images License Compliance
[email protected]
www.stockphotorights.com
Copyright 101

I have not heard since.

408

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today.. What do you think of my response?

« on: June 26, 2012, 09:55:36 AM »

anakin--
That is an excellent response. However, they will write back and dispute.  Likely their theory is that you aren't really confident that your are correct about the law-- but you are correct.

I know because they did with me.  At that point, you will want to cite "Amazon v. Perfect 10" while simultaneously requesting they send you information like the actual url etc.

Matt has a copy of the 2nd letter I sent.    In a similar case, Getty sent me 3 letters in about 3 months. Then they stopped. I've got 2 1/2 years on the statute of limitations-- but I suspect I'll get no more letters.

409

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Cyber Liability Insurance

« on: June 22, 2012, 08:29:49 PM »

If you don't post the content on your  site, you can rely on the DMCA for protection provided you registered a DMCA agent.

Nice guy-- I want you to reread what Oscar said.

I also wouldn't be surprised good cyber liability insurance companies didn't require this-- sort of like banks extending mortgages require home owners insurance.

If your in the cyber business, let third parties post stuff to the extent that you are considering insurance for what they might post, you should certainly file a DMCA agent.

Of course I know I didn't follow your instructions to provide a good cyber liability insurance.  But then, my impression is Matt and the ELI team are the only ones who can moderate us.  And I judge that it's better for this thread to contain useful guidance for people who might, in future, come across the thread. A list of "good" cyber liability insurance agents will not benefit them as much as being told to register a DMCA agent.

410

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My Response Letter to NCS

« on: June 21, 2012, 06:55:46 PM »

This is closer to what I suggest:

AT RUSSO
NCS IP Solutions LLC
5975 Cattleman Lane
PO BOX 50276
Sarasota, FL 34232

Ms Russo,
I have received your request for payment related to your file #XXXXX.  Unfortunately I am not aware of any contract or civil judgment in the matter referenced against XXXXXXXXX and therefore we are disputing your claim and request for payment.  I do not owe Getty this money and there no debt to be collected.   Please do not contact me again in this matter.

Sincerely,
....

411

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My Response Letter to NCS

« on: June 21, 2012, 06:53:02 PM »

I'm with Robert/Buhappi. Tell them the bare minimum. You don't need to make your full case against getty. Just tell them there is no debt and they have to go away.

412

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A puzzling situation

« on: June 21, 2012, 01:57:07 PM »

To me, that's like saying I cant post pictures of my car I have for sale.  Or that I can't take family pictures if one of these puzzle boxes happen to be in the background.

Or you can't show pictures of a t-shirt with licensed image on it when you advertise the t-shirt for sale.

413

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A puzzling situation

« on: June 21, 2012, 12:17:38 PM »

You could probably take some of your own photos to make puzzles.  Also, you can probably find photos, contact the photographer and ask them for a license. Some will let you do it for free or cheap.    I'm not hot shot photographer, but I took a picture of my clematis and posted here:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/fourth-of-july-clematis-haiku/

I later found it on a free wallpaper site. You know what happens if you use that on a puzzle? Nothing. Because I don't care.  You know what happens if you contact me, ask me if you can use it? I say: Sure. Go ahead.  For your records, you could then ask me to formalize that on a piece of paper. Heck, you could give me $5 if for some reason payment is required. Or, you could 'buy' the photo from me and we could make sure we copyrighted it so you would be safe. (This might be prudent if you are worried I really am just pretending I took the photo.)

People selling books figure out how to license photos and you can too. It's probably no where near the price Getty charges.

414

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A puzzling situation

« on: June 19, 2012, 07:41:58 PM »

In your case, because it is a business, I would have paid for the letter! Definitely. Even if there is no infringement, it will be much better for Getty to be dealing with Oscar.

415

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Tape Recording Conversations

« on: June 17, 2012, 03:51:58 PM »

Here's the thing. You already know that "the copyright cow" probably doesn't like some people. And he might not mind "getting" some people. If you taped him in violation of laws of the State of Washington, and he found out, it would not be surprising if he tried to use the information of that illegal behavior to "get" the person who did the taping.

I already said I, myself, wouldn't tape without asking.  But certainly, I wouldn't tape in violation of the law if I thought it would give an enemy who wants to "get" me an axe to chop my head off. Why give them a weapon?

416

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How can you tell if you have Getty Images on your site?

« on: June 14, 2012, 11:12:39 PM »

Moe--
Picscout doesn't get a pass from me either.

But the false positive issue merely shows that Picscout needs to send a human. I don't think anyone has gotten a letter with the sort of hilarious false positive's I've seen. I'd take a screen shot and show you, but that requires taking a screenshot that includes the actual RM or RF images, and I don't want the hassle of getty arriving if I display those. I know I *might* be able to argue fair use since the purpose would be precisely to show how the imagesearch tool works... but I don't want to go to court just to show you what I mean. 

417

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NASA? Or Masterfile?

« on: June 14, 2012, 03:53:36 PM »

I think this is what happens: If someone uses the image search tool and comes across the image of the hurricane, the tool will suggest 4 commercial sites where you can pay for a license. It will not suggest NASA where the original is located.  Obviously, anyone who is accustomed to getting images should realize that an image taken form outside the earth's atmosphere may well have originated from a government entity and search further.

But still... the tool will undoubtably result in naive people paying for images that ought to be free.

418

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How can you tell if you have Getty Images on your site?

« on: June 14, 2012, 01:25:44 PM »

I installed so I look at my user logs after using it.  I got a few people to visit:
http://theknittingfiend.com/unban/unbanRequest.php

The images are auto-generated and have new titles each time. If someone with IP1 visits with the agent installed the following happens:

* I see the hits to IP1 for the page and each image.
* Immediately after, I see hits from a consistent IP range (the IP≠IP1). These show no  user agent and no referrer (and should be blocked from looking at images. )


72.26.211.157 - - [14/Jun/2012:08:26:38 -0700] "GET /unban/CaptchaSecurityImages.php?decrypt=1&code=PZs4Pd5KhokEPFHw9TdedaxgtBLi4ejeZD3IXlIThBM%3D&now=1339687596&angle=10 HTTP/1.1" 200 4506 "-" "-"

What this suggests is that the browser detects that an image loaded, the URL is sent back to Picscout, then Picscout comes and loads the images, analyszes it, and then sends images that "match".  (Some matches are hilarious.)    Given this pattern, for now, you can block Picscout by blocking things from the IP range and also by blocking things that leave no referrer and no user agent.

Everything should leave a user agent. Seriously!  Providing no user agent probably lets Picscout avoid two things they don't want to do. These are  lying (i.e. spoofing or giving a fake user agent) or leaving a referrer that says "I'm picscout".  I think you have suggested the former may be illegal.  In contrast saying "I'm picscout" would be legal, but easy to block.  I don't let things visit with blank user agents.  Everything visiting is using an agent of some sort. Tell me or you can't visit! 

Of course ,they may eventually change what they do.  It's also possible that even now they do additional things-- like have the browser send the image to them somehow. But right now, it looks like the add on sends the url of the image, not the image itself.

419

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NASA? Or Masterfile?

« on: June 14, 2012, 12:40:02 PM »

This kind of reminds me of how Getty licenses historic photos that have fallen into public domain after the copyright has expired after many decades.

Is licensing under those circumstances legit?  I get that someone might store an original and charge people to download copies.  People in crafts do that all the time for old turn of the last century knitting and crochet patterns. A customer who finds their store can pay $2 or hunt around until they find the thing somewhere else. Many will pay for the convenience.  But it would seem odd if the person providing the downloads claimed to issue licenses.  The whole idea of the license seems to presuppose that the person licensing the item owns whatever is licensed!

I'm not a legal eagle, so I'm finding this puzzling.

420

Getty Images Letter Forum / NASA? Or Masterfile?

« on: June 14, 2012, 12:04:03 PM »

Can anyone tell me if this image is NASA? Or Masterfile?  Here's the scoop:

With picscout image search activated, I visited a blog that I know nearly always hotlinks (good way to avoid copyright snafus!)  While there I found this image:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/GPM.jpg

Note the image suggests it is from NASA.  The picscout tool suggested this image (or a very similar one) is managed by four groups. One is Masterfile:

http://www.masterfile.com/em/search/#id=&color=&colour_key=0&format=hvsp&keyImage=&keyword=680-02755091n&license=ALL&mode=search&sort=alice
It is evidently a picture of hurricane isabel
http://www.masterfile.com/search/enlarged_pricing.html?img=680-02755091

You can also get it from
http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=1574r-015334
http://www.mediabakery.com/searchresults.asp?image=PUR0024418 (Who is offering licenses for an amount I would dub "a shitwad of money".)
(The other agency had a coding error when I tried to load.)

Now, it seems to me rather likely that an image taken from space could-- quite likely-- be taken by NASA.  Does anyone know how to figure out if this image really belongs to the US taxpayer?   And if so, is there some reason anyone should pay Masterfile, mediabaker or anyone else anything to use these?