Messages

421

Getty Images Letter Forum / Possible New Tool Being Used By MasterFile?

« on: November 29, 2013, 05:03:50 PM »

Matthew passed along some information received by a MasterFile letter recipient.  I had not heard of them doing this before so this may be something new they are doing to try to get people to pay.  This person was able to negotiate their fee down and then Masterfile allowed them to make 3 monthly installment payments to pay it off.

Does anyone else have any knowledge of MasterFile offering payment plans before this?

422

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: MasterFiles Recent Victory. (If You Want to Call It That)

« on: November 29, 2013, 03:23:57 PM »

I know, this was a great outcome.  None of us here believe that artists should not be compensated for their work, none of us believe that we should be able to use any image we want for free, we are about what is right and what is fair for everyone involved. In this is a case if you are going to be an asshat and sue an innocent infringer for a million bucks then you get the minimum allowed, no attorney fees and I hope a lecture on wasting the courts time for 4 years.

MasterFails issue should have been with the owners of the template who were profiting off of the images by selling the template not persecuting the end user who purchased it in good faith.  MasterFail upon investigation should have just made a simple C&D rather than seeing dollar signs and going heavy handed. 

This is great! The judge gave Masterfile the absolute minimum the statues would permit for images that had been registered. Wow!

423

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recent activity from getty is escalated

« on: November 28, 2013, 11:17:12 PM »

Thank you Stinger, I meant to mention that and got side tracked.  Good catch!

424

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: MasterFiles Recent Victory. (If You Want to Call It That)

« on: November 28, 2013, 11:15:35 PM »

This is why I feel if it is truly an innocent infringement then a simple C&D is all that is required with an offer to license the image if they want to keep using it.  If they refuse to take the image down or if you know it is willful from the get go then yes, take them to court and they deserve what they get.

You pick on someone like this who truly believed they had rights to the images because they paid $450.00 for a template they bought in good faith then you come at them demanding 74k for back licensing, when they refuse to be bled then sue them for almost a million bucks then Karma is going to bite you in the butt.

425

Getty Images Letter Forum / MasterFiles Recent Victory. (If You Want to Call It That)

« on: November 27, 2013, 09:08:18 PM »

In October 2009 Masterfile filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central division against Martin and Laurie Gale for the use of 27 images on their website. The images remained on Mr. and Mrs. Gale's site for five years before they were noticed by Masterfile.

Looking at the initial complaint it appears to me that Masterfile claims that Mr. and Mrs. Gales use of the 27 images was a willful infringement and is seeking the maximum amount allowable in all categories. If you look at line 16 in the initial complaint Masterfile is seeking retroactive licensing fees totaling $73,830. They are asking for the maximum statutory damages under section 504(c) of $30,000 for each image for a total of $810,000, they are also asking for their attorneys fees which at the end of the trial will total $34,003. Looking at line 22 in the initial complaint Masterfile was also asking for the maximum statutory damages under section 1203(c) of $2500 for each image for a total of $67,500 plus attorneys fees.

If I am reading this correctly Masterfile was suing Martin and Laurie Gale for a total of $951,300 plus attorneys fees!

During the course of the trial was shown that Martin and Laurie Gale purchased a template for their website for $450 which contained the 27 images. The Gale's used the template as purchased and believed they had purchased rights to use the images by purchasing the template. Also during the trial Masterfile conceded that the Gale's use of the images was not willful and was in fact innocent as they had no reason to believe the images belong to Masterfile since they contained no copyright markings or information and the images were included with the template the Gale's had purchased.

Masterfile then reduced its demand amount from $951,300 to a retroactive licensing fee of $57,200 plus attorneys fees of $34,003 for a total of $91,202.

Since Masterfile conceded the infringement on the part of the Gale's was innocent in the court's final ruling they granted Masterfile $200 per image or a total of $5400. It is interesting to note that this is the low end of the $200-$30,000 scale.

So when all is said and done Martin and Laurie Gale must pay Masterfile $5400 for the innocent infringement of 27 images. It is my understanding that they incurred no legal costs as they knew a lawyer who represented them pro bono. Masterfile incurred $34,000 in legal fees to win $5400.

All of the documents I have in this case may be found at the link below.

http://www.scribd.com/collections/4394234/Masterfile-Corporation-v-Martin-Gale

<-------------Edit------------->

I forgot to mention when I first wrote this, credit on the information goes to Matthew who forwarded me some of the court documents and breakdown.  Great find Matthew!

426

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recent activity from getty is escalated

« on: November 27, 2013, 07:58:34 PM »

Greetings and welcome to the form. If it has been almost 3 years your statute of limitations is almost up. If Getty is not willing to provide any proof whatsoever of their claim I personally would not pay them a dime.

This was the major issue I had with them, besides the amount requested, that they were presenting me with a bill it I was clearly willing to negotiate with some yet they refused to provide proof and threatened me by saying they would only provide proof when they sued me.

To answer your question Getty has sued over a single image for the first time just this year and it is the opinion of many on this forum including myself that it was a case they knew they could win just so that they could say they will sue over a single image.

The odds of them taking you to court over single image are so small they are almost indistinguishable from zero. But it sounds like you have done the right things by requesting proof in making a reasonable offer which can be shown in the unlikely event they were to take you to court. You could also show that while you were willing to negotiate they refused to provide the reasonable request of proof to continue negotiations.

Again welcome to the forms and I hope you will continue to stick around and participate in the future.

427

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K Tylor has a nice payday

« on: November 27, 2013, 01:48:11 PM »

Most of the people who settle sign a confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement forbidding them to talk about it.

428

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Today I Received my "Letter"

« on: November 27, 2013, 01:45:44 PM »

Welcome to the forums scrollgirl.

First off let me state that your situation is nowhere near as bad as Getty makes it sound. Getty almost never sues anyone over one image.

You had mentioned in your statement that the image he found on Flickr have no watermark for copyright notification. It is not required for watermarks or copyright information to accompany an image in copyright exists from the moment a photograph is taken. You should also be very wary of any site offering "Free" images as many of them will state in their terms of service they do not guarantee the images found on the site are free from copyright claim into use at your own risk.

You have basically three options on how to handle this. Your first option is to ignore the letter which someone this form advocate but I personally do not recommend.

Your second option is to fight this yourself. There is a three-year statute of limitations from the date on your first letter or Getty can no longer file a suit. There is no reason why you should not be able to fight this yourself provided you are willing to take the time to educate yourself and learn the process. I do not recommend contacting Getty in any form other than through the postal service and definitely not before you have educated yourself so you do not say anything in your letter that might hurt your case. All the information you should need can be located here on the forums and are available for free.

Your last option is to contact an attorney. The Stinger stated if you choose this option it would be wise to make sure the attorney you contact is EXPERIENCED in copyright/IP law. You may also be able to contact Oscar and use his defense letter program. Since you are in Canada his being able to help is limited to specific circumstances and you would need to contact his office to see if they apply to you.

Read up, educate yourself and ask questions. Also do not let the "respond by"deadline in the letter were you as this is an artificial deadline used by Getty to panic you into paying before you have a chance to educate yourself and researcher situation. If you feel you must need to reply to them before the deadline just send them letter letting them know you are investigating the claim and you will respond in a reasonable amount of time.

Please keep us posted as to what you decide to do and your progress.

429

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "it was an honest mistake" says Getty Images

« on: November 26, 2013, 01:42:03 PM »

@Jerry
I would love to see them get more to but I think they got fined the max allowed which pleases me to no end 

@Perplexed
While I agree completely with what Jerry said about the differences between the two situations from what I have seen Getty will do most anything if they think it will bring them more money. 

They certainly don't seemed bothered by all the negativity around their current business model. 

They don't seem to mind sending out demand letters for public domain images. 

They don't seem to mid sending out letters for hot-linked images then telling letter recipients when they complain that it doesn't matter if the image was hot-linked or not pay us.

They often treat their contributors as poorly as they do their letter recipients.

The top officers didn't seem to mind backdating stock options to taking millions from the stockholders. (Still waiting on the SEC report on this for final outcome of the investigation)

While I understand what you are saying and agree with you I still can see Getty using this to club people and try to get more people to pay out of fear of a lawsuit.  In my opinion Getty just does't care what their image is and all they want is money. Again, in my opinion, I think that that is what the single image lawsuit was all about earlier in the year.  They picked a slamdunk case sued got a settlement before trial and can now say they do sue and win on single images.

430

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA

« on: November 24, 2013, 10:57:00 PM »

For the tech stuff I would ask Lucia, she is on here regularly and is brilliant when it comes to the tech stuff.

431

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.

« on: November 24, 2013, 06:36:28 PM »

Here is a good place to start.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/is-there-a-definitive-ip-range-for-picscout-i-want-to-kill-the-spider!/

432

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA

« on: November 24, 2013, 06:35:17 PM »

My comments appear inline in bold.

Unfortunately, I allow users to upload files.  The user did upload the file in this case.  Also, I had seen those cases in my previous readings.  It seems one would actually need to be an indexing service like Google for the same rule to apply.  I have seen other instances where it seems someone has been in trouble for posting a photo that was hosted elsewhere because it was "framed" within his site.

Yes, businesses which are in my opinion unethical such as Getty Images send letters out to people who have hotlinked images as well as images which appear on a page and a frame. They depend on the ignorance of the letter recipient to pay without understanding copyright law and often when they inform Getty the image was hotlinked or framed they are told it doesn't matter they still need to pay. To my knowledge this is not correct according to law in recent cases.

We have also seen were Getty has sent demand letters out over images which are clearly in the public domain such as a picture of Henry David Thoreau taken in the early 1800s. When confronted with the facts and the fact that the letter recipient understood that this was a public domain image Getty back down and dropped the claim. This is all fine and good but how many of these letters are they sending out in collecting on public domain, hotlinked and framed images?

So to answer your statement, you may have seen where letters have been sent out over hotlinked and framed images but that does not mean they were right or they had a snowball's chance of collecting/winning in court.

I figured that was what the answer would be.  I'm aware of the copyright at time of creation rule.  In the case of celebrity gossip sites, do you happen to know if they employ their own photographers or if they tend to purchase elsewhere?  If so, does there need to be any official type of copyright transfer from photographer to source?

I would imagine they have both. I'm sure they have some photographers but I am sure many of the images are supplied by freelance photographer and paparazzi. I'm sure there contracts from the freelance/paparazzi dictate whether the image is exclusively the magazines or they are just able to print it. I am sure it is just a matter of how much money the magazine/site is willing to pay. I am sure that there would be some sort of written contract/agreement spelling out terms of use of the photographs supplied to them.

I realize that anybody can be sued for anything.  Is there any requirement to show any type of real proof before dragging somebody to court and requiring them to hire a lawyer and pay fees?

There is no requirement however in my opinion they would appear very foolish if they were to take you to court and you would be able to say that they refused to provide any proof of claim you requested prior to them suing.

Now on the other hand not answering them can work against you in the same way if they can show that you had received the letters or knew about their claim and you refused to reply leaving them the only option of suing you.

Getty on the other hand will flat out refused to provide any proof whatsoever and tell you in their letters they will only provide you the proof through discovery which means when they sue you.

This is why we tell four members that every situation is unique and different and you need to educate yourself and decide what is best for your individual situation.

433

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.

« on: November 24, 2013, 02:18:11 PM »

PicScout does not respect Robot.txt and must be blocked using IP addresses.  There are several threads on this with known IP address for Pic-Scout and other crawlers.

434

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA

« on: November 24, 2013, 11:49:44 AM »

My comments appear inline in bold.

Greg,
Thanks for responding.  I appreciate your honesty and wisdom.  Sorry for firing off so many posts like that last night.

No problem.

I did spend some time reading around the forums.  I appreciate the wealth of knowledge that is here.  I think I do have some questions.  I will also try to provide better details.  I apologize if some things are too generalized.  I have read a lot and I remember a lot, but I can't remember who said them or in what thread they were said.

I had very, very generic terms of use set up.  The welcome email to members was also very general.  They stated that you couldn't do illegal things, that you assume responsibility, and that sort of thing.  To make matters worse, I started checking my site in different browsers and it seems that the terms link may not have been clearly visible because of some sloppy html in the template of the site.

The picture that was posted was a candid celebrity photo.  I have since looked deeper into it since I did not originally see the photo when it was posted.  It appears that a bystander or paparazzi may have snapped the photo on the street during the filming of a TV show.  It also has the smallest of small logos in the bottom right corner that belongs to one of the celebrity gossip blogs.  When looking at the photo at the size it was posted on the page, the logo is unintelligible.  I'm not trying to use that as an excuse, it's just an observation.

Pictures of people and especially can be more problematic, however celebs as a public figure can have their picture taken and used without a model release(from my understanding, look at all the gossip magazines with unflattering pictures). However, someone still holds rights to the picture and if there was an ownership stamp or logo on it then that should be a red flag. 

Let me ask you this was the image actually uploaded to you page or was it just a hotlink, if it was just a hotlink then you should be okay. (See Perfect 10 v Google, Perfect 10 v Amazon cases which ruled hotlinking is not infringement). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Google_Inc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc.


From things I have read on the forums, it seems like R. Taylor might be Randy Taylor that is mentioned in other places on the forum.

I saw that someone had posted a link to the US Copyright website where you could check to see if things are registered.  I haven't used their search before so I don't know how effectively I used the tool.  I tried variations of related and direct keywords to the image in question.  I don't think it has been registered but it's hard for me to tell.  This is different from the Getty letters, so you think that aspect of it even matters?

The image does not have to be registered, copyright exists from the moment a picture is taken, proper registration allows the holder to ask for statutory damages  rather then just actual damages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement

The issue with a lot of the Getty registrations are they are bulk registrations or registrations of entire collections with multiple artists.  This may or may not apply here.


Is it acceptable for me to request the proof that others have requested from Getty in the past in this situation?  I'm not saying to request it up front, I just mean if they do in fact contact me or send me a letter.

Absolutely, you want to see everything needed to justify whatever amount they are asking for.

I tried finding the answer to this question, and I apologize if I missed it.  I have seen that a URL and a screenshot do not make for proper evidence.  What kind of evidence would they in fact need?  Would they have to subpoena my web host for files and logs?

I am not a lawyer so I don't know the answer for sure to this, it is up to htem to prove you infringed.  I do know there has been at least one case where it was rulled this type of evidence was not valid.  The company sounds foreign but it was a US case called Telewizja Polska v. Echostar Satellite Corp

http://www.nyls.edu/documents/media_center/the_media_center_library_u_s_cases/1819.pdf

Theoretically, if this would go to court, would I basically be in trouble since the image did have a logo and was found on another site?  I've been very confused on that point.  It seems that anybody else on the web talking about copyright infringement pretty much says that is the end of the line for the argument.  There is no fair use or journalistic use in that situation, it is simply copyright infringement.

Again, I can't say what a court will or will not do and for this kind of specific advice I think you would need to ask a copyright attorney but I would still play the waiting game and in the mean time continue to read and learn.

435

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.

« on: November 24, 2013, 11:16:11 AM »

You also need to check the WaybackMachine at https://archive.org/ and remove and images from there as well.