Messages

421

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Science Photo Library

« on: May 14, 2015, 10:04:55 AM »

be sure to screen capture that entire page! send said screen shot to copyright troll, tell copyright to shag off, if said copyright trolls files suit, they will lose. It is my opinion ( i'm not a lawyer) that you are on very solid ground!

422

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty images Gets sued...again

« on: May 12, 2015, 05:04:41 PM »

For copyright infringement! Imagine that, I hope those fucktards lose their asses again!

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/getty-images-sued-for-copyright-infringement-again/

423

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Sample replies? Best course of action to take?

« on: May 11, 2015, 05:00:46 PM »

contact his office directly if you want to do the letter program.

424

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Sample replies? Best course of action to take?

« on: May 11, 2015, 04:49:00 PM »

google search the firm and the client.

425

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Extortion Letter received from LCS / Picscout

« on: April 15, 2015, 09:37:13 AM »

They won't care that you educated yourself, they won't care if it was "innocent infringement', they want your money! Picscout can only chase you for the "claim" they don't have the right to sue you on behalf of the photographer, that being said it's generally not a good idea to admit to anything to bolster their case, even though they are not likely to file suit.

426

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My Very Own DeBoer IP Extortion Letter from John M. DoBoer

« on: April 14, 2015, 05:16:25 PM »

Naturally I would love to see this letter and "All of the threatening language and accusations"

You could pursue your web designer, but that may be costly. I'll make a few points to your post.

1. "DeBoer asserts that went to the clients' website, removed the copyright information, altered it" he can assert all he wants, he would need to PROVE this IF it were to go to trial.

2. "There was no prior cease and desist"....none is required

3. "she had done the appropriate licensing searches for "free photos for commercial use with modification" ...I've never heard of such a search, and highly doubt there would be any results..there are very few reputible site offering "FREE" images for commercial use.

4. "I called DeBoer's office and responded to the email twice on the same day I removed the photo and haven't received a single response."...have no fear, you'll hear from them again, as they now know they have a "live one"

5. He also mailed printed versions of the attachments to my home. How did he get my mailing address when I don't have it on the website? .... a simple search of the domain whois database probably gave him this info, or a myriad of other places, it's very simple these days.

6. "Furthermore he asserts that the photo has been used for three years (since 2012)." again they can assert all they want all day long, that's different from proving something.

What is "LOC" you should search for this image in the copyright.gov database, it may not even be registered, or it may not be properly registered, which would greatly reduce any award they would get IF it went to trial.

427

Legal Controversies Forum / Prenda Laws Paul Hansmeier has a new scam!

« on: April 14, 2015, 12:27:35 PM »

There is always a troll going after something.

Oscar wrote about ADA trolling abuse issue in 2012:  http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/10/congress-must-stop-the-ada-shakedown-racket-and-heres-how/

Well, it appears that ex-porn troll that worked for Prenda, Paul Hansmeier is now going after businesses using the ADA Act toting around physically handicapped people and making them "clients" who were "inconvenienced" by businesses that didn't make accommodations for physically handicapped.

Lawsuits and extortion letters galore are slapped and businesses are then asked to pay several thousands of dollars to make it go away.  Sound familiar?

http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2015/04/former-porn-copyright-troll-hit-with-50k-ada-counterclaim.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/prenda-linked-lawyer-now-suing-small-businesses-over-ada-violations/

http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2013/11/porn-troll-becomes-ada-website-troll-sans-clients-consent.html

So ADA Trolling is apparently a growing new thing now.  Amazing.

428

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Georgia Supreme Court hands unanimous win to Matthew Chan & ELI

« on: April 04, 2015, 11:47:44 AM »

ahhh, so nice to see Mulligan, it's been to long! I couldn't help but think of my friend the other day while perusing youtube..

429

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Heads up Destination360 possible issue

« on: March 27, 2015, 09:55:34 AM »

"We find that 90% or more of websites steal content out of laziness or ignorance but that it doesn't excuse the fact that is wrong. Most websites that use our content without permission are doing so with commercial intent. I hope more discussions on this topic good and bad will bring more awareness to the issue on both sides. Meanwhile, we will keep doing what we need to do to protect our intellectual property rights. "

so just how does D360 do to protect their intellectual property rights? Are you actually demanding an amount that is reasonable? Or you you also way over the top and also threatening lawsuits? I'm just curious, as I've never seen any of your demand letters? We at ELI have NEVER stated that companies should not proptect their IP, our main complaint is the methods and the amounts, we also all agree that "SOME" stock images are indeed worth more, but the typ[ical run of the mill Getty stock images are clearly not worth 1K, especially given the fact that many of them were sold as royalty free images, then they somehow became "rights managed".

430

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trunk Archive Letter (Getty?)

« on: March 04, 2015, 04:54:40 PM »

they could very well be using the same "compliance team", why hire 2 groups of douche-bags, when you can have just one...also worth mentioning is that your BFF Seattle Attorney and DoucheBag Timothy McCormack is also associted with picscout ( or at least he was at one point):

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/mccormack-letter-forum/timothy-b-mccormack-attorney-proffered-legal-provider-to-pic-scout/

Also the list of companies/agencies using picscout is fairly long as this post shows:

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/picscout-trolls/

Keep in minfd this is an old post and the list has most likely grown quite a bit since I first exposed these fucktards..

I'm assuming it is okay to use the words DOUCHEBAG & SEATTLE ATTORNEY TIMOTHY B MCCORMACK together in a sentence?

431

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trunk Archive Letter (Getty?)

« on: March 04, 2015, 01:56:57 PM »

here's a short and concise article of how the system works.

http://photography.about.com/od/copyrightinformation/gr/PicScout.htm

432

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trunk Archive Letter (Getty?)

« on: March 04, 2015, 01:51:35 PM »

@ Stinger, I think you are confused, so I'll try to clear things up.

Getty Images owns Picscout, they operate out of the same office, hence the same address, when a photogrpaher signs up for picscout, picscout sends out a letter on behalf of the artist/agency, they (picscout)  "claim" to assist in recovery from the use of unlicensed works. So yes Getty is driving, as they own picscout, but Picscout not getty would make the profit from any money's coming in, as they take a percentage ( I think ) and there is also a cost involved in becoming a picscout "customer".. Getty Image themselves still have their very own "compliance team". So in essence they are 2 entities.

433

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trunk Archive Letter (Getty?)

« on: March 04, 2015, 12:29:32 PM »

Picscout strikes again, I would be in your best interest to either take the site offline completely, or go through and delete all images from the server..wouldn't surprise if you got more letters from agencies using picscout.

434

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trunk Archive Letter (Getty?)

« on: March 04, 2015, 09:56:05 AM »

We've seen a a bunch of these lately from different agencies, Picscout uses the same address as Getty, Getty stopped having any signatures a while back, yes probably because I like to throw them under the bus. I also think the letters that picsout spits out are all automatically generated, the only difference being the agency name. I might have to sign up for a picscout account to see the inner workings.

from picscout:

The PicScout Platform is the industry leader in commercial image identification technology. Our registry houses 200 million premium images from more than 200 content providers. Content providers can upload premium images to the PicScout Platform to ensure they are accessible and protected by the PicScout-powered tools.

PicScout Licensing, Metadata and Compliance services are all integrated with the PicScout API.

Note: once content has been submitted to the PicScout Platform, content providers will have the ability to opt-in to activating their content within the PicScout Licensing, Metadata and Compliance services.

and this from : http://www.picscout.com/solutions/ete/

Now this technology has been combined with global License Compliance specialists in the PicScout EtE Service. When you subscribe to this service, PicScout not only will identify where your images are being used, but also enlist the skills of its global License Compliance team to ensure any unlicensed images are removed and your lost revenue recovered.

435

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trunk Archive Letter (Getty?)

« on: March 03, 2015, 03:54:12 PM »

This letter is from Picscout ( Getty Owned) hence the same address Trunk Archive is the company that claims to own the rights to the images at issue.

Couple of nuggets:

1. whether or not the site generrated any income matters not to the trolls, they want your money
2. The dates from the screenshots means nothing either, except as a good date to start the 3 year statute of limitations, they were most likely back-logged..After all picscount send out god know how many letters.
3. if the images were still on the server, regardless of an overhaul, the trolls still see this as an infringement, be sure to not only delete the images from the pages, but remove them from the server as well, or the next letter may claim that the images are still being used.
4. the fact that the images were taken down won't have any effect on if you are liable for the infringement.
5, At the end of the day this is your typical demand letter, you'll have to decide how to handle it from here, pay them,  ( I wouldn't), negotiate a lower amount ( I wouldn't ), ignore it completely ( I probably wouldn't given the number of images/amount), hire a friend of a friends lawyer who knows nothing about copyright ( I wouldn't), consider Using Oscar's letter program ( I probably would opt for this option).

You might also want to search PACER to see if "Trunk Archive" has ever filed any lawsuits (doubtful).
Trunk Archive is out of New York :

http://www.trunkarchive.com/
https://www.facebook.com/TrunkArchive
https://www.linkedin.com/company/trunk-archive

seems they deal with high end photogrphers and high end stock imagery: http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2008/11/24/trunk-archive-ultra-high-end-stock/

Matthew Moneypenny owns the firm and several other stock agencies: http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/tag/matthew-moneypenny

given what I just learned about trunk archive I would lean more heavily in getting Oscar on board in some way