Messages

436

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has anyone tried a "domain privacy service"?

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:27:34 PM »

I agree -it can't hurt, is inexpensive and represent another hurdle Getty will have to go through

437

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network v. Moku-aina Properties observations

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:26:04 PM »

Matt is right.  90% of the cases I settle in Federal court have confidentiality agreements attached to them that prevent the release of information and state that there is no admission of wrong doing or of lack of merit to the lawsuit etc etc

438

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Dissolved Corporation

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:24:36 PM »

Dissolving a corporation while a claim is pending is never a good idea.  Its always best to just keep the corp open but without assets. The likelihood of being sued over one image is very slim so I would maybe offer $100 and then see what happens next

439

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright + Licensing Agreement with other company

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:22:11 PM »

It might be better to argue that Getty was not doing enough to protect its copyright in the images by allowing this and therefore cannot come into court claiming they were seriously infringed. 

440

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: FUTURE DEMANDS - Getty Outrageous prices

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:19:24 PM »

Getty has always gone after "actual damages" since they don't register their images (and therefore cannot get statutory damages) Their pricing regimen is one thing, how often they sell them at those prices is another and what the fair market value of the image is a third!

441

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $600 (discounted from $780) for a 1.5" x 2" image on my web site

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:17:07 PM »

They will set another deadline when this one passes or send the file off to NCS IP corp or McCormack law firm

442

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Aldrich Law Firm Letter

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:16:16 PM »

Hysterical

443

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Providing Proof of Infringement

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:13:10 PM »

They generally rely on nothing more than a dated screenshot of the webpage and information from archive.org. Also, they can rely on any admissions you make that are not part of a settlement negotiation so always be careful what you say in your initial discussions with these companies. Lots of  folks think that adding "This email is sent pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408" protects all of the communication from begin disclosed in a lawsuit. Generally, FRE 408 bars settlement evidence “when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount.” However, the rule does not bar all settlement evidence when offered for other permissible purposes not listed in the rule. A recent case involving timeshare interests in receivership proceedings for example allowed evidence of ownership of the interests that was conveyed in a settlement discussion. So for example if you admit owning the site, a court may say that's not protected by FRE 408. So while you should always add that disclaimer, still be careful what's discussed in the body of the email or communication. Sorry for the lengthy response - here endeth the lesson.

444

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Summary Judgment Info

« on: February 01, 2012, 10:04:44 PM »

You can't just file a summary judgment motion in Federal court. There is a very strict procedure you have to file first which involves among other things, exchange a statement of facts to the other side that you claim are undisputed and see if they agree.(Federal Rule 56 governs this along with the various rules of the individual District Courts) You can answer the complaint by  a motion to dismiss the complaint instead of the usual answer which denies the allegations. You could argue that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit if you feel that their method of registration is improper. Take a look at the  Bernina v. Imageline cases for details of that legal argument as well as Muench v. Houghton Mifflin

445

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn Wright - Photo Attorney

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:45:02 PM »

Since copyright is  a federal law, you can represent people out of your state of jurisdiction more easily and without trouble than with a state law claim. You would still have to be separately admitted to the local federal district court if you wanted to file suit, but copyright law is essentially the same all  across the country.

446

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright + Licensing Agreement with other company

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:41:31 PM »

Not if the swoosh looks too much like Nike's! lol

447

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network v. Moku-aina Properties observations

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:39:58 PM »

Love it, lets hope this gets to the discovery stage so we can learn more about HAN and their operation.

448

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Stockfood.com or StockFood GmbH letter reaches Israel -סטוק פוד מכתב מגיע לישראל

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:39:00 PM »

Exclusive rights can only be given to one entity.

449

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NCS Recovery using the name NCS IP Solutions?

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:38:15 PM »

Yes this entity has been up and running for a about a year now. All that 's changed is the name.  But please remember that they cannot "put you into collection" or damage your credit report over this.  That would violate the Fair debt Collection Practices Act as this is just a claim and not  a debt.

450

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Will soon receive letter from Getty

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:36:14 PM »

We have gotten Getty letters from all kinds of organizations. Just last week, one was received by an elderly couple in Kentucky that run a not for profit that has one very small purpose: they arrange for US veterans in nursing homes and homeless shelters to get together for a meal out at a local restaurant.  Its a great simple program that gives dignity to these veterans and allows them to socialize and give them something to look forward to. Every dollar received by them goes to provide transportation (most of the restaurants donate the meals) the couple makes not a dollar off of the site or the program. When they contacted me they were desperately afraid that this claim over a few images was going to force them to shut down. Of course I did not charge them for their letter but I could not convince them to go public with the story.  They want their privacy and as they said " Don't want any trouble from some big company." So if Getty is seeking damages form these folks,  its clear that they are indiscriminate in their approach.