Messages

436

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Cyber Liability Insurance

« on: June 23, 2012, 12:42:43 PM »

This has actually turned into a good discussion, with many great points being made.

I'm a bit concerned that the insurance concept will cause trolling activities to be seen as some sort of "cost of doing business" going forward.
It's like having special insurance to pay off people that have an old car with a big dent in it that accuse you of colliding with them.
Even though there's not a scratch in your own car.  I mean, piss off.

Look, you can get really good images for about two dollars each or even less if you use many images.  Just keep your license and receipt.
That's your "insurance"; keep your documentation.  Oh, yes, and the DMCA agent.

Hope that OP is still reading; all this could save him/her thousands.

S.G.

437

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Cyber Liability Insurance

« on: June 22, 2012, 07:07:54 PM »

S.G.

438

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Postgame On Canada's Copyright Reform

« on: June 22, 2012, 05:26:45 PM »

Good posting.  This is relevant to my interests.
Soon, it'll be time to release the Krakken.

S.G.

439

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Cyber Liability Insurance

« on: June 22, 2012, 04:18:30 PM »

Yeah, there are firms that do this sort of thing.  A simple google search reveals several companies.
Personally, I don't want to list any here, as I have no experience with them and do not wish to make an endorsement.

The problem with companies using this kind of insurance is that it makes them less diligent about using content responsibly, and it's just another business expense on top of many others.
Furthermore, this sort of insurance makes it much easier for the trolls to make money, and "feeds the fire" so to speak.
We need less trolling, not more.

Those are just my opinions, though.

S.G.

440

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being the middle man (getty - webadmin - client)

« on: June 22, 2012, 03:30:30 PM »

It's up to Getty as to whom they go after.
They usually go after the end user, as it's easier to prove, and it affords them the ability to pit the developer against their client.
It's a lot of leverage for them.

Getty could target you instead if they wanted.  But, that's much more difficult for them.

You could call Getty and talk to them.  They will likely say that you can pay it, otherwise they'll go after your client.

If your client ended up paying Getty, your client could file suit against you to get their money back.

S.G.

441

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Introducing Atlanta Attorney and Collection Lawyer Evan A. Andersen

« on: June 22, 2012, 03:23:59 PM »

Yeah, I feel charitable sometimes...
...but it passes...

Also, one man's "high road" is another man's "back '40 of the Internet".

lol

S.G.

442

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Introducing Atlanta Attorney and Collection Lawyer Evan A. Andersen

« on: June 22, 2012, 03:02:49 PM »

Not sure if you guys saw this award or not.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/3199/jennifersherrousecopyri.jpg

lol.

S.G.

443

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Introducing Atlanta Attorney and Collection Lawyer Evan A. Andersen

« on: June 21, 2012, 11:24:11 PM »

I was making McCormack into an Internet meme.
Maybe I'll use Andersen instead.

Hell, maybe I'll do both.

S.G.

444

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has Anyone Really Been Sued??

« on: June 21, 2012, 11:17:07 PM »

Shortest topic on ELI.  Ever.

S.G.

445

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getting our message to the main stream media

« on: June 21, 2012, 01:31:48 PM »

I'd like to see a Michael Moore-type do a documentary.

S.G.

446

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A puzzling situation

« on: June 21, 2012, 01:28:47 PM »

Getty's never going to get 1000 - 2000 dollars out of every person that places an advertisement for a product what contains a Getty-related image.
I mean, what's next?  Imagine if I own a field by a highway, and somebody rents part of that right of away from me to put a billboard on.
The advertising company pays Getty in order to use a licensed image on it.  Is Getty going to come after me for thousands?
Better not.

Just who would do business with a company like Getty?

S.G.

447

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another recipient of letter from Ms. Wright & Mr. Andersen

« on: June 21, 2012, 11:57:44 AM »

The point should also be made that unless you pay them enough to "go away", you're still in for three years worth of threatening letters.

S.G.

448

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A puzzling situation

« on: June 21, 2012, 11:05:45 AM »

uhhh... yeah... don't be a sucker and pay Getty any money for this.
McFilms nailed it.

S.G.

449

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another recipient of letter from Ms. Wright & Mr. Andersen

« on: June 21, 2012, 11:03:15 AM »

Just a quick thought.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.

"Company A" owns the image, and you've allegedly infringed upon that copyrighted image.
Next, "Company B" assumes copyright ownership of the image, and now they're coming after you?

Could it be that the alleged infringement was with "Company A", and "Company B" wasn't damaged by the infringement, and cannot collect damages?

S.G.

450

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Collection phone calls from collection lawyers

« on: June 20, 2012, 05:40:23 PM »

Good discussion.  Whatever works for each individual is fine, of course.

I guess that if somebody's coming after me in a legal way, wants money and won't give me any proof, then all bets are off.
One doesn't have to worry about looking good in the courts eyes, as Getty's already done the worst thing that you can do when demanding a settlement.
Without proof, I wouldn't offer a cent... and why should I?

The onus isn't on me to investigate somebody else's accusations, for example.
If they can't prove anything, and they just say "pay" in each letter, then it's just going into the shredder. lol

S.G.