Messages

466

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Gallery Stock settlement letter

« on: November 24, 2014, 12:19:34 PM »

I've noticed in some of these threads that people recommend not to correspond with these extortionists via email. Why is that?

email isn't all that "official", professional conduct for anything legal should simply be done by spending money on a stamp.. who's to say if I email you , you even get it? or that it doesn't land in the spam folder? when you get that famous nigerian email, do you take it seriously? I think not... Not to mention it's good to have hard copies of everything, emails are easily spoofed, edited, etc..

467

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Ownership

« on: November 22, 2014, 06:45:52 PM »

LOL No apology necessary for not being a Canadian! Although your quickness to apologize would imply that perhaps you ARE Canadian, since we do tend to apologize for everything regardless of fault LOL

Precisely why I did that, I know of your habits to apologize, I was just being snarky....aye?

I will be requesting MF to provide proof of exclusive Copyright Assignment and/or details of Partial assignment.

As for the mention of the dual watermark, turns out the image used did have the original photographers copyright watermark placed along the bottom of the photo (not placed obnoxiously across middle of picture like many image sites do, hence it's mistaken use).

Upon further research, I am not sure that MF has placed an "official" copyright watermark on their image. They seem to display their photos with either NO Masterfile watermark, or with it prominently displayed across the middle of photo. I suppose the question should have been worded "Once the author has transferred ownership of copyright, can they still watermark the photo with their name as the copyright holder?"

**Point of Interest, I JUST discovered that a Peruvian Photo Stock Company is also offering the sale of the same photo. As well as many other Masterfile photo's (www.perfotostock.com). So exclusivity may very well be in question.

wait! stop the truck! if perfotostock.com is selling the same image, something is amiss for sure.. you can easily state that you obtained the image elsewhere, in the US, you have to be found guily, it is upon MF to prove this..who's to say you did not purchase the image from this other source? and if you did, and they are selling images they shouldn't be, that would not be your fault.

468

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Ownership

« on: November 22, 2014, 02:05:33 PM »

First I'm not canadian ( I apologize ; > )
i'm fairly certain the copyright can only be held/owned by a single entity, but MF may have the right to enforce the copyright on behalf of the owner. If you were to get a letter from both the owner AND MF, I would most certainly call BS. As far as MF claiming infringemnt on a watermarked image, again this would depend on if MF has an exclusive deal/contract with the artist to enforce copyright.

469

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

« on: November 20, 2014, 01:56:44 PM »

Around August, I received the standard letter that everyone here has seen. It was for one image that wasn't hosted on my site, which was a tumblr blog that I had linked to my domain for a short period of time. I recently received the email that everyone comes here after reading and obviously do not plan to respond, nor did I respond to the letter. One thing I have noticed from reading this thread and others over the past few months is that many of the people who were actively sharing updates don't give a conclusion or stop responding. If I continue to just not respond, knowing they have no case and that I have done nothing illegal or wrong, will things continue to escalate? Have they ever actually just left someone alone?

if the image was hosted at tumblr and NOT on your servers, I wouldn't even care if they "escalated" it or not, they have no case, if it were me I would gladly enjoy watching them spin their wheels for nothing and not give it another thought.. Or you could also take jerry's adsvise, and tell them the image in question was never on your servers, it was linked from an outisde source, and if they wish to continue to pster you , you will invoice them for any time spent going back and forth..

470

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Roca Labs Sues First First Amendment Big-Dog Lawyer Marc Randazza for Defamation

« on: November 20, 2014, 09:37:28 AM »

I didn't think anyone would top Charles Carreon, but Roca Labs is certainly making a run to dethrone him.

471

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

« on: November 19, 2014, 09:48:14 AM »

simply put, potential users of images would likely pay more for a celebrity image, than an image of a cactus. Which is exactly why paparazzi do what they do, they can make more money, than shooting plain, boring stock images.

472

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Marc Randazza Response to DMCA-like takedown request....

« on: November 18, 2014, 08:00:19 AM »

and we think we can be snarky! hard to not like and enjoy Marc!  Truly worthy of yet another Streisand Effect!

473

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hacker blog discussing picscout.

« on: November 10, 2014, 10:30:29 AM »

very well written post, and well played on his part.

474

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August

« on: November 10, 2014, 10:15:15 AM »

With respect to credibility of Augustimages:
http://donfloodphoto.com/contact/ Does link to augustimages.com
That suggests that he likely does have a contract of some sort with them.

yes it does, but also remember one of the getty cases, where the photog was working with getty licensing images through them, the question arose in court of something along the lines of "show us the contract, that is signed by both parties", at which point getty did not have an answer, because the "contract" was supposedly done "online" by the artist and submitted to Getty, but there was never another signature. A contract HAS to be signed by both parties in some way shape or form..even a digital signature would probably suffice, but Getty did not have that either.

475

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August

« on: November 07, 2014, 02:46:27 PM »

does the photog have an exclusive signed agreement ( by both parties) with "August" to allow them to enforce his copyright? does the photog register his images and register them properly? does August and picscout have an agreement allowing picscout to enforce collections on copyright issues?...so many questions..

476

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August

« on: November 06, 2014, 03:49:23 PM »

I tto have never heard of them, one thing I will point out is that the letter is coming from picscout with a Getty address in seattle, no where in the letter does it refer to the business of "August" except just to say the image is owned by "August".. IF I were to reply ( which I probably wouldn't righ out of the gate) my first question would be.

1. Who the hell is "August?"
2. Is this a company?
3. Why does this company not exist at the address in the letter.

the whole letters smells of scam. If I replied I would further demand to see a signed contract by BOTH parties giving picscout the rights to collect on anything. I would also demand to see copyright registration information, as well as any model releases. I would probably further that by taking a play from jerry's playbook, and state if they cannot /willnot supply the above information, they will be recieving an invoice from me to collect on my time  that has been wasted.. ( naturally this invoice would be larger then the sum they are trying to collect)...

477

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2

« on: November 06, 2014, 09:14:42 AM »

only way we're getting anything confirmed is if we see it in a docket search @ PACER, but we most likelt wouldn't get any details beyond that.

478

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Price of Photo and Demand Amount $186 different. Just pay or fight?

« on: November 05, 2014, 07:23:04 PM »

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck . . .

It's a pig!, and even a pig with make-up is still a pig...Getty Images, their lawyers and outside counsel Timothy B. McCormack are all disgusting pigs!

479

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August

« on: November 05, 2014, 01:02:51 PM »

from http://pixabay.com/en/service/faq/

Can I use your images?
You can copy, modify, distribute and use the images, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission and without paying attribution. However, depicted content may still be protected by trademarks, publicity or privacy rights.

{ red flag!}

Why do I find Shutterstock images on Pixabay?
Sponsored images are shown to finance Pixabay and to provide a choice of professional photos. Those images are marked with the Shutterstock logo.

{so right there tells us they are NOT all FREE}

and this is just full of nuggets.. http://pixabay.com/en/service/terms/

Images depicting identifiable persons may not be used for pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, or in a way that can give a bad name to people, or to imply endorsement of products and services by those persons, brands, organisations, etc.

Since Pixabay does not require a written Model Release for each Image that has identifiable people on it, We cannot guarantee that you will be able to use the Image for any purpose.....We do not represent or make warranties whatsoever as to the legality or validity of it.

Furthermore, certain Images may be subject to additional copyrights, property rights, trademarks etc. and may require the consent of a third party or the license of these rights. Pixabay does not represent or make any warranties that it owns or licenses any of the mentioned, nor does it grant them.

and this, leaving the user fully on the hook:

Pixabay cannot be held responsible for any copyright violations, and cannot guarantee the legality of the Images stored in its system. If you want to make sure, always contact the photographers. You use the site and the photos at your own risk!

Indemnification
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Pixabay, its subsidiaries, affiliates and contributors against any claims, damages, costs, liabilities and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of or related to your conduct, your use or inability to use the Website, your breach or alleged breach of the Website Terms of Use or of any representation or warranty contained herein, your unauthorized use of Images, or your violation of any rights of another.

Warranty and Liability

THE WEBSITE AND THE IMAGES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS". WE OFFER NO WARRANTY, EXPLICIT OR IMPLIED, REGARDING ANY IMAGES, THE WEBSITE, THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION, OR ANY RIGHTS OR LICENSES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. PIXABAY DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE WEBSITE OR THE IMAGES WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT THEIR USE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE.

PIXABAY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ANY GENERAL, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, OR LOST PROFITS OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF YOUR USE OF THE WEBSITE OR THE IMAGES.

480

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August

« on: November 05, 2014, 12:55:16 PM »

I made this website for free as a gift for a relative who lives in the US. It's a website promoting his business.
Because of this, I used about 30 photos I found on Google Image Search (stupid move, I now know it).

But now, I already removed all the photos and replaced them with some I found on Pixabay.com because the website has some reputation providing Free Public Domain Photos from different photographers around the world.

I suggest your relative in the US pony up some money to acquire the needed images properly..why take the risk knowing what could happen? Technically and legally any owner of the images could just as easily go after your relative and simply cut you out of the loop, at the end of the day it is the business owner who is responsible.
The choice to remove images or not is completely yours.