Messages

466

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 14, 2012, 08:16:06 PM »

It looks like either someone from MF is paying attention here OR you cannot link directly to the image. Because I got an error trying to click on the image link. Interesting.

Anyway the full image is on there page at: http://www.masterfile.com/em/search/#keyword=700-00072503w.jpg

467

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Resolution of Getty v. Advernet (A blow to Getty & Stock photo companies)

« on: January 13, 2012, 02:53:33 PM »

Okay, I went back and re-read Oscar's initial note. Getty wasn't even granted the default judgment!?! Well this is a total win. (For everybody except Oscar, who didn't get paid for his initial time.)

Say, that gives me an idea. Presuming the defendant is no longer able to pay Oscar, I think they closed the corporation. But the defense of copyright infringement is one of the few areas in which legal fees can be awarded to the defendant. Has there ever been a precedent set where the defendant's lawyer was able to go after the plaintiff for his legal fees?

At the very least I think Oscar should send Getty Images a "Demand Letter" of his own.

468

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Resolution of Getty v. Advernet (A blow to Getty & Stock photo companies)

« on: January 13, 2012, 02:39:31 PM »

First, sorry Oscar got left holding the bag for his billable hours on this. If I read the document right, it sounds like the defendant stiffed him.

Now I'll share my favorite part (and there are many examples like this):

"The July 9, 1997 agreement, by which “Jon Arnold” granted “non-exclusive” rights to Visual Communications Group of Visual House, contradicts the plaintiff's (Getty Image's) affirmative answer to ... “Accepted Content is Exclusive?” and undermines Wojtczak's testimony that “I have reviewed each contract to ensure that ... content is exclusive to Getty Images.”  A person holding a non-exclusive right lacks standing to sue for copyright infringement."

First -- BUSTED! (Oh Getty you are so busted.)

Second -- Let's say it again: "A person holding a non-exclusive right lacks standing to sue for copyright infringement." This is why I say it is so important to insist that the stock photo company provide you with the chain of title that flows from the original artist to Getty Images granting them an exclusive right to the image or to represent the image.

Third -- This may not even be enough. It almost sounds to me that future lawsuits will have to name both the stock agency AND the copyright holder as claimants. Sure photographers want to get paid for their work. But how are they going to feel about being plaintiffs in a lawsuit in federal court, especially considering that should the defendant win, they can be made to pay the defendant's legal costs?

And finally -- Did I understand this correctly? Getty Images "won" based on the default judgment, but they were not awarded the $24,275.00 for 35 images. They were not awarded one penny. Is that correct?

469

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Images from RSS - Getty images letter

« on: January 13, 2012, 01:08:03 PM »

So they know the image is not hosted at the site, yet they send the letter anyway? Presumably they are aware that the site hosting the RSS feed is not responsible for this. Is this not fraud? Don't Lucia and Dieselfish have some recourse?

470

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Client Received Getty Letter

« on: January 13, 2012, 01:00:55 PM »

If were to have  gone the "Lawyer Letter" route I wold ask that verbiage be included along the lines of:

"Please remind your client that the U.S. Copyright Act is one of the few that grants legal fees and costs to the prevailing party. And I am very expensive."

471

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Images from RSS - Getty images letter

« on: January 13, 2012, 12:34:34 PM »

Two thoughts:

1.) If PicScout software is unable too look at the page and provide the URI of the image, it's some pretty craptastic software. But the fact that these letters are going out on sites that use RSS feeds and don't even host the image shows, once again, that the stock companies have little interest in stopping the source of infringement and a great deal of interest in hitting up the individuals and small businesses they suspect are most likely to roll over.

2.) @Dieselfish I just want to remind you that MF has only shared with you the one day they detected the image. But I have read previously that there are usually at least two visits to the site a number of days apart. (I only bring this up so you can double check your assumptions.)

472

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Bruce Rosen (representing Julie Stewart) Sends Certified Letter to ELI

« on: January 13, 2012, 12:20:16 PM »

I have a suggestion.

Remember that scene at the end of the movie "War Games"? The computer looks at all the available scenarios for a global nuclear war and says, "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." I think that is applicable here.

Rather than try and figure out what FB's rationale was, rather than get too caught up in her efforts to fix the damage she herself has caused, let it go. Focus on your primary objective, chalk this up as a "win" and move on to the bigger issue of defeating the copyright trolls.

473

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators

« on: January 13, 2012, 01:31:45 AM »

Lucia, FYI I am blocked from seeing that page. (This is why I am not crazy about having to block your site from certain IPs and user agents. Suddenly people that want to visit your site cannot get there.)

474

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Client Received Getty Letter

« on: January 13, 2012, 12:55:30 AM »

I often wonder what happens in a case like this. It kinda looks like Getty scored an easy $780.

475

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: So I really Screwed up...

« on: January 12, 2012, 08:56:19 PM »

C'mon cire253, your life is certainly worth more that $1000 bucks. Even your mental health is worth more than that. So don't let this get you too panicked.

Take some time and read the other replies on this site. You'll find that Getty has not sued anyone over using one single image as of yet. Also, keep in mind that many Getty images are "bulk registered" by Getty (and not the original copyright holder). You'll learn how if this image was registered like that (or not registered at all) they will have a hard time collecting that thousand dollar bill from you let alone any court costs they are threatening. Before you give them any more information, you are within your rights to ask them to produce the copyright registration paperwork and if an employee of the company did not produce the work, then you will require a chain of title from the original artist that grants Getty the right to the work.

It would also be helpful if you shared the catalog information about the image as Lucia suggested and most importantly: Breathe.

476

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Images from RSS - Getty images letter

« on: January 12, 2012, 04:58:29 PM »

Of course, these suggestions assume Getty wants to send letters to the people who actually displayed copies.

We all know how important accuracy and integrity is to these stock image companies. 

477

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Geoffrey Beal of Masterfile Tries to Suppress Information on ELI

« on: January 12, 2012, 12:39:17 PM »

I have to say I don't agree with you guys. Dieselfish found some rather damaging information – another entity claimed copyright to the image prior to MF contacting him. The fact that there is more than one copyright claimant out there makes the issue fuzzy. If the copyright claim was before the MF filing, that pretty much blows up the case.

Then he simply closed the issue. MF certainly can decide to "re-open" the issue at any time. But clearly if they continue to pester him after this, MF could be held for any of his legal costs.

I would say there is a 50-50 chance of them contacting him again.

478

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: January 11, 2012, 09:43:41 PM »

Wow EVNL, thanks for sharing that story.

The weird thing is, when I discuss this issue abstractly with the representative from HAN, their side seems understandable. But then when I hear real-world examples like this I am horrified.

They insist they are trying to prevent infringement. They are opposed to simply sending DMCA takedowns in the event of commercial usages with no compensation to the photographer. Okay, but there is reasonable and then there is EVIL. And trying to squeeze $10,000 out of someone under threat of a 5 year prison sentence for a short-term, innocent infringement, definitely falls in the second camp.

479

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: January 11, 2012, 04:42:20 PM »

Good job. This "Strategy Guide" should be linked to on the first page under the heading "Help I got a letter! What do I do now?"

480

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: January 11, 2012, 03:04:10 PM »

There has been a lot of speculation about how the HAN images got dispersed on so many free wall paper sites. Nobody's really sure and there is a lot of conjecture flying around.

So I asked them.

Here is the content of my letter:

Hi,

I notice that some of the print photographs you sell are available on free digital wallpaper sites like http://www.webshots.com. It seems like some of your artisans are posting their images on these sites and they are offered "Free" or for a very low download price. The exact terms of these "Wallpaper sites" are vague. But many individuals believe it includes permission to use these images on their own web site. This has resulted in several recent "Demand Letters" issued by Hawaiian Art Network for copyright infringement.

Although I am a strong advocate for copyright, this situation has led to a great deal of confusion in the marketplace. Are you aware of this situation? Are your artists at liberty to distribute their images through other outlets? Has H.A.N. contacted these sites and asked them to stop providing these image?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
 
Jerry Witt

I was pleasantly surprised to get a reply the very next day. The position of HAN tracks with what has been said here. They say they HAVE issued takedown notices (hundreds), but many in the Eastern European sites don't respond. They suspect that originally a hacker gained access to the high resolution images. Once distributed to free wallpaper sites, they spread out widely.

I invited the representative of HAN to join the discussion here and I hope he takes up the offer.