Messages

496

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: CPM Legal Settlement Demand Lettter on Behalf of Hawaiian Art Network

« on: January 08, 2012, 01:12:55 PM »

I understand not wanting to involve them. But it is part of your defense. Why not contact them and ask where it came from and also inform them of the copyright troll activity? You may be helping them.

497

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: RIAA case...held to cost of single license fee

« on: January 08, 2012, 01:06:10 PM »

SG -- This is an excellent point. I wish the individual that was sued by HAN would have at least filed a motion of summary dismissal rather than just letting a default judgement be lodged against them.

498

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Masterfile Demand Letter Story

« on: January 08, 2012, 01:01:43 PM »

This is a question only you can answer. I'm sure most everyone here would think paying $200 for one month's use of an image is more than fair. 'Course Masterfile will probably not agree.

Honestly, looking at what's "fair" is probably not the best way to look at it. Perhaps a better way to look at it is how willing Masterfile is to sue a start-up company that is in the business of helping autistic children. Balance this with how willing you are to fight with them and take the risk that you (or your client) will get dragged into court over this.

It is my personal opinion that MF will not accept your $200. However I think it is highly unlikely that they would file suit over this. This is especially true if they knew you were extremely vocal and there were likely to be collateral consequences. A blog headline that reads "Masterfile sues Autistic Children's Group Over Misplaced Image" cannot be good for business.

One last thing. You should check the MF terms. I was under the impression that you were allowed to use their images for layout and "FPO" use, but I may be mistaken.

499

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: CPM Legal Settlement Demand Lettter on Behalf of Hawaiian Art Network

« on: January 08, 2012, 02:21:52 AM »

milosron -- That's a "bingo"! Although probably taken seconds apart, they are not the same image. There is one that has the photographer's copyright burned into it and (supposedly) has been registered. And then there is the image all over the internet on hundreds of sites (including one that claims copyright on that image -- be sure to get a screenshot of that).

You've gotta fight this one. Although I am willing to bet they will not go to court over this.

500

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network Lawsuit Collection

« on: January 08, 2012, 02:12:57 AM »

I really don't understand why someone would subject themselves to a default judgement. You automatically lose and don't have an opportunity to present your side of the story.

501

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: CPM Legal Settlement Demand Lettter on Behalf of Hawaiian Art Network

« on: January 05, 2012, 11:14:29 PM »

Jeeze... That skunk image is EVERYWHERE on the net. I thought it was interesting that this page claims different people hold the copyright:
http://www.saveauburntrail.org/mammals

This page watermarks the image: http://prodam.slando.com.ua/kiev_city/skuns_P_34839539.html

It's available on the site http://pixdaus.com/?fun=about. They imply that the images are uploaded for all to share. There is a mechanism for rights holders to notify them if an image doesn't belong there. Do you think HAN used it?  I doubt it.

The same is true of http://www.dailypictures.info/free-pictures/3158/Skunk-Babies-jpg. That site basically says "Free Pictures" all over it.

Milosron I hope you are encouraged by all this and will feel free to tell Christian Martinens to pound sand.

My reply would be along the lines of: Due to the prevalence of the image on literally hundreds of web sites, some of which offer the image for free and some which claim they own the copyright, you were led to believe that the image was in the public domain. Although you support artists' rights to get paid for their work, you will not be held hostage by an exorbitant claim. Similar images are available from micro stock companies for less than $10 and you are unwilling to pay even that until it is proven that H.A.N. either holds the copyright for the image they are claiming to represent or they can provide a chain of title showing how it is that they came to represent this image. Furthermore, it is of the utmost importance Mr. Christian that you notify your client, HAN, and let them know that further contact will require you to retain legal council and HAN will be responsible for all fees related to this."

That's basically what I'd tell him.

502

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: RIAA case...held to cost of single license fee

« on: January 01, 2012, 06:21:30 PM »

Good point.

503

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: RIAA case...held to cost of single license fee

« on: January 01, 2012, 04:15:03 PM »

Well, that's a way to get them off your back...
GETTY: "Due to confidentiality concerns, we cannot provide you with copies of our contributor contracts, nor are we required to provide them prior to formal discovery requests."
YOU: "Okay, and my policy is not to simply give away money. I guess we are done here."

You'd still have to wait out the three year period, in which they could file suit. But that should stop the letters on any collection attempts.

504

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: RIAA case...held to cost of single license fee

« on: December 31, 2011, 05:09:21 PM »

Good find!

That is why I think it is important for letter recipients to find out the actual cost of similar images from the micro stock companies. If you offer the $10 or $5 these images cost, it will be refused. But you could always argue that you offered to pay fair market value for the images. If the stock agency tries to claim that the images were actually "worth" $875 (or whatever arbitrary price they are claiming these days) you could require them to show proof that this image is actually selling for that price. I don't think that's happening.

505

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: The Little Guy Wins!

« on: December 28, 2011, 09:44:48 AM »

But what is interesting is, for the first time, the stock agency AND the photographer have filed suit in this case. So I guess that means the photographer can be questioned directly about how his images came to be on these wallpaper sites, what relationship he has with these sites and what action, if any, he has taken to remove these images from the site.

506

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Legal Fund

« on: December 27, 2011, 08:19:18 PM »

Yeah Oscar! That's pretty cool. Please let us know if there is anything we can do.

507

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Legal Fund

« on: December 24, 2011, 07:37:53 PM »

I agree. I am in a very similar position. I don't have any "skin" in the game either since they dropped my "infringement" a while ago. Buy I want to do what I can to stop these exorbitant demand letters. So I'm in for some money if a plan is laid out.

508

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Researching Photo Claim on US Copyright site

« on: December 20, 2011, 11:26:08 AM »

Before your insurance company simply cuts a check, would you please reference this site? Maybe they will consider fighting this ridiculous $10,000 charge for 4 images for a few months. At the very least the insurance company should insist on registration numbers on all the images and inquire how this figure was determined.

509

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Letter - Canadian website

« on: December 18, 2011, 01:04:09 PM »

Although if they are now offering it for sale on their site, I would point this out to them and offer to pay the $10. In my humble opinion no judge in the world would ding you for over $1000 on an image they are now selling for $10. (P.S. - Screenshots and records of everything are a great idea at this point.)

510

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Masterfile / My web designer is stating they are not responsible

« on: December 17, 2011, 08:10:35 PM »

vvollmer -- You say you moved the files. Does this mean that the previous developer was hosting the files at a site he set up and was charging you for hosting? If that's the case, maybe a way to play this is to tell MF that you did not put up the files and you did not own the account that was hosting said images. The standard stock company line is "infringement ultimately falls on the party displaying the imagery which is considered the end user." You could fight them saying THEY were the ones who put the images up (or displayed them). All you did was point your domain to an account they created. As such, they need to take this issue up with the company that hosted the site.

They will send a letter telling you that you are the one responsible, but this may be a way to fight them. I don't know if this concept has been tested in court.