Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lucia

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 44
496
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bringing this to the media
« on: February 24, 2012, 10:17:01 PM »
I'm sure there is a bit of css and javascript that would allow you to replace all instances of the img tag with a graphic of your own choosing.
Do it in .htaccess.

497
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Typo in URL
« on: February 15, 2012, 01:18:57 PM »
Was the image they claimed you'd included on your actual site? Take it down. 

I don't know other issues related to letter but I'd advise that under no circumstances volunteer that there is a typo in their url.   It may be their records contain the correct address and the typo is on the letter only.  Or it may be that they have the url down with a typo in their records. If they have the wrong url in their records, this might result in their wasting their own time through now fault of your own.  So do not tell them.

498
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: They don't know who I am?
« on: February 14, 2012, 10:43:56 PM »
Did they have your home address? 

Obviously, if they really don't know who to sue, it's in your interest not to help them figure out precisely who owned the domain name.  This is a toughie.  Usually, I think responding is best. After all, if they have your real home address and they know who you are, they know you you are.  But on another thread Soylent suggested reasons why it might not be and if they really don't know who you are-- that might incline me to say don't respond.  I guess you could send a letter from "the legal department", don't include a name etc. But I would assume people can connect a name with an address and if you respond at all they will have information to know that someone at that address responded.  Of course, if the address is an apartment complex or dorm the fact that someone responded would be pretty uniformative!

At a minimum do keep the letter. The statute of limitations is 3 years from the time they discover. They obviously discovered at least a milisecond before sending the letter, so you need to keep that!

499
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I guess I screwed up
« on: February 14, 2012, 03:20:39 PM »
Scott--
Also, since you said blog: many bloggers only hotlink out of convenience.  Also, because Getty sends letter to hotlinkers (like me) we know that at least as far back as Nov. they either weren't checking the html to see who hosted the image. So:
1) If you still can, figure out if you hosted the image or if you only hotlinked.
2) If you hotlinked, breath a sigh of relief and look for posts discussing Perfect 10-- because the 9th circuit in the US ruled that hotlinking was not copying or displaying under the US copyright law. (Whether the Supreme Court would rule the same we do not know, but the 9th circuit is one level below that. ) But if you can, get proof you hotlinked. Identify the site you hotlinked from. Keep that info available and pause before writing up your defense. (It's nice to decide on things with a clear mind.)
3) If you hosted the image on your server, do not volunteer that information because Getty may not have any proof you hosted.   Do not volunteer it here; do not volunteer it in a letter to Getty.  If they don't have the evidence, let them guess. If and when you do write Getty, ask them to show you html underlying the page with the screen shot.  The html would be required to prove your display involved hosting the image-- not hotlinking.  They may not have it. In that case, they can't know for sure whether you hosted until discovery-- because you aren't going to tell them. right?

500
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Picscout IP range to block.
« on: February 14, 2012, 03:09:17 PM »
I actually like picscouts tool. But what's going to happen is that people will find images and buy the cheaper ones.  Whether the stock companies selling 20 downloads for $3/month will hire on picscout to help people find the images and subscribe to the service I don't know. But for many blogs or businesses, 20 download a month that can be displayed would be precisely the right price. 

501
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I guess I screwed up
« on: February 14, 2012, 03:05:12 PM »
In addition to screen captures, when possible, use webcitation.org to get third party evidence of what exists.  I learned of this about a month after my first letter to getty.  http://www.webcitation.org/archive

webcitation basically provides you a screen capture, but it's by a third party which can be useful if anyone suggest you are a photo-shop wizard who made all these things up! But the tool is blocked from many sites.  So, what you do is request webcitation archives the page, then take a screen capture. File both away.

502
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and the Stone Collection
« on: February 14, 2012, 03:01:44 PM »
Ralph
Quote
I'd like to know if Getty actually has the right to go after me on this or could the images have been legally obtained under a different license prior to Getty's acquisition, for example, if the original photographer licensed them in some other method prior to 2008.
The image Getty contacted me over is also in the Stone collection.  The only things I know about the collection in general is it seems to contain a million zillion images by many different artists. In the case of the images Getty contacted me over, the image does not appear to have been a work for hire. I don't know when the photograph was taken by the photographer. But if she took it long before 2008-- which is possible, it is plausible she might have granted a license to someone, somewhere prior to licensing the image  to Getty. I think that information is not very useful unless you obtained the image before 2008 or have the license in your hand.

Also, that photographer's heirs continue to license the image in the Stone collection at photoshelter after 2008.  See http://www.photoshelter.com/search?_ACT=search&I_DSC_AND=t&I_DSC=male+female+cardinals. So even without considering what happened after 2008, it's possible that someone could get what the consumer believes to be a valid license through someone other than Getty.  I don't know precisely how a lawyer would package that information during a case.  But it's worth checking around. 


503
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I guess I screwed up
« on: February 14, 2012, 12:31:39 PM »
It's linked all over:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=under+the+weather&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSYxphCxCo1NgEGgIIAgwLELCMpwgaOgo4CAESEoQF_1ASDBYIFgQX9BPME6wTxBBog9Y5WVWmAlYXYGXWnZPCHtOmIav2P07mLyDp232emc5oMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgSQcI3kDA&biw=1184&bih=866
I think that failure to protect copyright is something Oscar has mentioned as mattering-- though that may be at the point where they are assertaining damages.
I'm not going to click through everything to find every place that might sell those-- but that's something you might want to do. If you find it sold lots of places, that's useful.

Have you made a checklist of things you are going to ask for? These should include at least:
Proof of copyright registration.
Explanation of dollar amount in request for settlement.
Proof whoever is contacting you has an exclusive license.

And so on?

504
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I guess I screwed up
« on: February 14, 2012, 09:52:05 AM »
Have you done a google search on the photo? I looked for stressed dogs and found one that is listed at both IStockPhotos and Shutterstock

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-37896235/stock-photo-sick-dog-sideways-on-white-background.html

I think they are not the same company and if this sort of thing applies in your case but it's worth finding all the companies that offer your image and at what prices. (It looks like the image I found is available quite cheaply at shutterstock.com and the license permits web display-- though I find their text a bit confusing.  As I don't want those photos I'm not going to delve into that too deeply. But here is a table:
http://www.shutterstock.com/license_comparison.mhtml?hsb=1 )

505
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Picscout IP range to block.
« on: February 13, 2012, 09:15:10 PM »
Other information: The front page of Picscout:
http://www.picscout.com/
has a button that permits downloading without ever mentioning a user agreement.  I went back because I generally read those before downloading and didn't remember seeing one prior to today when I googled to find the specific add-on page.



506
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Picscout IP range to block.
« on: February 13, 2012, 09:08:27 PM »
It is the Picscout Image Exchange add on (or extension). It is also available for internet explorer.  And it might be called an app.  Getty writes "With ImageExchange, stock agencies and photographers promote their content wherever it resides online".

Picscout is suggesting people surfing use Google or Yahoo as follows: "Users of the add-on use search engines like Google and Yahoo Images to ID images from more than 150 stock agencies and photographers".  But the fact is, if a consumer visits Google or Yahoo, then the consumer will  likely visit the site where the image rather than only view the thumbnail hosted at Google or Yahoo.

Picscout also has  a product called ImageTracker.

As for being spyware: Well... it has to report back to Picscout to work.  But I suspect the only thing Picscout doesn't want to spy on the person who installed the add on. They just want to enocurage the to buy images from their customers and also possibly use crowdsourcing to discover copyright infractions. The former is their stated business plan. The later...well.. if I were Picscout, I'd be doing that -- provided it's legal. I suspect it is legal.

But that doesn't mean I can't block them. That's legal too! 

507
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Picscout IP range to block.
« on: February 13, 2012, 08:59:39 PM »
By an interesting coincidence, I went to
http://picscout.com/imageexchange/apps/download.html
and tried to read the terms and conditions. The page was "missing" initially (404 error), so I loaded the google cache which shows a version from Oct 12, 2011.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BmPTJaJqi7wJ:www.picscout.com/plugin/terms.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I revisited the terms page-- I'm getting a 500  error starting with:
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

The terms and conditions in cache state-- among other things--

10. Governing Law

Quote
This Agreement and the relationship between you and PicScout is governed by the laws of the State of Israel without regard to its conflict of law provisions. You and PicScout agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the competent courts of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israel, and no other courts shall have any jurisdiction whatsoever in respect of such disputes arising in connection with this Agreement. The United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods does not apply to this Agreement.

and also
Quote
(iii) Any information supplied by PicScout or obtained by you through your Use of the Product, as permitted hereunder, may only be used by you for the purpose described herein and may not be disclosed to any third party or used to create any software which is substantially similar to that of PicScout;

So, I may need to rely on web bugs distributed on blogs and sites to monitor for IPs. That way none of us need to figure out precisely what that agreement (or any future ones) bind anyone to.  Anyone who would like to volunteer to host a web bug or let me place a web bug I host on their site or blog let me know. 




508
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Picscout IP range to block.
« on: February 13, 2012, 08:18:55 PM »
I've realized that to do a good experiment, it would be useful if I found volunteers with other websites and blogs.  Failing that, I'm going to need volunteers from various parts of the country and world to install the add-on and load an particular image link.  The latter might be better-- and ideally, they tell me they are going to do it so I can know they hit the image link.  After you hit, you can remove the add-on from your browser. I advise it so you aren't providing picscout data they can convert to their profit.

Anyone who want to help out let me know.

509
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Picscout IP range to block.
« on: February 13, 2012, 08:06:52 PM »
I should add: I wouldn't be at all surprised if picscout is running somethings out of israel and some at the US IPs.  This is the add on:
http://www.picscout.com/faq/imageexchange-faq.html#IE1

I'm guessing, but likely, the business plan is
1) User who wants to find images to buy installs add on.
2) User surface for images. In the process, the visit lots of websites displaying images. When they hit, you see their IP and ua.  The picscout add-on sends the URI of all images to picscouts server.
3) The picsout server then hits the images to see what they look like and compares those to images in its database; this leaves the URI's I reported above at the website hosting the image.  The server then sends back information to the user's browser.  This information is displayed in the browsers sidebar. It includes a link to the web site selling the matching image.

So far-- all hunky dory.  But of course, in the meantime, picscout has collected information that-- if they wish-- they can use to discover that a particular site is hosting a copyright violation.   So, one might want to block these new IPs. But it's not the same software we were seeing before, and evidently not the same IPS.

510
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Picscout IP range to block.
« on: February 13, 2012, 07:59:32 PM »
There was no user agent. No referrer.  What you see is this:

1) Person visits with add-on installed.
2) You see that persons hit. That hit shows their UA and IP and generally speaking a referrer corresponding to the post on which the image appears.
3) roughly 5 seconds later, you see a hit from a different IP with a blank user agent and blank referrer. That IP is the one I mentioned above.   

Because that IP is from a cloud, I can't be certain that's the only IP range for these images. I'm doing a test using domains under my control. Should I see other IPs, I'll report.  Of course I can't be sure my test will catch all IP ranges, but if I do see others, I can report that.


Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 44
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.