Messages

526

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers

« on: September 10, 2012, 10:26:08 AM »

So, I am not a lawyer, but does this mean that I can cut this deal with them and then subcontract my work to lawyers in India, or say Nigeria, for maybe 15%.

That could be a business plan!

527

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Sanrio, DC Comics, and Disney Sue Party Company For Copyright Infringement

« on: September 10, 2012, 08:52:01 AM »

They's askin for some big bucks!

528

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter, now what???

« on: September 06, 2012, 02:41:09 PM »

I think your letter covers all the major points. 

529

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Is Congress Getting Ready to Take on Patent Trolls?

« on: September 06, 2012, 09:32:37 AM »

Greg, nice find!  I hope that you are correct that Congress's recognition of the patent troll problem will lead to their recognition of the copyright troll problem.

Unfortunately, I believe that we cannot take that for granted.  We should work hard to help Congress realize that there is also a large copyright troll issue, and that the laws need to be addressed to correct this.

It really doesn't take long to write those letters.  And it is good for the soul.

530

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile $12K per Image Extortion Letter

« on: September 04, 2012, 11:23:40 AM »

@ SoylentGreen.  I am not sure if I understand what you are saying Soylent.  Are you approaching copyright from the territory of where the server is, that displays the image? 

To use your example, if you are the copyright holder registered in the U.S., but I am serving the image from Canada where no copyright is registered, and you are viewing it in the U.S., did I do anything wrong?

What if it is registered in 3 different countries, but not Canada from where I am serving it.  Is this legal or not?  If not, who sues me in Canada?

Or are we saying that the internet demands trans-national copyright laws?

531

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got 3rd Getty Letter Now I'm Not Sure

« on: August 28, 2012, 04:33:35 PM »

I want a tee shirt, but I want my with BuddhaPi's face instead.

532

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received second notice last month and asking for input on my response.

« on: August 28, 2012, 04:31:43 PM »

That looks much better Vicki.

I might also add something about, "Please do not contact me again, unless it is to accept my offer or to provide the proof I need that you control the copyright to this image.  To date, I have found your communications full of allegations, short on proof, and harassing in tone.  I will report further harassment to the Washington Attorney General and my elected representatives."

I only toss this in because it tends to make them slow down and back off a bit.  Unless of course their communication with you was professional and unthreatening.  No wait, we are talking about Getty, aren't we?

533

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Pays $100K to Settle Car-Freshener Suit

« on: August 28, 2012, 02:27:02 PM »

Sweet!

Thanks for posting it here Robert, and

Very nice write-up Oscar.

534

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Arizona AG Encourages Troll Victims to Submit Complaints

« on: August 28, 2012, 08:57:17 AM »

Greg, I am interested in your means of "getting it passed the clerks and into the proper hands."  Because, Getty may be in a lull with you doesn't means that some of the things in your packet might not be useful to others here.

If there were a sure fire way to get it passed the clerks, I think a lot of us would want to know about it.

535

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got 3rd Getty Letter Now I'm Not Sure

« on: August 28, 2012, 08:52:31 AM »

Are you kidding Matt?  That poster should be in the ELI hall of fame.  It should be on the ELI masthead.

536

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: August 28, 2012, 08:50:39 AM »

Well done Greg!  One of the things that has frustrated me about this lawmaker letter writing thing, is that they don't really seem to read the letters.  It appears that with a quick glance they categorize them and send out their expected response letter.

I think it really takes tenaciousness to get anything done this way, and I applaud you for sticking with it.  The thing is, we have to work doubly hard, because you know the Getty standard response letter was made for this system.  I am staying on it.  I know you will Greg.  And I hope that everyone else jumps in.  10, 20, 50, or 100 people saying similar things about Getty should cut the legs out of Getty's responses.

537

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I'm done worrying about it.

« on: August 27, 2012, 10:32:12 AM »

I agree with Soylent.  I, too, would like to learn more from the former Getty intern.

Specifically, during what time period were you there?  Who owned the company at that time?  At the time you worked there, was there anything on Getty's Royalty Free Images page that:

• Indicated that Royalty Free Images required a license and payment?
• Indicated that any of the images were subject to copyright?
• Prevented a user from right clicking and copying an image (like most reputable photographers web sites)?

During the time that you were there, had Getty restricted access to their Royalty Free Images pages at archives.org prior to 2009?  Have you ever seen what Getty's Royalty Free Images (seeding) page looked like in 2005?

One would think that a company the size of Getty would take precautions to prevent their assets from being mis-appropriated. 

On the other hand, if a $2 photo can earn me $1000 just one time in 10 that I catch someone using it without a license, I am making 50 times more money by seeding the market with the photo and making people think it was free to use, than I would by just licensing the photo.  That's quite an incentive to become a troll.

538

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Probably off topic, but it's going here anyway

« on: August 23, 2012, 02:20:26 PM »

I'd be careful here.

This strikes me as similar to what got this whole ELI thing going.  Who is to know what the folks at Picscout, Getty, et al were thinking when they distributed (or allowed distribution of) images in wallpapers, cds, even from their own web sites with little or no control.  In some cases, they acted like they were not enforcing copyrights.  In others, it seemed like the images were copyright free.

Then suddenly, they get smart and find a way to make more money, by enforcing their copyrights and, in some cases, covering their tracks on how they originally seeded the market with images.

So, if I put this guys images or content in my web published customer newsletter during the period when he chooses not to enforce the copyright, and I forget about it, what happens three years later when he changes his tune and wishes to enforce his copyright?  His bots may find his content on my web site after he had the "change of heart".  According to current copyright law, he would have a case against me.

I sure would like to understand this better.

539

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: August 23, 2012, 10:29:24 AM »

Update:  I just received a letter from my Senator stating that they have contacted the Library of Congress on my behalf with a copy of my correspondence.  Whats interesting is that:

1. I originally contacted them and then was required to fill out a Privacy Act Release form, before passing the paperwork off to where they think it needs to go.
2. In my complaint, I state that "...I initially thought, and now am totally convinced, that Getty Images and McCormack Intellectual Property Law are using copyright laws, as a business plan to extort money from small businesses."
3.  They turned that into, "...regarding your concerns with possible violations of copyright law."

There is a subtle and meaningful change in those words.  I am not sure if that change will help us get attention, or help Getty.  I never said that I thought Getty was breaking the law, only that they are using the laws to make money in ways that lawmakers likely never imagined.  I am not even sure if the change was intentional.

More likely, it's like the game where you tell the first kid in the class a short snippet and it gets repeated, one kid at a time, until it comes out at the back of the room as a completely different story.

Time will tell what comes of this. In the mean time, I encourage everyone who has received a Getty extortion letter to make the Attorney General, your congressmen, and the Library of Congress aware of what is going on here.  There is power in numbers.

540

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received second notice last month and asking for input on my response.

« on: August 23, 2012, 09:42:47 AM »

@Vicki - I would not admit to anything in your letter.  In other words, even though you may have had conversations with them about how the image got on your site, do not admit that it even was on your site in writing.

Part of what you need to understand is that Getty is on a Phishing expedition.  The more information you give them, on the record, the better they can decide how to proceed.  I don't think they will proceed, but by admitting things, you are clarifying the process for them.

What is better is to make it very murky.  The murkier the better.  Then they have to decide if the potential revenue gained by pursuing you is greater than the cost of pursuit.  And by potential revenue gained, I mean if they talk you into knuckling under and paying.  They likely won't win anything any other way (from what I have seen on this board).

What's even better is to let them know that, if they get on the wrong side of you, you can be a thorn in their side.  That raises the costs of coming after you.

So something like, "We are looking into your allegations, which come as a complete surprise to us, because our policy is . . ." "Nothing in your letter proves that you hold the copyright to the images as you claim, so before we can even consider your settlement offer, you need to prove that you hold the copyright and . . ." "We typically license photos of the sort you allege for $X.XX.  Without admitting any guilt, we would be happy to pay $X.XX to put this matter to rest once and for all and continue on with our business.  Enclosed is a check for . .. "

I only include the last section as a sign of good faith.  As Robert says, they will probably return it because they are not in it for photo licensing fees, they are in it for what they can scare out of you.

I do like the suggestions about contacting the Attorney General if they do not prove ownership or go away.  That raises their cost of coming after you.  And I think that anyone who gets a Getty letter should contact not only the AG, but also their Senators and Congressmen to let them know how Getty is turning copyright law into a for profit extortion business.  My feeling is that if, everywhere they turn, Congressmen see letters from different people about the same issue, they will eventually do something about it.

Hope this helps and, for the record, I am not an attorney, just another Getty target who is in this fight to make the world a better place.