Messages

526

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: go-daddy's misguided use of DMCA

« on: May 29, 2012, 02:14:56 PM »

A good reason not to use GoDaddy.

Also, everybody knows that Tylor/H.A.N. aren't going after any of the sites that give away their content for "free".

S.G.

527

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 29, 2012, 01:00:24 PM »

Thanks for clarifying this, McFilms.
I wasn't going to add any more to the topic, as it seems to have gotten to the "herp-a-derp" stage.
Picscout and Getty et al are not "hacking" into anyone's "servers".

S.G.

528

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 29, 2012, 10:41:20 AM »

I think that anything that's displayed on a web page (even dynamically) can be picked up by a bot.
Anything that's "publicly" displayed is hopelessly "fair game".

S.G.

529

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor Affidavit for Hawaiian Art Network to Enforce Copyrights

« on: May 29, 2012, 12:19:47 AM »

They don't want you to know for sure.
Copyright trolls often have no registrations, or faulty registrations.
But, the uncertainty makes some people pay out of fear.

Here's the thread about the corrupted masterfile discs:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/many-of-masterfile-cd's-with-images-at-us-library-of-congress-are-corrupted/

Perhaps, they'd be stored at the library of congress?
http://www.loc.gov/rr/

More info from this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Catalog

Nature of catalog entries and access to copies of documents
 
The Catalog of Copyright Entries, the Copyright Card Catalog, and the online files are indexes, not reproductions of original documents.
To view or copy the original documents yourself, you must visit the Copyright Office.
Information such as registration numbers may be obtained from these files.
Providing this information yourself rather than paying a fee to have the Office search for it will reduce the cost of obtaining records and copies from the Copyright Office.

S.G.

530

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images/Memorial Day Welcome Home surprise...

« on: May 29, 2012, 12:13:42 AM »

The link that you've provided applies to a registered educational institution.
Therefore, the guidelines as written there may not apply those who aren't students or faculty of the institution.
Outside of those confines, one has to be quite careful.

Here's some info in plain language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

From the copyright office:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

There's not a lot to that section of law.  But, court decisions are often based on previous court precedents, and the burden of proof is on the defendant.

S.G.

531

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:56:04 PM »

Breaking into a system/breaking passwords or even bypassing captcha protections is against the law in the US.

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/anti-hacking-law-too-broad/

S.G.

532

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: HAN / Copyright Services International Settlement Notification Phone Call

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:49:35 PM »

My understanding is that it's illegal to record conversations in this context without the consent of both parties.
Such evidence would be inadmissible in court.

S.G.

533

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor Affidavit for Hawaiian Art Network to Enforce Copyrights

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:45:12 PM »

My understanding is that there's usually a disc submitted with the registration.
I know this because another poster on the forum was seeking info on masterfile registrations, and the disc at the copyright office was old and unreadable.
I may be incorrect, but I think that you have to go to the copyright office "in person" and pay a fee to get a copy of such materials.

In the unlikely event that a person is sued, he/she may request such information (as part of "discovery") such as an actual inventory of the images, the images themselves and the dates of publication/ non-publication, etc.
It's very difficult for a plaintiff to get around such a request.  If the information isn't provided, or it's faulty, then the plaintiff's case could be severely weakened (i.e. they can't prove their case).

S.G.

534

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images/Memorial Day Welcome Home surprise...

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:37:42 PM »

"Fair use" isn't determined by "exclusivity" or "non-exclusivity".
The law is quite specific on what constitutes "fair use".
It's normally reserved for educational institutions, non-profits, parody, and critique.
In the first two instances, they'd have to be accredited/registered entities, and even then there are restrictions.

S.G.

535

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:33:03 PM »

Many good points made in this discussion.  There are several prior discussions along these lines as well.

The issue is that ignoring "robots.txt" is not illegal under any US law.
A person could make an argument to a judge that "robots.txt was ignored", if it ever went that far.  But, that's kind of weak.
But, there are much better front-line defenses that work better than this.

Furthermore, it's my personal opinion that Picscout is not necessarily masking its presence.
I have recent evidence of visits using the same old IP addresses and provider.
I don't think that we can say with certainty who is actually visiting our sites without further evidence.

S.G.

536

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor Affidavit for Hawaiian Art Network to Enforce Copyrights

« on: May 28, 2012, 09:30:42 PM »

Probably two registrations in bulk, registered in '09.
One is titled "VA0001696555: Hawaii 2000" and "VA0001696552: Hawaii 2004".

I can find 5 entries total under his name:
Hawaii 2000, Hawaii 2004, Honolua Bay, O-01 Waikiki-Pink boat ORIGINAL VERSION., and Waikiki Day 2003 O-15-C.

S.G.

537

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NCS IP Solutions Settlement Offer Letter

« on: May 28, 2012, 03:00:58 PM »

I often think that Getty has it's employees sign a confidentiality agreement upon hire.
Their operation hasn't has any interesting leaks that might reveal Getty's inner-workings.

S.G.

538

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pro photographer + expert witness Sedlik comments on copyright infringements

« on: May 28, 2012, 11:40:27 AM »

My posts weren't intended to imply that one person is more qualified than another to comment on the issues.
To me, it's not a competition.  However, yes, Oscar and yourself have done more than anyone else for the cause of fairness.

It was just nice to see a photog comment in a more reasonable fashion about the facts, and it brought to the discussion here a fact that hadn't been brought up before that could stop an infringement lawsuit in its tracks.

It was also nice top see Sedlik counter that photog's aggressive stance.
While anyone can get a failure of a lawyer to paste together a demand letter on contingency, it's another matter to remortgage one's house to litigate over an alleged infringement of a single 10 dollar image.

S.G.

539

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pro photographer + expert witness Sedlik comments on copyright infringements

« on: May 27, 2012, 05:52:24 PM »

Thanks for your kind words, "Keepfighting".

Buddhapi mentioned "93,146 images in the same month".  That's quite lot.
Even if the images were registered in several compilations, they'd still contain many, many images.
I'm willing to bet that there's both published unpublished images in all those collections.
The Copyright office states very plainly that these cannot be combined; so that's a showstopper right there.

In addition to this, imagine if there was a lawsuit and Getty/Stone were made to account for what was published where, and when.
That would be quite a major undertaking for them, and any images unaccounted for or unpublished (there's probably hundreds) would weaken their case severely.
Heck, courts have already dismissed copyright lawsuits partly on the basis of the images being registered as part of a compilation.

S.G.

540

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 27, 2012, 05:43:21 PM »

I recall that this issue came up a little ways back.  I guess that the controversy is still ongoing.

My opinion is that Picscout spiders content that's intentionally published for "public consumption".
So, it's practically impossible to nail them for that.

There have been reports of the Picscout ignoring robots.txt, etc, and spidering hidden directories.
That's not technically illegal to my knowledge.  However, one could litigate on the basis of "trespass to chattels".
But, a judge would have to decide on the merits, and Getty would defend it's 20 million investment in Picscout (and ongoing revenue from it) vigorously.

S.G.