Messages

526

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another letter from IMUA Legal Advisors

« on: December 04, 2011, 08:18:51 PM »

He should have fought it. When the photographer turned it over to the State of Alaska to be the "Official State Photo" of Sarah Palin, there should have been a requirement to include copyright information with the photo. Without a proper photo credit the public is left with the belief that it is a government photo and in the public domain.

527

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 3rd party software package

« on: December 03, 2011, 08:22:34 PM »

I'll take a stab too. Although take this for what it is, layman's opinion and not legal advice.

As developers/site owners are we really legally liable to verify that every image used by a 3rd party and put on our site has a valid copyright? 

Technically, yes. You are responsible for the content you publish. However if you have documentation that you have previously purchased the images as part of some software or image template, it would e hard to collect from you in my opinion.

Wouldn't the 3rd party be liable for redistributing the image without a correct license?
Yes. The stock companies letter probably recommended that you should pursue them. I would contact them to see what they have to say about this and if they have properly licensed the image. But I don't think you need to threaten to sue them.

If the site owner is liable is there any precedent for getting the license fee back from the original 3rd party?

I don't know, but this sounds like a you are already assuming guilt. There is a looooong road to get to the site owner actually being found liable. The extortion letter play is to give you the impression that you have no options but to pay. Of course you have options. By all means contact the company that sold you these images. See what they say. Tell GI that you will require them to provide proof that they have produced the images themselves or a chain of title that makes them the copyright owners. Ask them if the image has been registered with the US Copyright office. And by all means, do not rush out and cut a check. This is a long process and, if you read this site, you'll see that it is very unlikely they will file a suit against the site owner.

528

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: List of Public Domain stock footage companies

« on: December 02, 2011, 07:16:20 PM »

I was NOT aware of this. Thank you.

By the way, I was suggesting you contact the photographer and ask for permission to use their image and then keep a record of that. But now that I see Flickr has aligned with Getty, I say forget it.

529

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome to Mcfilms (Jerry Witt) to the ELI Defense Team!

« on: December 02, 2011, 06:35:55 PM »

Wow. Thank you one and all. I'm glad people find whatever information and opinions I dredge up useful. I don't think I'll ever be as prolific a poster as SG, Oscar,  Bubbhappi or Matt. But my goal is to supply some resources in a couple areas.  I'd like to show how we can stop doing business with the parties that would sue (or threaten to sue) their customers and potential customers. Second I'd like to help make it easier for people to get the word out about the shenanigans certain members of the stock industry are pulling.

My Getty Demand Letter case has been cleared. I even have an email from McCormick stating that Getty no longer will be pursuing that particular claim.

If your not familiar with my situation you can read the details at:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2077.msg2868.html#msg2868

So why do I still participate in this forum? I guess it comes down to several reasons:
• When I perceive I've been treated unfairly I take it very personally and come out swinging, sometimes even if it is to my own detriment.
• I have heard a few positively horrifying stories of small businesses simply closing up shop in the face of these demand letters. Somewhere on this forum is the story of a non-profit that was helping the homeless. But in the face of a demand letter that was for almost more than the funds they had raised, they simply closed up the non-profit.
• If I'm being honest, the little intrigues and and skulduggery amuse me. I'm always curious when the next attorney with a failed singing career will get hustled into playing collection agent for a stock photo company that might or might not have a clear chain of copyright they claim to "exclusively" represent. It makes me smirk when said tough-talking bill collector gets his or her underwear in a bunch when this site shines a light on their activities.
• And really, I enjoy helping people. If I can convince someone not to be a sap and blindly cut a check, I get the satisfaction of saving them some money and choking off some of the funds that would go into the copyright troll's pockets.

For me, the ELI web site will be considered a success when the major players in the stock photo world agree to issue a takedown notice first. If that notice is ignored then I agree that the owners of the copyright should be able to pursue damages. I don't know if this change will happen within the industry itself as companies determine this is in their own best interest. Alternatively it might take work to make legislative change that will clarify this issue. So If I'm waiting for that,  it looks like I might be around for a while.

I just really appreciate the information I got from this site the first month after I got my Letter and had trouble sleeping and found myself grinding my teeth. The information I got  from the ELI web site helped me formulate my reply to Getty and their lawyer that got them off my back. Maybe I can help someone in a similar situation and "pay it forward."

Thanks again!

Jerry Witt (mcfilms)

530

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A shout-out to MCFilms!

« on: November 30, 2011, 06:14:42 PM »

I just wanted to point out how things went with my "lightning talk" last night. There ended up being about 40 or 50 web developers in attendance,

I narrated my story about developing the site, receiving the images from the client and hosting it under my account. I told them how over a year went by and then I got "The Letter." I put up a screenshot of the notorious GI demand letter. I heard a moment of murmur and noticed one of the other developers nodding in recognition. I recommended this site a couple times, related some of the stories I have read here and pointed out that even buying microstock can help support the copyright trolls as istockphoto is owned by Getty.

I went on to discuss ways we can stop doing business with any company that chooses to threaten their customers in this way. I ran through the gamut of shooting your own images, hunting down public domain images (and documenting where they came from), to using a stock company that is not associated with the copyright trolls -- the only one I know of is pond5.com. I also touched on registering a DMCA takedown agent as outlined on this board and in this article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole/

There were many questions afterward and the information was well received. But what really surprised me was what happened later when we had a free-form networking session.

I tracked down the developer that i saw nodding in recognition. Indeed, he was hit with a letter a couple of years back. In his case he pulled the site down and never replied to their letters and they left him alone. While we were talking, another developer came up. He bashfully admitted that he was hit for $1200 for one image and he paid up. But it doesn't end there. Two other developers came up to me later. One had gotten hit 6 years ago and paid up. He was surprised to find out this was still going on. The other one was very militant in his action. He said, "I called them up and said, 'It's gonna cost you $450 and hour for an attorney to pursue this. I'll tell you what..." And then he adamantly used a euphemism for sexual intercourse that starts with an "f" followed it with "YOU!" and then he hung up. "I never heard from them after that," he said.

It was interesting for me to hear about the different ways people felt with getting this demand letter. But what kind of blew my mind is there were 5 people out of at most 50 that had been hit with this letter. And of that group 40% had just paid up. If this is indicative of the results the stock agencies are getting, it's pretty amazing. I guess they must see the value of torching any possible customer goodwill in exchange for this easy money. Although I still insist that this business model is unsustainable.

I plan on putting together a more polished set of resources. If anyone else gets a chance to share this information on their blogs, at user groups or meet-ups, or with news or political leaders, I encourage them to do so. Change will not happen if people remain silent. But it is not unheard of for companies to be shamed into changing their behavior.

531

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A shout-out to MCFilms!

« on: November 29, 2011, 06:05:12 PM »

Thanks buddhapi.

It goes a step further. We have our monthly Drupal CMS user group meeting tonight. It's usually pretty well attended, about 50 web developers or so. I suspect tonight's meeting may be better attended then usual because of the free food and booze. At the meeting we do these "Lightning Talks" where members are invited to share something they have recently learned in a 5 minute window. Pretty sure I will be doing mine on Copyright and Copy-wrong, with special attention paid to the practice of "copyright trolls."

532

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: List of Public Domain stock footage companies

« on: November 29, 2011, 05:54:02 PM »

>> But if some photo contains logos and products you need to be careful. Using someone else's trademark commercially can get you sued.

This is also true of photographs you shoot yourself and has nothing to do with copyright. If you use a trademarked logo to promote your product or service you can be sued for violating the company's trademark. This is why you don't see many photos of kids with Mickey Mouse ears -- Disney is quite protective of their trademarks. So if you want to use a close-up photo of a Hot Wheels car featuring the logo to promote your muffler shop, forget it.

By the way, in an interesting twist of fate, Getty is being sued by the makers of those little Pine Tree air fresheners for trademark infringement on a stock image they represent. There is a thread about it on this board. Karma must be a... well you know.

Another thing to be aware of... the artist or creator of certain landmarks and statues may hold a trademark on that artwork. I know the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce claims trademark rights over the Hollywood sign's image and demands license fees for commercial use.

So it's a minefield out there no matter what you do. Maybe we'll just go back to text-based internet browsing circa 1994.

533

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: List of Public Domain stock footage companies

« on: November 28, 2011, 07:56:12 PM »

Bump

534

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Advice on Getty Image situation

« on: November 22, 2011, 12:07:29 PM »

If you read this site you'll see that it is highly unlikely that GI will go after you. If you dig around, you will find my story, which is similar and ultimatly I got them to drop their case.

However they will continue to nag your client. Their beef is with the owner of the site, so that's who they'll go after. It's one of the tactics they seem to employ to embarrass developers into paying. So if you want to hire Oscar on their behalf, I think you have to get your client's permission.

But you need too look objectively at what has happened so far. Did you remove the GI watermark? That weakens the case that it was FPO (for position only). Was the domain at root level or was in in some obscure development directory? Have you really spent thousands on GI photos? If that were the case, I wouldn't engage the person you are talking to. I would speak to an account rep and explain the situation and ask them why they are threatening to sue their customers. Point out that this is probably not a very good business practice.

535

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile & Arius3d acquisition closing date extended, Arius3D pays MF 450k

« on: November 21, 2011, 06:55:14 PM »

This is purely my opinion. But this is how things seem to work in the world today:

Arius3D has some cash on hand, but their business model isn't sustainable. It doesn't look good for anyone if they just fold up the tent and close shop. Instead, they work out this highly unlikely deal with Masterfile. Here's what happens once Arius3D cannot find someone to front the money to buy Masterfile: Masterfile gets the money already ensconced in the escrow account, Arius3D files for bankruptcy protection, any shareholders in Arius3D are out of luck. If this scenario plays out over the next several months, you can expect members of the Aius3D board to end up in very nice jobs at Masterfile or its affiliates.

Again, this is just my opinion.

536

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Oppose Internet Censorship: Help Defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act

« on: November 21, 2011, 06:51:05 PM »

Government too. This essentially gives the government a "kill switch" to censor content they don't appreciate; just like in China and Iran.

537

Legal Controversies Forum / Oppose Internet Censorship: Help Defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act

« on: November 21, 2011, 01:29:57 PM »

I wanted to share a bill that is making its way through Congress and encourage ELI members to help defeat it. This is something all ELI members can relate to. But it give the companies even MORE power. They can basically block or erase your site from the internet based on the accusation of a copyright holder.  Check out the infographic on this page:
http://mashable.com/2011/11/16/sopa-infographic/

Internet censorship legislation is barreling through Congress, and could come up for a vote in the next couple of weeks. 

The Stop Online Piracy Act would ruin so much of what's best about the Internet: It will give the government and corporations new powers to block Americans' access to sites that are accused of copyright infringement, force sites like YouTube to go to new lengths to police users' contributions, and put people in prison for streaming certain content online.

Please visit http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/pipa_sopa to learn more. BEG your congressman to vote against SOPA.

538

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: We have a new facebook fan!

« on: November 21, 2011, 12:42:50 PM »

That's funny Matt. I posted a very similar reply on that thread:

_______________________________________________

Elisa Pauline Stewart -- In your world view it is okay for stock image companies to threaten individuals and small companies with lawsuits they will never file to squeeze out a few thousand bucks? Is that correct? These stock agencies and the lawyers who act as their "muscle" or "collection agency" have earned the scorn of a legion of web developers, designers and small business owners. When the person that shares your name decided to employ these same heavy-handed tactics, at least one of the letter recipients and the ELI website pushed back against it.

You find it offensive that the owner of the ELI site used colorful language -- that could CLEARLY be seen as metaphorical - to describe what happened? You know what I find offensive? The fact that these types of letters have caused at least a dozen small companies to simply fold. I know of one non-profit that was actually doing good work that had to close up because they could not pay the demand letter.

Sorry, but we are the ones who have to, as you say, "wrestle with pigs."

539

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Blackline Lawyer Julie Stewart Successfully Cleans ELI Scribd Account

« on: November 17, 2011, 01:26:38 PM »

I think hosting the PDF files on your site is probably your best bet. Especially if you have the bandwidth and even more importantly if you have a web host that has your back. In a lot of cases its easier for someone to cut and run rather than stand up to a lawyers bullying letters.

That said, there are other sites that will host your documents including:
http://issuu.com
http://www.docstoc.com

540

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 16, 2011, 04:42:36 PM »

Wow, that letter is almost a carbon copy of the Brandon Sands letter. Interesting.

I wonder how long it will be until you get a take-down notice to take down the take-down notice? Do you think they will try and claim that is copyright?

It's remarkable that Brandon Sands and Julie Stewart are so surprised to see their redacted letters shared on a site that discusses the tactics used by the "Extortion Letter" Industry (please note the quotes-- call it what you want). Perhaps they just got so used to people rolling over and cutting a check for the Demand amount, they never expected any push-back. Surprise!