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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 44
526
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response
« on: February 06, 2012, 09:44:11 AM »
However, I am stunned at your response. Does it really need to be said that aggressively defending and fighting back is not meant to be a comfortable, cruise-ship experience?

No. But I don't see why I should actively take steps to make it more unpleasant for myself by doing something that I think likely makes no difference to whether it's uncomfortable for Getty clerks many of whom are merely paper shuffling. 

I also tend to think the facts of the case make a bigger difference than the mode of communication.  Bear in mind, my case is one of hotlinking of a single, blurred, cropped image image during a blog discussion that would likely make copying of the image fair use even if I'd hosted the image. Licenses to display the image on the web are sold by the photographer's heirs through their Photoshelter hosted storefront, meaning that Getty either does not have the exclusive license or they are not enforcing their exclusive license.  Not only are images available at the author's web site: Digital versions at better resolutions are available for download for free. So Getty's case is flimsier than usual. Knowing this, I am both willing to risk going to court and to go to court if sued.

I do not believe that in my case, Getty's decision to sue or not sue or even to stop wasting their time with internal discussions or sending email is going to be based on whether or not I am spending money on paper and postage.   


Quote
In what I wrote, did you somehow get the impression that my advice was meant for YOUR, MINE, or ANYONE ELSE's personal comfort or preferred mode of communication?

When I said I was going to use my preferred mode of communication, I was responding to Buddhapi not you.   I understood Buddhapi to be suggesting that the fact that receiving snail mail letters was annoying was a reason I should send them to Getty. He may be correct.  But I'm more concerned about whether something annoys me than whether it annoys them.  I prefer email and gave that as my reason for using email.

I wasn't under the impression that by sending email I was following your advice. I'm making my own choice for my own reasons. 

Quote
They aim to get the message across effectively and that almost always means snail-mail, not because lawyers are incapable or unwilling to use email.
I can see all sorts of reasons an attorney who has been hired sends snail mail letters.  I don't think those necessarily translate into evidence that messages sent from non-attorneys come across more effectively by snail-mail than email.  I could be mistaken on this, but if so, then the person who will experience the fall out will be me.

I don't care whether the clerks at Getty think I am a high powered professional. My initial aim was merely to get Getty to drop this matter with the minimum fuss, expense and discomfort to me.  My aim has also expanded; I now also want to extract as much information about their operations as I can while still avoiding a suit.

So, I want them to see that I am not going to cave in for no good reason.  I think the best way to do this is not caving in when their case is absolutely flimsy.   If several emails are exchanged, that's ok with me. I'll post the contents here and we'll learn what Getty writes.

Moving to a more general matter, as an empirical matter,I don't think we actually know if sending email or snail mail is "better".  I think we haven't whether in the end Getty is more aggressive with those who communicate by email or snail-mail because we don't have cases comparing Getty's response in both situations.  So it interests me to do the experimet.   I'll be using email and  I'll let you know how many emails it takes.   

So far I've received:
1) The initial demand letter by snail mail. I responded to the letter provided by email.

2) An email response from "Sam Brown". I responded to "Sam Brown" by email. It's been over a month and Getty has not responded.

3) A letter that appeared to be spontaneously generated by the system. I responded by email sending it both to Getty Litigation and Sam Brown telling Getty Litigation to contact Sam Brown to get the previous communication.  Sam responded by email in 10 minutes to apologize for sending the 2nd letter by mistake and informed me that my " December 20, 2011 e-mail (received) is still under review in our department."


If I get additional communications, I'll report them.  I'm actually hoping I do receive an email response to my requests for proof of copyright and an explanation of how they come up with their settlement demand. If I can get those, I'll  share them. So to the extent that email might make Getty more willing to communicate and send answers rather than cut off communication to save the cost of postage or paper I prefer that.  (Others might not. But I do.)

Though others may feel differently, if I end up exchanging emails at the rate of one every month for 3 years, I would still prefer email as a mode of communication to snail mail.

I rather liked being able to send the email to two in boxes telling the Getty people to communicate with each other before sending me letters. I rather liked the Getty representative sending the apology within 10 minutes of my sending my email.  I do think with future email I am going to request that they send me a confirmation that they received the email. I'll put a note in my tickle file and if  If they don't confirm receipt within a week, I'll resend the body of the email to multiple parties along with a preface requesting someone let me know if they received the email.

I think I would switch to certified letter should I ever get to the point where I am suggesting a settlement of any monetary value. In that event, I have learned I would like evidence of they received my email; with snail mail I could have that if I paid to send certified letters.  But I think I can just pester getty for responses and leave sending certified letters as an option for a later time.

So for now, for my reasons outlined above, I'm sticking with the mode of communication I prefer.  I'm not telling others they should do as I do. I am entirely aware that I am not following your advice. I am making my own decision.

527
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response
« on: February 05, 2012, 11:44:31 PM »
buddhapi--

The difficulty is that if I send letters to Getty, I'll get letters from Getty. I don't like that mode of communication.  Since I don't like snail mail, I would prefer to use the mode of communication I like.

With regard to the two people who send me letters: One is my mom. The other is a good friend since high school. I reply by email.  :)

528
INAL, but I think the ownership issue might matter and differs in different cases:
Quote
Masterfile owns, for the purposes of copyright registration, the copyrights of each of the individual images at issue. (Pigeon Decl., ¶ 2.) Because Masterfile owns the constituent parts of the collection the registration of the collection extends copyright protection to the constituent parts. See King Records, Inc. v. Bennett, 438 F.Supp. 2d 812,841 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).”.

We are seeing some cases where the entity selling licenses does not have ownership of the individual images. For example, my impression is that quite often, Getty registers a compilation but the photographers retain ownership of the copyright for the individual images.  I think the photographers have granted Getty an exclusive license to display market and sell licenses to others, but it's a license-- not ownership. Since the photographers retain ownership, they could revoke that license.

In contrast, in the cited King record case, it seems to me the performers and song writers had transferred ownership of the copyright for the song and performance to the record company. (King records.)  They didn't merely grant King a license to copy and sell the recordings-- King owned that right for each and every song in the compilation.  The song writers and performers couldn't revoke the license because they no longer owned it.   The way King came to own the copyright for each recorded song is discussed in that ruling.

Evidently, based on the wording I quoted, in the Masterfile case, Masterfile owns the copyright for the individual images.   At least the way the text I quoted is worded, Masterfiles registration of the collection grants copyright to the individual images because Masterfile owns the copyright to the individual images.    But in some other cases where a company registers a collection, it seems the  the company registering the compilation does not necessarily own the copyright to the individual images. 

It's not clear to me if the current ruling tells us anything at all about what happens if Getty (or Corbis etc.) registers a compilation of images when the individual photographers retain the ownership of copyrights for the underlying images.

Maybe someone who knows more than me can explain whether this ownership issue has anything to do with the ruling. But the wording seems like it might matter to me. 

529
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response
« on: February 04, 2012, 11:13:42 PM »
Quote
The best analogy I can give is that if you received a hand-written letter from anyone, how would you react? The handwritten letter is so rare today, it is practically extinct or certainly an anomaly.
Honestly? I'm usually annoyed by hand-written letters. There are two people I know who like to send them and I don't like receiving them. I prefer email or phone calls.

530
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: It begs the question...
« on: February 04, 2012, 02:43:34 PM »
mcfilms--
I don't know many judges. But I know how I would see it if I were a third party. And I agree with you. If the plaintiff (i.e. troller) who instigated by first asking for money and then suuing won't provide proof of copyright ownership and valid registration that the plaintiff looks very bad. They will look bad even if it turns out they have proof of ownership and valid registration.

I think every understands that "Why should I pay you if you won't show evidence I owe you anything?" is a reasonable position for the plaintiff (i.e. trollee).

In contrast, the defendant (i.e. trollee) who did not instigate the action and wants nothing more than for the plaintiff to either a) show why they owe money or b) go away,

turns out to have proof the registration belongs to a third party but did not provide this evidence to the plaintiff the defendant doesn't look so bad.  They merely look like someone who doesn't want to be ripped off. 

The defendant really doesn't look bad at all especially if the plaintiff wouldn't show the materials they think constitutes their proof!

531
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: It begs the question...
« on: February 04, 2012, 02:18:40 PM »
Quote
Why in the world would a troller ask to see copyright info/registration a trollee claims to have from another source (allegedly another stock photo company) if the troll has stated they already own the copyright.
In addition to what mcfilms suggested, the troller would want to see the copyright info registration information the trollee claims for the exact same reason the trollee wants to see the copyright information the troller claims to have.  Both the trollee and troller want to know how things might pann out if the issue whent to court.

For what it's worth, the troller and trollee have equal rights to  not-disclose their evidence.  Assuming you are the trollee, you can ask them to show your their copyright. If they refuse while simultaneously requesting you show you what you have, tell them you aren't going to do so.  You are content to let them pay their staff to do their own research.

Quote
If I read the law correctly, it states the troller must prove 2 things-that they have copyright and that the infringement took place.    Are they expressing doubt that they indeed own copyright by asking to see other copyright information? Why would it even matter to them?
I don't think they are 'expressing doubt'. That said: if you do indeed have strong, verifiable irrefutable evidence  to indicate someone else owns the copyright, that will be useful to you in court.  You can sit tight confident that if they take you to court, you will prevail. 

532
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response
« on: February 04, 2012, 08:39:25 AM »
Matt--
I'm going for lazy and short-cuts. The message I think I'm communicating is: I don't want to pay for paper and postage on such a stupid matter.  Turns out they send letters and emails either way!

I did respond to their 2nd letter by email.    I got a prompt response telling me that the 2nd letter was sent in error. :)

533
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response
« on: February 03, 2012, 10:18:55 PM »
If you went to the trouble sending a certified letter I suggest sitting tight and waiting for a response by snail letter.  Of course, you can read the email-- but the fact is you sent them a certified letter. They should communicate at the address you gave them by the mode you gave them.

Don't communicate in two modes. Stick with certified letters or email, not both.

534
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response
« on: February 03, 2012, 02:57:39 PM »
If that email was not on the letter and not related to your domain name, I would not respond to it.  Out of curiosity, did the response in the email mention your letter?

535
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement Offers
« on: February 03, 2012, 08:56:29 AM »
annalise--
The entire chronology of Matt's case is here: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/my-case/

536
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Escalation Letter
« on: February 02, 2012, 11:20:25 PM »
Sure. I only want to blank out my email to minimize email spam. 

537
Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Escalation Letter
« on: February 02, 2012, 10:43:49 PM »
I thought some of you might be interested in the escalation letter I received. I'm also adding my poorly proof-read response and the response I received from Sam Brown.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/GettyLetter2.jpg

Quote

From:    [email protected]
   Subject:    Re: Letter 3: Case #:  1144028 No infringement. CRM:09515827
   Date:    January 30, 2012 2:30:33 PM CST
   To:    [email protected], [email protected]

To Mr. Brown and the Getty Compliance Team,

Today I received a letter dated Jan 27, 2012 discussing the case you have assigned Getty number Case #:  1144028.  Based on the wording of this letter, it seems to me your compliance team is unaware of on going communications between myself and a Mr. Sam Brown Copyright Compliance Specialist.

As I communicated to Mr. Brown: There has been no violation of copyright on my part.

Before I reiterate the previous discussions, I would like to be sure that those on the Getty side of the conversation have read the previous communications.   I request that personnel in the Getty Compliance Team obtain a copy of my previous correspondence with the Getty Compliance Team and Mr.  Mr Sam Brown. My first email to your groups was dated November 29, 2011, Sam Brown's response dated December 19, 2011 and my reply to Mr. Brown sent December 20, 2011.

If my reply on December 20, 2011 has gone astray, I will be happy to resend that email both to Mr. Brown and to other members of your License  Compliance Team.   

After member of your team have had the opportunity to read the correspondence and become aware of the facts of the case, I will be happy to continue further discussion. In addition to wishing Getty employees to be aware of the facts of the case before I spend time discussing matters on the phone or email, I remain eager for Getty personnel to provide information I requested of Mr. Brown in my second email. Your firm drawing together the information I requested will greatly reduce the amount of time both your firm and I will need to waste on this matter.


Sincerely,
Lucia Liljegren

Note: My 2nd email was discussed at this form in this post:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/images-from-rss-getty-images-letter/msg4634/#msg4634

Here's the response I received less than 10 minutes later.
Quote
From:    [email protected]
   Subject:    RE: Letter 3: Case #:  1144028 No infringement. CRM:09515827
   Date:    January 30, 2012 2:39:07 PM CST
   To:    [email protected]

Lucia,
 
It would appear our recently-received letter was sent in error as your December 20, 2011 e-mail (received) is still under review in our department. I apologize for any confusion our recent mailing may have caused.
Regards,
SAM BROWN
Copyright Compliance Specialist
Getty Images License Compliance
[email protected]
www.stockphotorights.com
Copyright 101
 

Getty Images Headquarters
605 5th Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104 USA
Phone: 206.925.6714 (direct)
Toll Free: 1-800-462-4379 ext. 6714
Fax: 206.925.5001

©2012 Getty Images, Inc.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
This message may contain privileged or confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail or any attachments hereto. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system without copying or disclosing the contents. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Getty Images, 605 5th Ave South, Suite 400, USA, www.gettyimages.com. PLEASE NOTE that all incoming e-mails will be automatically scanned by us and by an external service provider to eliminate unsolicited promotional e-mails ("spam"). This could result in deletion of a legitimate e-mail before it is read by its intended recipient at our firm. Please tell us if you have concerns about this automatic filtering


 

538
I've read google looks at domain registration information but I don't know that it's true.   There's lots of SEO advice on the web and it isn't all true.  If it does affect ranking in any way I suspect  it is a very minor factor and even then possibly only with sites that obviously are selling things. (It's likely very easy for the google bot to determine if you have a shopping cart, list prices and so on.) 

539
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Cease Communications" request
« on: February 02, 2012, 06:44:28 PM »
Reading the exchange just made me wonder, so I looked and saw I couldn't put one up.  I use an avatar of my cat eating a chipmunk at my blog, but I would put up a real face picture here. Of course it would be 10 years old so I would look cuter. :)

By the way, I understand and sympathize with the "interesting" images issue. I don't know what simplemachines software permits easily, but maybe if it permits you to let people upload avatars after some number of comments (50? 100?) you'll get mostly legitimate images.  It's not a big deal for me though.  I was just curious (and I guess I should have used search!)

540
Oscar--
I agree there is a great deal of difference between visitors taking photos of themselves under or next to the bean or even just taking a picture of the bean sitting in the park reflecting the clouds on the day when you happened to be there and someone taking photos of the dinosaur eggs skulptures and exploiting them commercially.
(I'm also interested in knowing if the text book made sure the young student studying from that book knew they were sculptures and not fossils. This should be important for pedagogical reasons as you likely don't want kids to "learn" that detailed fossil exist if they do not.) 

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 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.