Messages

541

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is GI monopolizing the image industry?

« on: November 16, 2011, 01:41:57 PM »

This isn't the way.

I know you are hurting and want to "hit 'em back." Me too. But there is no way you could successfully win a claim that GI controls a monopoly over the Stock Image industry. There are just too many other options out there. Sorry.

But here are some things we can do:
Choke them off: It almost goes without saying that we need to stop doing business with copyright trolls. And not just companies like GI, but their affiliates and subsidiaries. I have talked two clients out of sourcing images from iStockphoto because They are owned by Getty.

Education: If you belong to a user group or have a blog, I think it is important to get out honest information about what these stock companies are doing. There is a link on here that has someone from one of these stock agencies saying half of their income comes from PicScout. That indicates that HALF their income comes from these "extortion letters."

Help Matt: The top of every page has that Donate button. But even if you are broke, you can always volunteer to help out. Draft a letter to the EFF and post it and ask for feedback. Write a concise overview of the issue at hand and post it for comments. Use this to start contacting local media or blogs - like http://www.chillingeffects.org.

I honestly think these actions will do much more to "correct" the industry than any accusations of monopoly.

542

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network Settlement Demand Letter Collection

« on: November 16, 2011, 01:26:14 PM »

Yes it does seem like that is the message when you read between the lines. I wonder if the attorneys they choose to send these letters out know about the whole game, or if they are duped into believing they are the "good guys." At what point does someone think it is a good idea to spread the images out on as many "free wallpaper" sites as possible, not offer the image for sale, but later threaten legal action unless a large fee is paid.

I sure wish attorneys like Brandon Sands and Julie Stewart had chosen to participate in an open dialogue on this forum rather than presumably trying to suppress this information through issuing DMCA complaints.

543

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

« on: November 16, 2011, 01:13:25 PM »

I think it might be worth bringing this to the attention of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/), their mission is to stop online censorship and these bogus DMCA claims are precisely that.

544

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: DMCA complaint regarding Julie Stewart thread of discussion

« on: November 16, 2011, 12:59:05 PM »

Nice. I was wondering how someone could claim "copyright" on a letter and issue a DMCA take-down notice. It seems they can't. I can't wait to see how you decide to proceed.

A $125,000 settlement against lawyers who represent copyright trolls and then fire off bogus take-down notices would definitely be a "win" against the whole seedy "extortion letter" business.

545

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Peter T. Holt's Letter to Oscar Michelen & ELI website

« on: November 15, 2011, 11:43:05 PM »

You guys are awesome. Both replies were well thought out and succinct.

I wonder at what point Attorney Peter T. Holt and Blackline Lawyer Julie Stewart realize that their best move is to do a little more research on Hawaiian Art Network LLC's business practices. I wonder if they will find that the images Hawaiian Art Network LLC claims to represent have been seeded onto all sorts of wallpaper sites. Do they know about this? Do they care? Are they willing to ask these sites to remove the imagery or does Hawaiian Art Network LLC want them left there for some reason? And by the way, why did a company based in Hawaii have to hire an attorney in Canada to send letters to the US? Is it hard to find any attorneys willing to do this work?

I also wonder at what point Attorney Peter T. Holt and Blackline Lawyer Julie Stewart realize that a search for their name is going to turn up their association representing a company (Hawaiian Art Network LLC) who's business practice seems to be that of a Copyright Troll. Is this what they want? In this day and age it is important for all of us to do the right thing. Negative opinion on the web can have a negative effect on your image, if you don't believe me just ask Rick Santorum or Google "Santorum" (or better not, don't).

546

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

« on: November 14, 2011, 04:03:31 AM »

Check out Ms Stewart's bio here:
http://www.ccij.ca/nuit-blanche/

Ready for some irony? This is my favorite part: Julie "has a passionate interest in the use of the 'image' as a tool for justice."

Yet she objects to the image of a reproduction of her extortio.. err... Demand Letter on a site that discusses the tactics the stock industry and their lawyers use to squeeze money out of innocent infringers? Wow.

547

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

« on: November 11, 2011, 04:13:58 PM »

Oh here is another one to add to the list:

The Library of Congress:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/

Every image in there online catalog tells you if there are "No known restrictions on publication" or if there may be an issue. Most of the photos and artwork are from mid-twentieth century and earlier. But if you are looking for wonderful retro imagery it is a great resource.

Thanks to buddhapi who pointed out this resource as well as the fact that GI has taken these images in the Public Domain and then put them up for sale on their site.

548

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Website Traffic Statistics Trivia

« on: November 11, 2011, 03:32:32 PM »

Those are some pretty impressive numbers for a blog. I wonder if you have thought about monetizing this traffic at all. Since the subject matter is about stock images and photography, I bet ads for GI and MF would show up in an Adwords block. And any visitors to your site that were to click on those ads would transfer a little change from those companies to your pocket.

549

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI will be dramatically changing in 2012. Brace yourself.

« on: November 10, 2011, 09:04:48 PM »

Yes you know what this site really needs? More stock photography!

Maybe some nice exasperated images of a web developer from Getty Images. Or how about a crying designer reading a letter from Masterfile?

 

550

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

« on: November 10, 2011, 08:55:23 PM »

Well it's your site and your rules. And I understand the importance of "Buyer Beware." I mean there is nothing to stop an agency inside NASA from producing a page and then opting to buy stock footage of a telescope to illustrate a point. THAT image does not become public domain. So it is up to developers to do some legwork and document how images were acquired.

There is also a possibility that a "Free Public Domain" web site might host an image that one of the stock agencies claim a right to. But I also believe that if you have documented the source of this image and point the stock company to the source and make it clear that you only use cleared images, I believe they will back off. But then I am not a lawyer and I have been wrong about corporate greed time and time again, so what the hell do i know.

Clearly the best advice is to source your own images, either shooting them yourself or hiring a photographer (be sure to get all the rights you need.) However I think that providing developers with the tools they need to NOT use stock images from companies that choose to sue (or threaten to sue) their clients and potential clients would act as a big middle finger to the whole stock image industry. I think a side bar on the home page that explains these options and links to resources would be appreciated by visitors.

My issue with GI has been cleared up favorably, but I still frequent your site and kicked in a little cash. Why? I won't be happy until the major stock agencies make an announcement that they will issue a take-down notice prior to threatening any further action. This may be a pie-in-the-sky goal, but I can see a path to it happening. It starts with education on both sides. More developers need to know that Google Images does not equal Public Domain. But the stock image companies need to know that threatening to sue us and our customers will not stand. There are a finite number of web developers in the world and as the stock companies continue to sting them, more and more will be looking for a way to stop doing business with copyright trolls.

So I sure would like to see a "STOP DOING BUSINESS WITH COPYRIGHT TROLLS" sidebar and information and links on how best to do that. Using these "Free Stock Footage" websites may be third or fifth on the list with some big caveats that there is STILL no guarantee that a stock agency might claim ownership of an image on these sites. But at least the option is there. Equally important would be "Finding a photographer" and "Templates for getting copyright clearance from your freelance photographer" and "How to shoot your own stock images on your iPhone" and "Top 10 tips to create stock-image-quality stills"

But it's your site and your rules, so I'm good either way. It's just a suggestion.

551

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

« on: November 08, 2011, 03:23:18 AM »

I thought so too. That's why I compiled the list. Whether people use it or not, it would be a way to put a message out there saying, "We will no longer do business with companies that sue their customers and potential customers. There are alternatives available and here are some."

But I guess that idea never gained traction.

552

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How about an "Occupy Getty" protest?

« on: November 06, 2011, 02:55:04 AM »

Some occupation. We couldn't even get 100 people to sign a petition. I don't thing 4 people sitting around in front of Getty would be seen as anything more than loitering.

553

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Client Received Getty Letter

« on: November 01, 2011, 09:12:43 PM »

I cannot address the question of Oscar's letter because I wrote my own correspondence. But let me address your last question first.

 * Should I contact Getty in my name, on behalf of my client, or is that opening a can of worms/wasting time. The reason I ask, is that I would suspect they might be more willing to work out a deal for company who's website was made for them, vs for a web designer... either way, I'll be footing the bill for this.

In my opinion this is a no-win idea. They know that it is uncomfortable for a developer to admit they made a mistake. So they will turn up the heat, not on you, but your client. They have no interest in letting you take responsibility for the image and know that it is more effective to pester your client (and suggest that they pester you).


    * Of those who wrote a letter in themselves using the info on this site (or in my case, I would write one up for my client to send in), what types of responses have you seen?

They follow up with a reply saying, basically, yes but you are still responsible. From what I have seen on this site you can play that game a few times. But eventually they will send it to a collection agency.


    * What types of success has there been with the $195 letter? Do they lower their demand? Make it go away? I know this was addressed once before, but I need some type of answer for this. I don't like blindly going into anything.

Short of paying the whole bill, I would say convincing the company to hire Oscar and offering to pay for it is your best option in this situation. If you go this route, all communication will have to go to Oscar's office and they won't be able to pester your client anymore. If you try and go any other route, they sort of have you over a barrel because they can just refuse to deal with you and continue to threaten your client.

A plan "B" would be to contact them and tell them that you have convinced your client (probably convince your client first) to hire Oscar, but you have decided to make a last ditch effort to just pay them off to make the whole thing go away. But they probably won't accept less than $600 and I'm betting you don't want to pay that.
   

554

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image Hosting Question

« on: October 19, 2011, 03:03:05 AM »

Do you have any of these exchanges in writing? (either email or print?) If they are claiming you infringed after you specifically told them that the images were not hosted on your site, then I believe they committed fraud.

555

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Contact information for Getty Deputy Legal Council

« on: October 16, 2011, 12:25:57 PM »

LOL. Oscar cracked me up.