Messages

556

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Infringement Claim

« on: August 19, 2014, 03:16:26 PM »

looks like we have a new copyright troll working with picscout, that now does "billing out of the same building as getty...interesting scenario..will have to look into this a bit further as time allows..

557

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anyone had a run-in with Sanders Law PLLC? Fair use?

« on: August 17, 2014, 08:10:45 PM »

read the forum, get educated, watch the ELI videos, then decide what to do.

558

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images extortion Letter and now McCormack Threat

« on: August 16, 2014, 03:28:23 PM »

just to add..."stock photos" and "Royalty Free" do not equate to "FREE". If the template was purchased through template monster, they should pick up the tab, IF you can get the designer to confirm this.. The designer will probably need to work with template monster, as he was the purchasing party.

559

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA

« on: August 16, 2014, 03:21:46 PM »

it would most likely fall under "fair use" if the article in question was being discussed, and if the image was linked there is simply no case, as linking is not "copying"...400.00 for a consult is a rip-off, find a different attorney, one that's honest!

560

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Getty Letter Story

« on: August 09, 2014, 09:08:55 PM »

there was mention of paralels about 2 yrs back, some use ( can't remember) who was going back and forth with them..

DVG, I'm well aware of the criteria regarding DMCA, bottom line is if there is a registered agent, and it is potsed properly, that is the way Getty is supposed to contact them...but I digress, I'm not a lawyer...or copyright troll..

561

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Getty Letter Story

« on: August 09, 2014, 08:39:41 AM »

The MOST important thing here is being missed.. The OP stated that the site has a registered agent, if this is true, then Getty has NO case, and they did NOT follow the law as afforded by DMCA. The purpose of the registered agent is to afford safe harbor for this type of thing. They should have sent a request to the registered agent first and foremost. as long as the "owner" of the site did not upload the offending image, there may be a case of NO infringement. DMCA offers safe harbor IF the image is uploaded by a third party..IF the "son" is not affiliated with the company, this might be a good loop-hole....On the other hand Parrallel should step up to the plate, and take care of their customers, regardless.

562

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2

« on: August 05, 2014, 09:33:04 AM »

stop the truck!! You got the first letter in 2010??? This is 2014! the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is 3 yrs.. am I missing something here?? are is there cause for a motion to dismiss right in front of us?

563

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

« on: August 02, 2014, 04:01:37 PM »

I showed them that the images were actually "hot-linked" and cited them the Perfect 10 v. Amazon case.

Doesn't "hot-linking" qualify as bandwidth theft? Isn't this technically illegal?

I don't think there are any laws in regards to "bandwidth theft", it's not really regarded as good internet etiquette, depending on the usage, but lets be realistic here..If I hotlink to an image on your site, how much bandwidth am I "stealing" for 1 single image on a single blog that gets little traffic, you'd probably never even notice unless you dissected the server logs.. and even then bots, spiders and scrapers would be using more of your resources..now on the other hand if amazon.com did that it would/could be a different story entirely.

564

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

« on: August 02, 2014, 01:19:14 PM »

A good strategy v. Getty:  Dont't make yourself "low hanging fruit."

not overly complicated..

565

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

« on: August 02, 2014, 12:46:32 PM »

ummm, I'm no math whiz, but taking 3000 as the number of letters sent out per yr ( I think it's more...many more) and the fact that 10 suits were filed against small businesses, the results stays the same 0.3%. Naturally getty will file against "hand picked" small businesses cause they know they generally don't have the means to fight back, and cannot represent themselves, thus they settle. It's not rocket science to see and understand that Getty looks for low hanging fruit, in other words those ignorant of the law and their rights.. We've seen very few letters to individuals over the years and those that we have seen, Getty addressed them as businesses ( mistakenly)..

566

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Read July 30, 2014: Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Digest - ELI Appeal Case

« on: August 02, 2014, 09:10:03 AM »

Nice to see that they added my corrections...NOT!

567

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA

« on: August 01, 2014, 05:49:39 PM »

Feel free to email me document to share with other ELI members, you can email it to adminATcopyright-trolls.com

(change the AT to @

568

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Shamecasting recommended in CNN Opinion Article

« on: July 19, 2014, 09:38:51 AM »

Good catch Peeved..the word i should have used is "accused"... That fuck-tard Timothy B. McCormack ( fuck-tard being my opinion, can I still have that here?) doesn't even have a clue what  "google-bombing is..

From wikipedia for the "uneducated"

The terms Google bomb and Googlewashing refer to the practice of causing a web page to rank highly in search engine results for unrelated or off-topic search terms by linking heavily. In contrast, search engine optimization (SEO) is the practice of improving the search engine listings of web pages for relevant search terms.

It is done for either business, political, or comedic purposes (or some combination thereof).[1] Google's search-rank algorithm ranks pages higher for a particular search phrase if enough other pages linked to it use similar anchor text (linking text such as "miserable failure"). By January 2007, however, Google tweaked its search algorithm to counter popular Google bombs such as "miserable failure" leading to George W. Bush and Michael Moore; now, search results list pages about the Google bomb itself.[2] As of May 1, 2014, the first result in a Google search for "miserable failure" is this Wikipedia article, defining Google bomb, although at least four of the following results show links related to Bush. Used both as a verb and a noun, "Google bombing" was introduced to the New Oxford American Dictionary in May 2005.[3]

Google bombing is related to spamdexing, the practice of deliberately modifying HTML to increase the chance of their website being placed close to the beginning of search engine results, or to influence the category to which the page is assigned in a misleading or dishonest manner.


Please Note ELI does NOT
1. Post unrelated or off-topic search terms by linking heavily.
2. Deliberately modify HTML to increase the chance of their website being placed close to the beginning of search engine results, or to influence the category to which the page is assigned in a misleading or dishonest manner.

and contary to what some may believe, we do not use sophisticated software or methods to get good google results, it's really quite simple..ELI has good relevent content that people search for on a daily basis, the results come naturally.

Seattle based lawfirm McCormack Intellectual Property can thank me later for this pro-tip of the day..

569

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: is it possible to determine if image is a Getty in advance?

« on: July 18, 2014, 08:44:33 PM »

1. nothing is FREE...if your getting images from FREE websites, they are probably lifted from elsewhere.
2. if you have not "licensed" your images or created them yourself, chances are good you are infringing.
3. Getty owns many stock sites, so you would be best to cross reference all of them, or consider replacing all of the images in question.
4. Getty images aside...there are plenty of photogs/artists ( VK Tylor) who are not affiliated with Getty that also send demand letters...
5. Lets not forget about Corbis and Masterfile as well..

If I were you and were using "free" images, I'd be getting very busy, replacing all of those images..Do the right thing for your clients, before it's too late.

To answer your question, you can do reverse image searches using google or tineye.

570

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Shamecasting recommended in CNN Opinion Article

« on: July 18, 2014, 06:42:44 PM »

ok I'm derailing this thread!! While we all like and find the "nicknames" of certain players cute and funny, and we know they will see them, I think since we are also known as "google bombers" and using SEO tactics to get better search engine reach, I think it's important and part of our duty to continue to use proper names when needed..

We wouldn't want  Timothy B. McCormack from McCormack Intellectual Property to be disappointed..