Messages

556

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Domains v subdomains getty letter

« on: January 27, 2012, 08:32:55 AM »

annalisa--
I thought of an exception. If you are doing something like wordpress.com and the subdomains are bloggers then getty might be able to sue the bloggers. However, in the case of wordpress.com, they have the good sense to have a DMCA in place. Otherwise, wordpress.com could be sued for stuff on the subdomains. But if you have a domain and let visitors create their own subdomains, and have also set up a DMCA, getty shouldn't sue the domain owner for something on a subdomain. They should send you a take down notice. Then you demand the blogger or user take stuff down from the subdomain (or take it down yourself as you will have control.)

557

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Domains v subdomains getty letter

« on: January 26, 2012, 10:21:20 PM »

Subdomain? The ownership is the same so the same party would be involved in any infringement. If infringement occurred on the subdomain and they sent it to the owner of the domain, Getty would send the letter to the correct entity.   

558

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Will soon receive letter from Getty

« on: January 26, 2012, 03:21:56 PM »

I'd suggests a few steps based on this: You don't know how much information Getty has for any case. There is some reason to believe they don't collect information they ought to collect should they ever go to court. Also, it seems that some of their "research" is done by getting people to admit fault when responding to letters. 

Given this, I think you should focus on:
1) Minimizing volunteering any adverse information in communications with Getty.
2) Minimize Getty's crawlers and staff's access to crawling your site.
3) Try to see how good or bad the case might even be. (Many people will give you advice on this.)

Things to do:

• Look at your page to see if you might have only hotlinked from a site hosted elsewhere. That is: if the images is not on your server, you want to know that because in that case, you didn't display a copy as defined by US copyright office. (Or at least, that's what the 9th circuit ruled.)  If you only hotlikned and they have a screenshot, you can go ahead and tell them you only hotlinked and cite the Perfect 10 case.  If you did host the image, don't volunteer that information-- Getty may not know.
• Check to see if the page is archived on the wayback machine.  If it is, change your robots.txt file to block viewing. (Or just block viewing period. You don't need your site on the way back machine.)
• if you have control of your site and there is any possibility that you have any other images whose provenance you aren't sure of, (a) start blocking image crawling spiders from swarming all over and (b) start finding any doubtful images and get them down too.  If you need help with this, ask.
• When answering Getty, do not volunteer any adverse information they did not already provide in their letter. For example: if they have a screen shot of the image, but none showing the html code, and the image was on your server, do not volunteer that you ever hosted the image.  To gracefully avoid admitting the images was on your server while taking the image down, you could word as follows: "The html has been modified so the image no longer appears".  Do not volunteer any information about how or why the image might have gotten on your site. Did you put it there? A site visitor? A blog designer?  Getty may not know the proper party to sue in the event there is an issue. Why help the figure out all the parameters of the case? 
• If you did host on your server, start trying to learn as much as you can about the image.  To the extent possible, as GETTY to provide proof of copyright registration. But even before they do, try to search for any registrations by the photographer at the US copyright office. Also, search for any sites hosting this photographers images.  They might be selling at photoshelter-- a Getty competitor. If they are, this would be worth knowing.

Although everyone is sympathetic here, even be judicious in what you post publicly. Think a few moments -- and maybe send information privately to people who might be able to tease stuff out for you! While you want us to help you, you don't want Getty to get key information about your case here-- especially not if it's adverse to your position. So.... think about that.  Stay relatively anonymous for the time being.

That's all I can think of right now!

559

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Advice needed on dealing with HAN: Just got letter from Aldrich Law Firm

« on: January 21, 2012, 04:28:57 PM »

The letter says his photographer spends thousands of dollars hiring models?  I don't see any people in that image. How could the lawyer write that with a straight face.

560

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfiles 3rd suit for 2012

« on: January 20, 2012, 04:12:25 PM »

Unless it turns out that he has licenses from the photographer but ignored MF's letters because he didn't like their tone.  That would be odd because going to court is expensive. But people sometimes do odd things.

561

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfiles 3rd suit for 2012

« on: January 20, 2012, 03:33:47 PM »

Not taking them down is both wrong and stupid.  I can't help wondering what the defendant is going to say in defense of not taking them down?  I guess we'll read that eventually.

562

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfiles 3rd suit for 2012

« on: January 19, 2012, 12:28:10 PM »

On the "why the company should pay something" side: This appears to clearly be a commercial site.  Having looked at some of the images,
(example: One of the images seems to be this:

http://www.masterfile.com/em/search/#session=1326991869382&id=1326991869037&color=&colour_key=0&format=hvsp&keyImage=&keyword=700-00035858&license=ALL&mode=search&sort=hatter

)

 if they did appear on that site, they were being displayed in precisely the form where they have value.  That is: Those aren't images one would use on cards/ calendars/ wall papers. They are images one would use to make your company web site look reputable. 

On the: Why masterfile is unlikely to get the million+ they seek:

It looks like some forms includes names of only 3 or 4 or fewer photographers 'and others' at least two indicate there were a continuation sheets. (These are not provided at SCRIBD).    So, if previous judges see this as a flaw in registration, then masterfile isn't going to get statutory damages.

The artist for the photo I'm using as a example is listed as Rick Fischer.   If he's ever listed as author that will be on a continuation sheet. 


On the removal of copyright information: The complaint doesn't include screenshots of the images at the defendants site, but  based on the numbers one appears to be
http://www.masterfile.com/em/search/#session=1326991869382&id=1326991869037&color=&colour_key=0&format=hvsp&keyImage=&keyword=700-00035858&license=ALL&mode=search&sort=hatter

The large versions clearly have "masterfile logo" splattered across them. The thumbnail doesn't: http://image1.masterfile.com/em_t/00/03/58/700-00035858t.jpg So, if the bit supposedly removed is "masterfile", the fact it's not on some of the images might be evidence no one removed it.

On willful: I searched for a match to http://image1.masterfile.com/em_w/00/03/58/700-00035858w.jpg at google and didn't find one.  So these aren't all over the web and one might not readily run across one with copyright info taken off.. Of course that doesn't mean the defendant (or their web master) didn't get them from someone else who took the copyright info off-- but this isn't like all those Hawaii scenery images.

I can't help but imagine the company will settle. It looks like a real but small business.  http://nitaac.nih.gov/nitaac/intelligent-enterprise-solutions-llc

Would they really want to spend a lot of time on this?

563

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I found a copyright infringement!

« on: January 17, 2012, 01:07:02 PM »

What does Julie really look like?

564

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 16, 2012, 07:29:05 PM »

He does take splendid photos! 

565

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 16, 2012, 04:57:50 PM »

The requirements appear to be here:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#409

(1) the name and address of the copyright claimant;
(2) in the case of a work other than an anonymous or pseudonymous work, the name and nationality or domicile of the author or authors, and, if one or more of the authors is dead, the dates of their deaths;

Exhibit B seems to be the application and lists Masterfile as claimant for the copyright of the collection.  The name and address are under point "4" on the form.  Under 8 they list themselves as "owner of exclusive right".

Then, scrolling down, we get to B which is a list of authors. Names are given; a check mark indicating whether the work is for hire was given, but nationality and addresses are not given.  No dates of death are listed, but that might not matter as George Contorakes appears to be alive and kicking.

Reading the list of authors, I imagine there is a good reason for copyright law requiring name, and nationality and domicile. Without these things if two "Bob Anderson"s appeared, how would you decide which was the copyright claimant? What about "Steve Fitzpatrick" or "Bob Foster". Those are very common names.

I can see where a judge who takes the wording of the law literally would decide that the individual works are not registered by this action.

Has the judge's ruling in Corbis been appealed? If yes, what happened?

566

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 16, 2012, 03:48:05 PM »

http://www.ppa.com/ppa-today-blog/copyright-alert/corbis-responds-to-bulk-regist.php

"For any stock photographer who submitted work to Corbis (or anyone else who took ownership of the copyright "solely for the purpose of copyright registration"), the ruling invalidates the registration made on their behalf in the name of the third party."

But I think the image of the cat and dog might still be registered because the creator (i.e. photographer)'s name was included:

If you have contributed images to any stock agency to be registered on your behalf, please be aware those images are only registered as compiled works if your name as the creator was omitted from the registration application. Therefore, based on the court's ruling, you cannot rely on images registered in this manner to also be registered to you as an individual copyright owner.

Did Corbis not list the names of the photographers? I admit to not knowing the details and not being up on copyright. Is the issue whether or not the creators of the individual images got named important, and does the naming in the attachments Masterfile has count?

Clarification would be welcome.

567

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 15, 2012, 11:36:50 AM »

I was under the impression that photographers tended not give up their copyright ownership.

Am I mistaken on this: If Masterfile rather than Conteras owns the copyright, then after they get ownership they would no longer have to pay Conteras any fee. In contrast, if Masterfile has an license (or otherwise), they would pay Conteras, who  owns the copyright. 

568

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 14, 2012, 09:49:22 PM »

well isn't that interesting...I wonder if this guy is going to fight this.. I'm hesitant of even thinking of reaching out to him, as I already tried that with Aloha Plastic surgery, and we see where that went or is going..

I think this is his contact page. No email:
http://www.ewinganimalhospital.com/page4.html
Looks like you could phone and ask.   

569

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Is it Defamation for Blogger to say TSA Raped her?

« on: January 14, 2012, 04:53:33 PM »

Interestingly, the TSA agents attorney doesn't say the agent did not stick her fingers into the advice goddesses genitals. He merely says the TSA agent followed proper procedure.

If this is proper procedure, then the advice goddess has done americans a great service in blogging about this.  That's something we all ought to know so that we can see to it procedures are changed.

But in any case, it seems to me whether this was or was not proper procedure is irrelevant to the claim of defamation.  If proper procedure involves an action that meets some dictionary definitions of "rape" or that linguists would recognize is often called "rape",  it's not defamation for the advice goddess to use that word to describe what was done.   It's true that what happened might not meet the definition rape in criminal statutes in that jurisdiction, but criminal statues don't create or limit the meaning of words. 

Anyway, if that TSA agent wants people to not think badly of her, she's going to have to deny sticking her fingers into the advice goddesses genitals.  Saying she was just doing her job and objecting to the word choice isn't going to make anyone say, "Oh, now I see your side."

570

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators

« on: January 13, 2012, 06:15:07 PM »

if you had been a registered agent, and that poster came along and posted the cardinal picture, you would be covered, and you would have never gotten a letter as Getty would have had to issue a takedown notice.

My posters can't upload.  They can only hotlink.  While getting the letter made me anxious, the fact is that hotlinking doesn't violate copyright. So at least with respect to the images issue, I don't think I'd be getting much protection from DMAC.  After all-- yes they can write me scary letters. And then I can write back and discuss the issue here.

I think the bigger concern would be quoting text. But at my blog, most people post links to newspaper articles. Iquote and DMAC won't protect me there.  I guess I understand the notion that merely seeing I have a DMAC in place might make Getty or Righthaven-returned-from-the-dead stay away. But  I think I'm willing to risk given that I believe my quoting method falls under fair use and I would be willing to go to court on that.  My understanding is Righthaven lost. Big time. Right?