Messages

571

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 26, 2011, 07:44:56 PM »

Again, I feel this entire discussion is sidetracking the brilliance of the original post (and original idea).

The idea isn't to PREVENT them from spidering your site (or cached versions of your site). The idea is to make it a pain in the ass to have to remove a hundred different sites from their picscout program.

If enough people sent their own "demand letter" out, the stock companies would have to have their lawyer$ evaluate the claim. Then they would likely have to have $omeone $tart omiting these domain$. And you just know that sometimes one will slip through. That can really $tart to add up.

572

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

« on: August 26, 2011, 11:43:39 AM »

I understand everyone's point here. But why stop at $10,000? Why doesn't Getty just slap a $100,000 price tag on some of these generic "rights managed" photos they are sending the letters out over? I mean they certainly are not selling any at either price point.

They seem to think these photos are worth thousands of dollars for their appearance on the third level web page that gets 20 visits a month. I swear if any of these outrageous claims get tested in court the judge will laugh them out. And that is why I believe they haven't been tested.

Please note, I am not saying that some photographers work is not worth 10's of thousands. Take the moon landing example. The equipment might not have been all that by modern standards, but getting to the location WAS a little pricey.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that there is a huge chasm between getting an exclusive one-on-a-kind photo to feature prominently on your web site, and a 200 by 200 pixel photo of a handshake illustrating a business article three levels down. However the stock agencies do not want to take this into account. So if they are already claiming 10k is reasonable, why not 100k -- or a million?

573

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??

« on: August 23, 2011, 08:47:07 PM »

thoughts, feedback, IDEAS

You cant stop them searching your ISPs proxies and caches though.

Who cares? The idea wouldn't be to stop them from looking. The idea would be to make it burdensome for Getty to spider a site.

If I want to use a photo that a site claims is in the public domain, I have the extra burden of making sure it is not represented by a stock agency. So it is justifiable that if I allow a stock agency to tie up bandwidth on my site and inspect it with spiders, then I am within my rights to charge for this.

If enough people did this, it would make a difference. They would certainly have to spend time and money dealing with the issue (as we all have had to do).

If there were a template letter I would at least send it. If their was documentation on spotting the right user agent I would start logging it.

However, this all hinges on this written "demand letter" -- a written warning/request. I don't think hijacking anyone in court for spidering your public-facing site while not obeying the robots.txt file would fly. In lieu of a direct request (demand) the choice to obey robots.txt seems to be up to the person developing the spider.

But if you've been told not to spider it, and you do, that is a whole different story. I doubt any of this has been tested in court yet.

574

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Shuts Down Server without DMCA Complaint

« on: August 23, 2011, 01:14:16 AM »

This story should also be shared with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and http://www.chillingeffects.org. You need to get a statement from GoDaddy, preferably in writing, explaining why non-infringing sites were removed and who delivered and signed the takedown notice.

575

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 23, 2011, 01:00:46 AM »

I'll tell you what. If I was being hassled by Masterfile I would look at this transaction VERY closely. There is something _odd_ going on here.

Could you elaborate a little bit about what you are thinking?

I honestly don't know what is going on. I am just suggesting that this is worth watching.

Something just feels off. For one, the financing seems weird. This small company is acquiring this much larger company. In fact their last financial statement says:

The Company reported a net loss for the year ended March 31, 2011 of $3,730,834, a decrease of $641,327 over a net loss of $4,372,161 for fiscal 2010. As at March 31, 2011, the Company had a negative working capital of $1,982,399.

Close to 2 million dollars in the hole and they are BUYING Masterfile? Odd.

I invested in a company a few years ago called Syntax-Brillian. They made affordable LCD panels in the USA. The company was formed by merging a small publicly traded company with a very large private company. The merger made it possible to drive the price of the stock up. Things looked great for the company but within a matter of months several new deals were announced with over-seas companies. Then, suddenly, Syntax-Brillian announced they were filing for bankruptcy protection. The over-seas companies bought the IP from the company at fire sale prices and the investors got nothing.

Now I am NOT saying that is going on here. This is a totally different set of circumstances. First, this is all against the more speculative Canadian Venture market. But I would just watch and see what develops over the long game.

Another thing that seems odd is that Arius3D is touting how they will be the only company to offer 2D images and 3D models. This doesn't make sense. I don't see the advantage. You are either looking to license one or the other and they are not interchangeable.

I also wonder if Arius3D knows they are joining up with a company that threatens customers and potential customers with legal action regardless of the information presented. I see a lot of ill will on the Internet toward Masterfile. And this multimillion dollar deal hinges on Arius3D obtaining funding.  "The closing, scheduled for October 31, depends upon Arius3D's ability to raise the financing necessary to complete the sale."

If you read the article at:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/arius3d-to-acquire-masterfile-tsx-venture-lzr-1551561.htm you will get even more information about this affair. Seems like both parties really need this deal to go through. And it sounds like Loewen Ondaatje McCutcheon Limited has been tagged to do the initial financing. Is that company aware of the manner in which Masterfile conducts itself?

Look, I'm just throwing a bunch of questions out there. And maybe all this is much to do about nothing. But I'd encourage you to poke around a bit more. You can become a Arius3D shareholder for 9 cents and then you have right to ask any questions you want. They don't have a person in charge of Investor Relations, but if you identify yourself as a shareholder the CEO (John Wood) or Chairman (David Beutel) will more than likely get back to you.

Best of luck.

576

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 22, 2011, 05:27:34 PM »

I'll follow up with my reply from that thread:

This IS interesting. How does a company that is trading at 9¢ a share and has a market cap of less than $11 million (Arius 3-D) manage to buy a company (Masterfile) for $21.4 million in cash?

I'll tell you what. If I was being hassled by Masterfile I would look at this transaction VERY closely. There is something _odd_ going on here.

577

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 22, 2011, 05:23:00 PM »

I would classify those as a win, they didnt lose and they didnt draw and the infringers ended up paying...

I wouldn't. The point is that this still hasn't been tested or "won" in court.

Oh and I see masterfile have been bought out today....

This IS interesting. How does a company that is trading at 9¢ a share and has a market cap of less than $11 million manage to buy a company for $21.4 million in cash?

I'll tell you what. If I was being hassled by Masterfile I would look at this transaction VERY closely. There is something _odd_ going on here.

I meant wilful infringements as in wilfully deleting copyright information contained within the image (Title 17 1202).

That would be hard to prove. Unless someone was an employee of a firm and they testified that their boss told them to remove the copyright info. I suspect willfully deleting copyright info is very, very rare. In the VAST majority of the cases on this board. People were either told the template or stock was theirs to use OR they have pulled down images from other sites and incorrectly assumed they were in the public domain.

In court, if a representative insists that the image had copyright information affixed and the defendant says that it did not come from that site and did not have it at the time, willful infringement will not be proved.

578

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 22, 2011, 03:08:35 PM »

photographer said:

in all the cases I am aware of (I know a lot of other Getty photographers) they have won.

Really? My take is that in the US nearly all the handful of cases that Getty has won have been default judgments. The other "wins" were settlements before a verdict was actually rendered.

I would be very interested to learn which cases in the US have gone all the way to trial with plaintiff and defendant present and a judge has awarded the plaintiff.

I cannot find them.

579

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar to ask Attorney Gen. of NY to investigate Masterfile. EVIDENCE AVAILABLE!

« on: August 22, 2011, 02:36:53 PM »

Dear Mr. Nemen Night,

First my sincere apology for calling you "dude."  No offense was meant by it. Perhaps I have lived on the West coast too long.

We need to motivate people to fight and influence changes to the presently outdated copyright laws.

I could not agree more with this quote. That is WHY I am still here. I believe there needs to be a change in the way these companies do business AND in the copyright law. If you look at my previous posts you will see this is true.

However I have some problems with the manner in which you have conducted yourself on this board:

• Your earliest advice was to recommend to everyone to "ignore. ignore, ignore" these demand letters. I think that is patently bad advice. If you ignore enough attempts at contact, you become perceived as an easy target for a default judgment. Sooner or later Getty will run out of suckers that just roll over and then they will have to start bringing action. My bet is that they will go after easy default judgments first.

• Accusing this board and Oscar of somehow being in on it and not being motivated to change things is not okay with me. I don't want to look for the thread right now, but in another thread you essentially accused Oscar of sitting on his hands and generating response letters with no intent to help fight the extortion. This is patently untrue. He has donated hours of time to coach people on what their possible course of action might be. Just because he isn't doing what you want on the timetable you want it, does not make it okay for you to state your opinion as fact and identify it as some conspiracy.

• You have an abrasive personality. At a time when people should be working together to find solutions, you go out of your way to alienate. Example: Soylent Green is every bit as passionate about this issue as we are. But he engages the photographers that visit this board in a healthy debate without calling them "greedy" or "crooks." Another example: I didn't go "crying" to Getty. (I also didn't foolishly 'ignore, ignore, ignore'.) I dealt with their complaint head on, made my position abundantly clear and related the facts. My God, even this thread title "Oscar to ask Attorney Gen. of NY to investigate Masterfile..." That is awfully presumptions. Would it not be appropriate to say "Oscar PLEASE ask Attorney Gen. of NY to investigate Masterfile..."?

Side note: I'm also not going to get into how 500 cases on one's desk in total does not equal thousands of extortion letter-specific cases.

Maybe I don't have as much 'skin in the game' as I once did. (Although, who knows, Getty may be able to dig up a rights managed image that was inadvertently used in a comp in the mid-90's and I will be back in the fire.) The fact is I have contributed money to this board. I also have a standing offer to contribute to the legal fund of the first "innocent infringer" case that is brought against someone on this board. I'll pledge up to $300 because I believe in putting my money where my mouth is.

Look Mr. Nemen Night, I don't want to waste time fighting with you. I know having a large company threaten legal action is very stressful. But that action does not mean the rest of the world is out to get you. You, the people behind this board, the photographers who visit it, the stock agencies and myself all have different points of view.

Please do not attempt to minimize or criticize my efforts.

I am not minimizing your efforts. If you've already sent a letter to the NY Attorney General I applaud that effort. I think you should share a draft of it and post the AG address. But I will criticize your efforts when I think you are being rude, counter-productive or offering bad advice. I hope you'll understand.

580

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar to ask Attorney Gen. of NY to investigate Masterfile. EVIDENCE AVAILABLE!

« on: August 20, 2011, 11:32:13 PM »

Dude, you seem to have this all figured out and you think this whole class action case is a slam dunk win. I have a solution for you:

Hire Oscar.

Write a big check to cover his expenses while he tries to file a class action suit against companies that claim they are protecting their IP. They will obviously fight the case with everything they have and it could take hundreds of hours. But you are certain it is a home run. YOU can be the big hero and I am sure you can work out an agreement where you see the lions share of the legal fee portion of the settlement.

The solution for what you want is simple. Just put your money where your mouth is.

P.S. You keep throwing around THOUSANDS of letters like that is a fact. Please point me to where this is documented. Based on my observations on this site over the last year, my guess is that Oscar has produced somewhere in the low hundreds of letters, if that. Forty of sixty grand over three or more years is not my idea of some kind of get rich scheme.

581

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty sends DCMA notice to google

« on: August 20, 2011, 11:11:59 PM »

@Doctor C --

There is nothing in the DMCA law preventing you from declaring yourself as your own agent. The rule is as follows:

(2) Designated agent. — The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:

(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.

The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, in both electronic and hard copy formats, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory.

The only reason you would need to spend the $135 to get the Copyright office's directory would be if you did not want to be contacted regarding these issues or wished to remain anonymous. Most small web shops can be their own agents and have their contact information prominently displayed.

That is my read on it.

582

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?

« on: August 19, 2011, 07:28:25 PM »

You DO rock SG.

You might also be interested in a recent article in the Seattle Weekly about copyright trolls and the movies. They are pressuring people to settle for very high amounts of money. Keep in mind, these trolls have no real proof that the people they accuse have actually downloaded the movie. All they have is an ip address, so it could have been a neighbor boosting their wireless or even someone else in the household:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-08-10/news/porn-piracy-bittorrent/

My favorite part of the article and something hat might inspire someone here:

In February, a Massachusetts man named Dmitriy Shirokov filed a class-action lawsuit against Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver on behalf of himself and 4,576 other John Does accused of downloading a German-made film titled Far Cry. Shirokov is seeking $5 million in damages from the attorneys, arguing that they engaged in "fraud and extortion" by pressuring him for settlement payments and intentionally overstating the possible repercussions of not paying up.

"It's clear that this is an injustice, and our client wanted to see something done about it," says Shirokov's attorney, Dan Booth. "The statutory damages—what they are threatening people with and saying 'If you don't settle, we may go after you in a court of law seeking these damages'—they reference cases that just don't apply. They have no relationship to what they could actually get in this case. They're not playing it straight. The law doesn't support their claims."

Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver are fighting back in court, and the outcome of the case against Shirokov and his co-defendants is still pending.

583

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can we start a "Success Mission Accomplished" Thread for success stories?

« on: August 19, 2011, 01:19:57 PM »

SG -- I am certain that is what they were banking on. My first contact with Getty made it very clear that they were interested in getting the money and not so much about getting the story straight.

I also wonder if the shifting tide in public opinion has motivated them to change tactics and possibly lighten up. In the last two weeks I've seen more coverage about the issue of trolling. NPR's "This American Life" had an excellent and ironic story about patent trolls (worth hunting down). And last week the LA Weekly had an article about Piracy Trolls -- lawyers suing on behalf of film companies for illegal downloads of movies -- based on a users IP number. And of course I expect this board has helped a great deal informing people on how to respond and what their options are.

The Weekly article told of some sanctions that were taken against some of the lawyers when the judge learned of their strong-arm techniques.

Anyway, the intent of my long story wasn't to gloat (although I am very happy.) I hope it gives people here a feeling that they can and should fight if they feel they are in the right.

584

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can we start a "Success Mission Accomplished" Thread for success stories?

« on: August 19, 2011, 01:00:10 AM »

First, this is a long post. But it's worth the read, I swear.

We don't see to many posts from people that get to share their success with the group. Well I am happy to announce that last week I got an email from an attorney at McCormack notifying me that Getty would not be pursuing a case against me. My total out of pocket cost: zero dollars. (However hours of letter writing and more than a few sleepless nights that I'll never get back.) Here's my story:

I am a multimedia designer and developer. Part of my business is developing and hosting web sites for my clients. In March of 2005 I was hired to create a site for a client to promote a TV show they were developing. All of the photos, images, logos and copy was provided by this client. My job was to create the HTML pages from the provided artwork and build a short demo video. I hosted this site on my website.

I should take a moment and interject that I take copyright very seriously. I have some stock video and animation footage up for sale on a couple stock footage sites. I have spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars over the years purchasing stock photography, video and audio. It was my understanding that my client had the rights to the images he was asking me to post.

Well the show never went anywhere and eventually my client moved to northern California or Oregon. Years went by and then in (I believe) February of 2011 I got a letter from Getty Images demanding $3850 for the use of four images. I immediately removed the reference to this section of my web site, essentially scrubbing it from public view.

The next day I phoned Getty Images and spoke to a person that insisted I pay them for these images. I explained that I was providing a hosting service for the developer of this show. As such, I was covered under Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I told them I have complied in blocking access to the images to which they claim to hold the copyright. But I will not pay for these images. This is the extent of my communication with Getty Images.

Then, on May 14 I received a letter via Fed-Ex from the Seattle law firm McCormack Intellectual Property Law. It stated that I still had the images accessible and was willfully infringing. This was not true as there was no link that could lead to the images on my site. However I did go the extra step and completely removed the entire directory from the site.

This letter made references to "extensive efforts to reach an amicable conclusion." There was no attempt on their part to reach a solution. I had one phone call and related that the images were removed and that I was hosting this site for someone else. The only other contact I had was when I phoned one of their acquired companies, iStockPhoto. I requested that they close my account and refund my money since I no longer wished to do business with a company that sues their customers. The person I spoke to laughed and said "good luck with that, we don't issue refunds on credits over 30 days old."

So the following week I emailed McCormack. I expressed my irritation for having to deal with images for a project that wasn't mine. I requested a copy of the Copyright Registration for the images that were identified. I told them if Getty was not the original copyright registrar to please provide a chain of title. Adding that once I obtained proof that Getty held the rights to these images I would make my best effort to put them in touch with the person that provided the images. I told them that if Getty decides to pursue this matter with me further, I am going to insist they pay my legal fees. The next day I contacted a friend who is a lawyer and had a brief discussion. He told me to hold off on hiring him and see what developed.

Well, a couple months passed and I got a phone call. I was told that Getty was "willing to dismiss the unauthorized use claim against Motion City Films." And that, " Getty Images shall keep the terms of this settlement confidential, except as required by law." Well they might want to keep the terms of this confidential, but I am under no such constraints.

I seriously hope that this gives other people facing similar circumstances the will to stand up and fight -- not just cut a check. Based on this experience I will never purchase another stock ANYTHING from Getty or iStockPhoto again.

585

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice

« on: August 19, 2011, 12:19:20 AM »

VIN1028,

I would say that you are in the position to just about tell the photographer or stock agency to pound sand.

SG just put up a great explanation of the copyright registration law in the US. See:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2188.msg2854.html#msg2854

This is one case that I would think would be highly unlikely to go to court. You may want to consider making a low-ball offer without admitting any guilt and in the interest of not wasting time. I have read on here that such a good-faith settlement offer might mean they have to pay all court costs (theirs and yours) even if they win an award. (In the VERY unlikely case that this went to trial.) I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

The one thing you should be doing is trying to find out and document for yourself when and where the image first appeared on the Internet. Also see if it appears anywhere else and if there are similar images available that are not "rights managed" and available for a flat license (or public domain). Also you need to document your story as to how you came upon having the image on your site.

I think it's funny the artist is just now getting around registering it but wants you to pay for using it for years. Pretty snakey.