Messages

61

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Factor - Episodes 4 & 5 (Robert Krausankas & Greg Troy)

« on: September 01, 2012, 09:06:29 PM »

Nice work, guys. You're getting better with every episode!

62

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile $12K per Image Extortion Letter

« on: September 01, 2012, 07:05:54 PM »

These "retroactive licensing fees" are totally absurd. You could hire a professional photographer, all the models, rent all the costumes, props, and sets and shoot this group of images for half the money.

I'd like to see BasterdFile explain exactly how they reach these astronomical figures for their "licensing fees."

63

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got 3rd Getty Letter Now I'm Not Sure

« on: August 28, 2012, 03:09:53 PM »

Excellent work, S.G.!

64

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Extortionist

« on: August 25, 2012, 01:06:04 PM »

Looks like Gettyboy spent too much time at the Kool-Aid bottle while he worked at Getty, and way too little time reading this forum and the legal nuances being discussed. I wonder if he's considering getting into the trolling action himself.

Thanks for detailing Getty's outdated business model and why they're so incredibly overpriced and increasingly irrelevant. We couldn't agree more on that. To be honest, we were largely aware of it.

You did forget to mention the copyright trolling that's necessary to keep Getty afloat in spite of their bloated operational costs.

65

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I'm done worrying about it.

« on: August 25, 2012, 12:50:39 PM »

Mike, that's a very good point which also applies to some of the more notorious trolls: They apparently have websites "seeding" their copyrighted content. How can Getty send hundreds of extortion letters a month and not catch even one of the seeders?

Same goes for Hawaiian Art Network and Vincent K Tylor. They claims they've send hundreds of cease and desist letters. Google doesn't show even one single DMCA removal request from either of them. There are literally HUNDREDS of sites seeding VKT images. Shouldn't they be interested in having those removed from Google results? Many of them are hosted in the US or have their domain registered in the US and can be taken down with one simple email to the ISP, domain registry or search engine(s) of one's choice.

Mike, why don't you post the website that's seeding the images for Getty? Let's see how long PicScout takes to find them once we actually provide them with a URL. My bet is NEVER.

66

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Haters

« on: August 25, 2012, 12:43:53 PM »

cemskee, if you read the thread and follow the links, you will see the explanation has been given. The explanation is simple and clear:

The image was taken with a personal iPhone and it was apparently similar enough to something in the Getty catalog to trigger a false positive.

Does that change your mind about danaisle? What would YOU do if you were in her place?

67

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: August 23, 2012, 04:13:43 PM »

Thanks for the update stinger. At least they're moving the information around, even though they're "softening" your language. Your efforts will bear fruit, especially when combined with other similar complaints calling attention to the issue, and they are certainly appreciated by this community.

68

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I'm done worrying about it.

« on: August 23, 2012, 04:02:48 PM »

Mike, do keep us posted on the follow up by Getty and their compliance peons. The general inclination of the forum has been to respond at least once asking them to make a better case for why one should be writing them a check.

Like Robert and Matthew say, responding once with a request for real, tangible proof of their claim will show "good faith" on your part. They never answer in a satisfactory way anyway, but at that point it becomes justifiable to ignore their unreasonable demand.

I do think you're taking a very healthy approach by not worrying about it. Let them worry about it, they're the ones who huffing, puffing and bluffing.

69

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Aloha plastic Surgery update

« on: August 23, 2012, 03:35:42 PM »

Thanks for the update, Robert. You've become quite the "Pacerazzi". 

70

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New ELI Factor Episode Released!

« on: August 19, 2012, 04:28:30 PM »

Nice work all around, fellas.

71

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image scraping: The Newsblur angle.

« on: August 18, 2012, 02:40:30 PM »

lucia, you can send the DMCA requests to any and/or all of the following: Their domain name registry, their ISP, and search engines such as Google. Google would remove offending URLs from their search results, which should have a positive effect on your SEO rankings by eliminating duplicate content, and a negative effect on their SEO rankings according to Google's latest announcements.

Sounds like these people are shameless asshats. I think you have a strong case and it's wise of you to document it thoroughly.

I don't understand why one should be required to opt-out of being blatantly plagiarized, but the least they could do is actually honor the offer to let you do so.

72

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image scraping: The Newsblur angle.

« on: August 17, 2012, 11:37:23 PM »

Jerry, that's kind of what I had in mind. Perhaps Newsblur would stop if asked. If not, perhaps it would be appropriate to consider a DMCA removal request. They're doing damage to their victims on many levels.

73

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image scraping: The Newsblur angle.

« on: August 17, 2012, 01:31:37 PM »

That's a very good point. How do you intend to respond to the scraping?

74

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Office Adopts Pilot Program Regarding Registration of Photographs

« on: August 16, 2012, 09:03:07 PM »

Yes, S.G., they already do most of that — in a limited way, which is to publicize the work's information. Maintaining the image database we'd like to see is a big part of the challenge. The current position of the C.O. is that they don't want to maintain a viewable image database:

There are related questions, raised by some, as to whether the Copyright Office should have a searchable database of visual images; as we understand it, the Office would make copies of deposits that claimants send to us for registration purposes. We think a government database would be wasteful, ineffective and fraught with legal and practical problems. As a policy matter, the Copyright Office has never in its 200-year history made copyright deposits widely available for viewing (e.g. display or public performance). In contrast to registration information, which is made publicly available, deposits (if they have been retained by the Office) may be viewed by others only under very limited circumstances and subject to regulations that are intended to protect the deposits from unauthorized copying. Some copyright owners may be fearful of having their deposits made available to the public in digital form beyond the limited display that has been the practice for many years. Such a proposition could have a chilling effect on registration, which would in turn reduce the number of works that come to the Library of Congress as deposits through the copyright system.

On a practical level, it is difficult to imagine how the Copyright Office or any government office could ever keep pace with the image technology world that exists outside our doors and beyond our budget. In reality, the Copyright Office does not have and is not likely to obtain the resources that would be necessary to build a database of works that are searchable by image, even if there are some copyright owners who would be amenable to such an undertaking. Our point of comparison is the comprehensive reengineering project that the Copyright Office is just now completing. Among other things, this project has made it possible for authors, publishers and other copyright owners to routinely register their copyright claims electronically. Under the “Electronic Copyright Office” (or “eCO”), claimants may complete copyright applications, pay the required fees and submit the appropriate deposit copies of their works—all on-line. The eCO portion of reengineering took five years and has cost $17 million to date. We used off-the-shelf software (in accordance with Congressional directives) and completed the project on time and within the budget Congress appropriated. It represents the single biggest overhaul of the Copyright Office since 1870 and the most significant adjustment to registration practices since 1978. Based on this experience, we believe it would be highly impractical for the Copyright Office to employ cutting-edge image recognition technology.

Finally, the process of searching for a copyright owner is not a function controlled exclusively by the Copyright Office. Although the Copyright Office is one resource, our records will never be a complete resource because registration is a voluntary process and many copyright owners, including photographers and visual artists, choose not to register. Thus it is the case already that when searching for a copyright owner, users look to private databases, websites, publishers, collecting societies, professional organizations, trade associations and many other resources.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html

This comment is part of the C.O.'s statements discussing orphan works.

75

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Office Adopts Pilot Program Regarding Registration of Photographs

« on: August 16, 2012, 04:21:42 PM »

The role of the Copyright Office is an important part of the discussion about making the law more equitable. There are a couple of logistic questions that have yet to be answered:

1) Is the Copyright Office going to be maintaining a humongous database with every copyrighted work in the world included, along with samples of the media? This is a huge undertaking and one that the C.O. has admitted they don't feel qualified to undertake without a huge boost in resources.

2) Could the C.O. take the role of certifying copyright database services? How would these services get paid for their work and expenses? What would qualify a copyright database registry? I guess it could be similar to domain name registries, but that's not exactly the smoothest system in the world either.

Of course, there's always the question of cost. Who's going to pay for the service of maintaining this registry or registries? The fees may have to increase substantially in order to create the ultimate dream copyright database.

No one's exactly chomping at the bit to take on such a huge project with such complicated legal implications, and no one is really volunteering to pay for the costs involved.

At least the C.O. has been candid about their reluctance to take on such a project.