Messages

61

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images sues Microsoft for 'massive' infringement over image search tool

« on: September 06, 2014, 09:32:47 AM »

I suppose that someone who was really motivated could use the bing results to in turn load single images on his/her site.

If someone is really motivated to load a single image, they can do that without using the widget.  They just visit bing, pick an image, find the uri and insert <img src='uri of image'> and voila!   Fiddling with the bing widget doesn't seem to make this any easier.

62

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need help! Mary Evans picture library

« on: September 05, 2014, 07:34:24 PM »

Mary Evans Picture Library appears to host a whole bunch of digital images that are scans of images that must, themselves, reside in  the public domain. (Examples include recruiting posters from WWI or photos of Anne Frank -- of diary of Anne Frank fame).  Of course this doesn't mean Mary Evans Picture Library can't have copyright on the derivative-- but their protection might be rather thin.  Also, they won't have protection on the underlying photo, so they will have to show that you copied their derivative (which you or someone working for you may have, of course.)

I'm curious to read their theory of how these images are "theirs", learn whether they registered their derivative images in the US and so on. (Though I'm not necessarily curious enough to advocate you communicate with them prematurely!)

Anyway, you can see the site here: http://www.maryevans.com/search.php

It might be nice to know which image is involved.

63

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images sues Microsoft for 'massive' infringement over image search tool

« on: September 05, 2014, 07:13:41 PM »

I was curious to learn what the 'widget' does.  I had to google around. Most pages just told me Getty was suing, and Getty thought it was copyright infringement but didn't describe precisely what the widget does; they just say it lest you "embed". Bing's own help page appear to be dead (possibly because of the suit?) But how things are embedded might matter in court.  So, I hunted a bit.

I found this page which shows an embedded image:

http://thrivesearch.com/bings-image-search-widget-lets-embed-image-results-web-site/
On that page, the author used the widget to "embed" search results.  In terms of nuts and bolts, it appears the 'widget' helps the author of a web page embed html/javascript  that looks sort of like this:


<div class="bingwidget" data-type="images" data-query="SEO marketing" data-layout="collage" data-count="" data-height="270px" data-width="480px" data-color="595959" data-style="padding:10px 10px 1px 10px;background:%%K%%;border:1px solid ccc;" data-market="en-us" data-safesearch="moderate" data-version="0.9" data-language="en-US"></div>
<p><script src="//www.bing.com/widget/bootstrap.js" async=""></script>
(I added the blue to highlight some terms.)

For the uninitiated "//www.bing.com/widget/bootstrap.js" points to a script (i.e. sort of computer program) which is hosted on bing.com.  Anyone who wishes too and load www.bing.com/widget/bootstrap.js and see the nearly unreadable javascript code. (Line breaks don't display, blah, blah.)  I know some javascript and might be able to dive into it-- but I"m not going to. I'll just say that it appears that what the above code does is load the first 6 results of a search results someone would get if they went to bing image search and entered "seo marketing" (don't add the "").  (Note the blue above matches some words in the 'widget' code.)

You can see what happens if you do the bing search by clicking this:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=seo%20marketing

Robert's javascript-foo is probably better than mine, but my guess is the javascript creates a frame of some sort, performs the search and returns the top 6 results, bundles those images into html and then permits page that hosts the 'widget' code (here http://thrivesearch.com/bings-image-search-widget-lets-embed-image-results-web-site/) to display the images.

As for how things are embedded:  I can't tell whether the images displayed at http://thrivesearch.com/bings-image-search-widget-lets-embed-image-results-web-site/ are hotlinked from the original sites that hosts them or from images copied by and then hosted by Bing.  I suspect if the images are hotlinked from the original sites, Getty can't win because in that case, all the Bing's javascript does is make it easier for "A" to hotlink "B"s images, which is already not copying and not displaying under copyright statutes (or at least under Amazon v. Perfect 10).  And Bing wouldn't be displaying or hotlinking at "A"s site. So Bing helping  A 'not copy' and 'not display' can't be a copyright violation on Bing's part. (Mind you: I am not a lawyer. So... who knows? Still, seems to me that Bing would have been wiser to do it this way-- which btw I think would be technologically feasible.  Which means someone will soon consult their attorneys, try to figure out what they think of this legal argument and do it. )

On the other hand "A" is displaying images hosted at Bing.... dunno.  Bing would at least be copying, hosting and displaying, so I guess it would depends on how the courts see "fair use".  In the case of the widget, the purpose of Bing's display may no longer be seen as "search" itself, but something else. So... who knows? 

 (As for which is done: I think someone could dig through the javascript to figure that out whether images at the sites containing the widget are hotlinked from Bing or the original sites. But I haven't figure it out.)

64

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Law Group Settlement Demand Letter (Attorney Mike Meier)

« on: August 26, 2014, 01:07:06 PM »

Domain registrars don't deal with DMCA takedown notices.  Usually, it is the website owner (me/my corporation) or the web host.  That is it.  It's a bit nonsensical and idiotic given the fact that my email is not difficult to hard to find. He could have sent it directly to me.  In fact, I publish how people can make complaints to me.

Registrars often do follow DMCA. See:
https://torrentfreak.com/registrar-suspends-torrent-domain-for-dmca-non-compliance-140614/

If your registrar says they will take down unless you send a response, I advise sending a respose:

1) You believe there is no defamation. But even if there is, defamation has nothing to do with DMCA and should not be used for a DMCA takedown.
2) The complaint does not indicate which images or text are copyrighted material by the attorney.  In fact, the post displays no images and, to your knowledge contains no copyrighted material belonging to the complainant.
[/quote]

65

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: On "innocent" infringement, re. damages range

« on: August 25, 2014, 07:56:42 AM »

So how about this:

The copyright owner, in their opening message, shows that they have a valid, timely registration of the images in question (including certificate numbers) and requests that just the lost license fee alone is paid for the use up to the date of discovery... which, for the majority of non-advertising and non-commercial uses, would be in the low three figure range: reasonable?

Would it also be reasonable to make mention that, should no reply be received to the message, the copyright holder may refer the matter to an attorney?

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying they may refer the matter to an attorney. Showing lost license fees-- especially if those really are lost license fees (as opposed to hypothetical amounts one imagines they might ask but which no one ever has or would pay) is a reasonable way to demonstrate loss to the photographer. If the requested amount is reasonable, and the copyright holder demonstrates they are the copyright holder, I think  judge would see the copyright holder as acting reasonably.   

I can't say what would happen in court in this circumstances, but I would at least consider the copyright holder to be acting reasonable in those circumstances, and it appears they would be able to prove damages. In that case, even an innocent infringer would likely be required to make the copyright holder 'whole'-- just as someone who hits your car must make you 'whole'.

Innocent infringement is not a get out of jail free card. But it's also important to recognize there are cases where the infringement is innocent, and the demands ridiculous. Likewise, there are cases where copyright infringement is flagrant. There are even cases where an innocent infringement could cause serious damage to a copyright holder, and in that case the 'innocent' could be on the hook for quite a lot (just as someone who accidentally cases property damage can be on the hook for quite a lot.)

66

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: On "innocent" infringement, re. damages range

« on: August 24, 2014, 04:02:56 PM »

There's further information which lays out the six factors (prescribed by the 2nd Circuit) as to how to determine an amount of Statutory Damages

1. The infringer's state of mind
2. The expenses saved, and profits earned, by the infringer
3. The revenue lost by the copyright holder
4. The deterrent effect on the infringer and third parties
5. The infringer's cooperation in providing evidence concerning the value of the infringing material
6. The conduct and attitude of the parties

My takeaway from this? If you receive an infringement notification from someone who has all their ducks in a row (correct and timely registration etc.) and they're offering you a chance to avoid litigation via negotiating a settlement, it's probably not a good idea to stick your head in the sand or, worse still, tell them to "get lost" (or variants thereof)

Just my €0.02.

Of course, if you mean that even innocent infringers might be wise to offer to settle, I agree. But that doesn't mean they need to pay whatever the copyright owner demands nor need they fear the courts inevitably ding the infringer the maximum amount.

If:

1. The infringer's state of mind was they didn't have any clue they were infringing and had no reason to believe so and copied without intending to profit  or save expenses
2. The infringer saved $0 expenses saved, and and earned $0 in profits
3. The copyright holder lost virtually nothing owing the the infringement
5. The infringer's cooperates in showing they made no  profit, anticipated no profit, they weren't trying to save money and, in fact, saved no money
6. and the copyright owner refuses to provide any proof the own the copyright, proof of value and so on. 

I suspect court would tend to smile on the infringer, and assess the statutory minimum of $200.

As for this:
4. The deterrent effect on the infringer and third parties
It is difficult to imagine how applying a heavy fine to an infringer who fits 1-3, 5&6 could deter third parties. Beyond that, merely being threatened and certainly having to go to court will likely be enough to motivate any innocent infringer to be more careful in future.

Obviously, openly saying "get lost" to a copyright owner would be unwise as this amounts to poor conduct and would cut against a defendant on point '6'.  But I would suggest some of the more heavy and intimidating letters sent by entities like Getty Images might also bee seen as poor conduct.  So, one might equally well advise some copyright owners to tone things down a bit-- particularly if they intend to later take an innocent infringer to court.  Courts might not smile favorably on a copyright owner who sends a very scary letter out to a mourning widow whose infringement constitutes posting something on a lightly trafficked blog.

67

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

« on: August 16, 2014, 05:13:32 PM »

Ahh! Sorry, I must have copied from this:

JRSEOVideoPros.com was registered on October 21st 2013. The site was on-line about a month before Getty Images first contacted us via USPS mail about the infringement (From memory in November). At the time of them contacting us the site was receiving absolutely NO TRAFFIC = i.e no visitors. In fact most of the pages were not even completed yet. Absolutely no business was transacted through the website. To further prove this point JRSEOVideoPros.com isn't even listed in Google (site:JRSEOVideoPro.com) and there isn't even a cached version from Google (cache:JRSEOVideoPros.com). Which this proves Google never even crawled the website. There is only a brief showing of JRSEOVideoPro.com on the "Wayback Machine".

which alternates the one with the "...pros.com" and the one with the "..pro.com).  You are correct that the one with the ".. pros.com" currently shows nothing with google.
https://www.google.com/search?q=JRSEOVideoPros.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=site%3AJRSEOVideoPros.com&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

The whois shows it owned by GoDaddy.
http://whois.domaintools.com/jrseovideopros.com

Thanks for clarifying. Obviously, much of what I wrote doesn't apply!

68

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

« on: August 16, 2014, 11:26:02 AM »

At the time we hosted 3 websites within our company; a company website, a marketing site, and a brand new website that was still in development. Of course it was the brand new website in development they were complaining about (JRSEOVideoPro.com; which isn't even registered nor active).

I think you mean something slightly different.  It may be that from some business point of view of your own, JRSEOVideoPro.com is some sense not active now. But the domain name 'JRSEOVideoPro.com' is registered; it appears it was registered 2 years ago (http://www.domaintuno.com/d/jrseovideopro.com). The domain name also resolves meaning that if one loads that url, you are taken to a page hosted on the server. The top level shows 'maintainance mode', but the site and page are online.  Google cache is empty, but short synopses of content show at
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fjrseovideopro.com%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
This strongly suggests something appeared at that url in early 2013 -- possibly a blog and images.

Which this proves Google never even crawled the website. There is only a brief showing of JRSEOVideoPro.com on the "Wayback Machine".

It appears you are mistaken about google crawling the site.  Google cache is empty, but a search on your site suggest it picked up text like

CSI:- Risky Business Class (Sneak Peek) - Small Business ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Video Production
Dec 15, 2012 - When five people are killed in a small plane crash a mile off the Vegas strip, the CSI team is called to investigate. Also, Sara feels the strain of ...
Good Morning Mindcrack - Marketing Strategy - 12/15/12 ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Videos of Video Production
Dec 28, 2012 - Orange Wool – orangewool.tv Submit a photo of Good Morning Mindcrack and your meal! – http Submit Topics of the Day – bit.ly ? Follow MC ...
Video marketing strategy | Local Video Marketing - Small ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Videos of Video Production
Sep 21, 2013 - Video Marketing Strategy for Local Video Marketing Video Marketing Strategy is becoming very clear that video sharing is the future of the ...
Local Storage Solutions for Madison, WI - Small Business ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Video Production
Sep 28, 2012 - Moving companies provide a variety of services for those who wish to shift their house or office in one location completely to another one.
Video Marketing Course - Build Trust Using Video - Small ...
Video for site:http://jrseovideopro.com/►►
www.jrseovideopro.com/video-marketing-course-buil...
Aug 31, 2013
Video Marketing Course: In this Video Marketing Course video marketing coach Matthew McDonald shows how ...
Small Business IT Consulting (Glossary Definition ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Video Production
Jul 14, 2013 - http://HowToStartAnITBusiness.com Small business IT consulting firms give small companies access to the sort of expertise and strategic ...
VLOG (YouTube) ¿Qué Es GOOGLE ADSENSE ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Videos of Video Production
Apr 21, 2013 - Tienes TWITTER? ¡Sígueme! https://twitter.com/UskoKruM2010 ** FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/UskoKruM2010 **

As you can see from the website (JRSEOVideoPros.com) it isn't even registered nor hosted anywhere. This was done back in May 2014. There wasn't a need to keep it and we decided to relinquish the domain back to GoDaddy.

If so, you may need to sort out the 'whois'. My search found this http://www.jrseovideopro.com.ipaddress.com/

Contact Email

[email address hidden]
Creation Date

10/12/2011
Updated Date

07/09/2013
Expiration Date

10/12/2014
Registrant

Ricardo Blanco
JRSEO Marketing
9562 Winter Gardens Blvd Suite D254
Lakeside, California 92040
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 8809590182
Email: [email address hidden]
Administrative Contact

Ricardo Blanco
JRSEO Marketing
9562 Winter Gardens Blvd Suite D254
Lakeside, California 92040
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 8809590182
Email: [email address hidden]
Technical Contact

Ricardo Blanco
JRSEO Marketing
9562 Winter Gardens Blvd Suite D254
Lakeside, California 92040
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 8809590182
Email: [email address hidden]
Nameservers

NS1.TABCENTRAL.INFO
NS2.TABCENTRAL.INFO

None of the above necessarily means you ought to settle for the amount requested.  If the image is 2" in size and is rather bland, it may not be worth anywhere near that amount. Also: it may not be registered or Getty may not actually have a right to pursue this. It may be that the image was licensed to the company who created your site. It may be that it's in the public domain and so on.  (Or not. We would need to know the image and so on.)   It may be that the image was hotlinked (though your discussion sounds like you hosted it.)

Also, you appear to have a good case for "non-willful infringement" especially if you can prove that you hired someone else to create the site and especially if you can prove you asked them about licensing.  (Note: bad unethical web designers are a menace. That is why no one here objects to Getty going after the web-design company that violated copyright when making sites for their customers.  Those sorts of outfits put people like you in great financial jeopardy and deserve to have the book thrown at them.)  If you can prove 'non-willful infringement' you could be found 'guilty', but fine can be as low as $200. (Or it could be higher. That's up to the judge.)

 However having said that I think you have a good case for 'non-willful infringement' , it's important for you to express the facts as you  know them using proper terminology.  A judge won't like it if you appear to be shading the truth (even if you do so unintentionally.)   As far as I can tell, the domain was registered. (Maybe you meant 'the business' was not incorporated or something?)  The current whois suggest it remains registered to a Ricardo Blanco.  The domain once did host content, and that content seems to have been intended as a 'business' site-- thought it may not have taken off. Now the url now does resolve to more or less blank content.  It appears to have been crawled by google.  You should not make any contrary claims (nor even mistakenly make any that appear to contradict these facts.)


With respect to your discussions with your attorney, do be sure that their guidance is based on correct interpretations of facts-- for example: the site was crawled by Google and it appears to have hosted quite a bit of content. (This is not a major adverse fact-- Google crawls everything and fast. Also, external links are probably all from companies that do nothing more than track "whois" entries. )  The difficulty with your current rendition is it sounds like the site contained no content at all. 

As a business person disappointed the site attracted little traffic or revenue you may "think" of it this way in your mind, but as a matter of literal truth: that's incorrect.   If the image was registered, and you did host it (it appears you did) it may turn out that you should offer $200 on grounds that the infringement was non-willful and provably so. (Note: when settling do not admit infringement. Just say you are willing to settle to get this matter behind you). Should you chose to negotiate a settlement, also request Getty justify the size of their monetary demand and prove they have standing to sue on behalf of the copyright owner. 

69

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in Switzerland: this time with LAWYERS letter

« on: August 09, 2014, 08:28:13 PM »

1) robots.txt is a file an administrator can create that lets them place the equivalent of a "do not walk on grass" sign on their site.
2) 'robots' are programs people write to do things like crawl pages.
3) In principle, the robot.txt 'protocol' to permit administrators to create a 'do not walk on grass sign' and polite robots would be programmed to read that file. If a robot has a name (for example 'fred')  noticed a note in 'robots.txt'  says either " fred, do not walk on grass", or "no robot may walk on the grass, and the person who created the robot made it 'polite' it will 'not walk on the grass'. 
4) the wayback.org machine is 'polite'. So if you tell it to stay off the grass, it will.
5) When you see that message at the wayback.org it means it (a) read robots.txt, (b) saw robots.txt contained a note that told it to stay out so (c) robots.txt stays out. It's telling you that it read the "keep out" sign.

Note: in this context, "stay off grass" means: keep out of my site.

Also: there is no law saying robots must obey the "stay out" message. But archive.org does obey such messages.

70

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

« on: August 09, 2014, 09:35:53 AM »

WTF! Are you kidding me?  To permanently delete files, you have to go through tech support?  This has HUGE negative ramifications for Typepad users. What this means is that even if a user DELETES an image that might infringe a copyright, Typepad DOESN'T ALLOW IT!

I think one big issue with typepad here is that any hypothetical infringement after the Typepad user thinks they deleted the image is at least "not willful". Moreover, it is provably "not willful" because they can prove they deleted, and I suspect nearly any judge or jury would read Typepads confusing system and conclude that the defendent took steps to remove the image, thought they had worked, failed but did not know they failed.  We could argue about whether any infringement continued at all-- but even if one argued it did, at that point, the infringement is "not willful".

This matters a lot because if the defendant's infringement is "not willful", the statutory minimum is only $200 and judges do sometimes give statutory minima in copyright cases.

It's also worth noting that the Facebook like in the suit appears to merely be a hotlink of the Typepad link.  Assuming this is so and the Typepad link is not willful, the Facebook one is also not willful because it's really only 1 image on 1 server, not 1 image on 2 servers.   

71

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

« on: August 09, 2014, 08:40:18 AM »

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?

1) Doesn't "hot-linking" qualify as bandwidth theft?
Some people call it that.
2) Isn't this technically illegal?
I'm pretty sure the answer is "absolutely not".  But one never knows. Some small country somewhere may have made such a thing illegal.   That said: I don't think hotlinking violates any law anywhere in the US. If you know of any statute making this illegal, it would be interesting to read it.  Until I see one, I'll continue to believe it is not illegal anywhere. (It really doesn't make sense for it to be illegal.)
3) Even if hotlinking was illegal somewhere, hotlinking would not be a copyright violation.  Those complaining of this would need to make a claim under the correct statute and that's not copyright.
 
Some server administrators do not like hot-linking.  But their not liking it doesn't make it illegal.

Beyond that: preventing hotlinking is pretty much under control of the admin.  If the admin knows what they are doing they can easily use technical blocks to prevent hotlinking.  If you want to know how, google ".htaccess block hotlink" or something similar.  Creating the .htaccess file and blocking hotlinking is trivial. If the admin doesn't like the hot-linking that's what they ought to do.

I prevent some sites from hotlinking. I also prevent some sites from framing which is a sort of "really obnoxious super-hotlinking". But other sites hotlinking my content is not illegal as far as I am aware.

72

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again

« on: July 30, 2014, 11:08:03 PM »

Ordinarily. But there is that Washington Shoe case in the 9th circuit. It's only precedential value is in the 9th circuit-- but that's where Hawaii is.  So, the argument is because infringement was willful (due to images still being on Typepad) they venue can change to the copyright holder. That might work in Hawaii where the copyright holder works, it probably would not have worked in California.

It's going to be important for Peggie's lawyers to have a look at the argument in the recent shoe case and also point out that the links still being on Typepad do not constitute willful infringement because Peggy took down her links, but Typepad is the one who did not take down the links based on her request. Note: the Facebook don't look like a separate hosted image. That looks like a hyperlink to the Typepad server. So there was nothing to take down from Facebook because nothing was there.

He'll need other arguments for why any violation was not aimed at WA, but in particular, the fact that Typepad has this weird screwy system will need to be brought forward early rather than later.

73

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

« on: July 27, 2014, 08:27:11 PM »

Interesting cases, Oscar. But I'm not sure why case #1 chose to settle. If the images were hotlinked AND uploaded by another user on the site, it seems the owner was in the clear. Sure litigation would have taken time and cost money, but i believe they would eventually prevail.

I suspect a business would just prefer the issue to go away.  Out of pocket costs to litigate would exceed the settlement they were willing to pay, so it can be worth it.  Also: the mental energy for a suit can be burdensome and can distract from important business matters making settling worthwhile.

Of course settling and paying when you are certain the courts would not make you pay is only remotely worth it if the copyright  holder is willing to take the statutory minimum of $200. Otherwise, if they demand ridiculous amounts, it's just not worth it.

74

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

« on: July 18, 2014, 03:55:34 PM »

Ryan Block didn't ask for permission. He was frustrated and figured the only way to solve this problem was to get proof he was in this ridiculous position. No one in customer service is going to give permission. They have little to gain from it but it is obnoxious that they have a right to record you under the auspices of "training purposes".  Sometimes, there is no other way to solve the problem but to make the phone call and you are forced to being recorded. In that regard, turnaround is certainly fair play as far as I am concerned.

Of course, Timmy Mack (our well-studied outside Getty lawyer, favorite ELI screenshot photographer, and ELI distortion field historian) is going to get a screenshot of this new thread with Lucia's more conservative view claiming that I am once again using my "cult leader" status "inciting" ELI readers into "illegal behavior" once again despite the fact that journalists and bloggers around the world are simply on fire over the Comcast debacle. Let us also remember that Ryan Block is a tech journalist who probably has more experience than me in blogging and he CHOSE his course of action to freely disseminate for the greater good.

Matt,
I understand why Block recorded.  I think he was wise to do so. 

Also, on another thread, I also pointed out that Illinois became 1 party consent not because our legislature changed it's mind but because the Il. Supreme Court deemed the 2-party consent law violated the US constitution (specifically the 1st amendment).  In that regard, the IL resident who was charged under the law could not be convicted because the law itself was found to be null and void.  It's possible that ultimately other state courts will hear cases involving their own 2-party consent laws, or one of these will get to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS will rule those laws inapplicable as well.     Should that occur, then retrospectively any claims that those who recorded were exhibiting "illegal behavior" will be similar to claiming Rosa Parks was "breaking the law" when she sat in the front of the bus. She was violating a statute on the books at the time.  But the statute was ultimately thrown out and in direct consequence of her having violated it.

A similar thing happened to Illinois 2-party consent law.  Will that happen elsewhere? I don't know.

That said: even if these 2-party consent laws are ultimately thrown out,  knowing that law suits are time consuming, and pursuing them can interfere with people lives, relationships ability to make a living and so on, I think anyone recording should do so with their eyes open.   

Saying that, 'open eyes' also means knowing that in some states there are cases where 2-party consent becomes 1 party consent. For example: if the person recording is doing so to get proof of illegal activity.  I don't know what happens if they thought illegal activity was going on, but fail to get the proof.  But especially because Block is a reporter, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn he'd investigated FCC or any other applicable laws to learn precisely what laws governed customer service, recording of phones and knew both where the Comcast rep and he were located to make sure that he knew his recording fell inside the letter or the law. It is simply more prudent to do so.  One feature of that particular recording is Block waited 10 minutes before he began recording-- it may be 10 minutes was 'important' based on some rule, and Block may have made sure he had a witness in the room (which is perfectly legal.)  You don't really know-- and it does pay to do "belt and suspenders" sometimes as it can avoid the ordeal of multiple visits to courts-- all the way to SCOTUS. Even if you prevail, that's an ordeal!

So... yeah I do like to advocate caution where possible.

If Timmy takes your post as an attempt to exert your 'cult leader' status over the rest of us.... well, I guess I'm just not an obedient follower. Because I do like to make sure people know what risks might exist and do things with their eyes open. If they want to risk having to SCOTUS hoping to prevails, bravo. But some people prefer more boring lives!

75

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

« on: July 18, 2014, 12:46:36 PM »

Many states are 1 party consent.  If both parties live in such states if the party recording is one of the parties involved in the call, recording phone is entirely legal.  The case is more ambiguous in 2 party consent state where one could end up in a dispute which state law prevailed in any suit. I live in Illinois which previously was two party consent, but that law was thrown out the window by the Il. Supreme Court. 

If someone wants to start this practice, they can keep a list or two party consent laws.  When dealing with a customer representative ask: Where are you located. If they are in a one party consent state and you are also in a one party consent state, you can feel free to record.  If they are in a two party consent state, you can ask permission to record.  (Or for some states, simply stating you are recording is sufficient; for others you must get consent.)

Interestingly enough, these customer service representatives are often already being recorded by their employers. Their system will tell you that you may be being recorded for "quality control purposes".  You could, of course, tell them that you wish to record for precisely the same reason.  Don't expect their company's policy to permit them to grant you permission to record simply because it is their policy to record!  (I had a go around with Sears. See http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-i-got-sears-to-send-me-warranty-parts-i-hope/  I did ask to record and was told I could not do so.  I should note: all service people who I actually spoke on the phone were polite enough. In my opinion, Sears's problems are with the higher ups who dictate what their service personnel can say or do.  I wanted to record to be able to air a video that documented precisely what Sears customer service representatives did say when someone tried to obtain parts under warrantee.  )