646
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Hypocrite of the Century!
« on: April 05, 2012, 11:06:31 PM »
They've really screwed themselves.
A good find. Pure gold.
S.G.
A good find. Pure gold.
S.G.
| Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program | |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
647
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Another Pinterest update, they seem to be scrambling
« on: April 03, 2012, 06:58:34 PM »
Pinterest actually storing the images on their server is a big problem.
Of course, PicScout is just as guilty of that sort of thing...
S.G.
Of course, PicScout is just as guilty of that sort of thing...
S.G.
648
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: From the utterly silly side
« on: April 03, 2012, 06:57:21 PM »
Lol'd hard.
You certainly know AOR, buddhapi.
At least a certain lady lawyer is loyal to a Canadian band (Heart), which is considered to be "the thinking man's Led Zeppelin"...
But, seriously, all this seems to be "over the top".
http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Haha+_a5eed80612d5a9718a151619132064fa.jpg
S.G.
You certainly know AOR, buddhapi.
At least a certain lady lawyer is loyal to a Canadian band (Heart), which is considered to be "the thinking man's Led Zeppelin"...
But, seriously, all this seems to be "over the top".
http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Haha+_a5eed80612d5a9718a151619132064fa.jpg
S.G.
649
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Another Pinterest update, they seem to be scrambling
« on: April 03, 2012, 03:14:28 PM »
Didn't take long for legal problems to rear their ugly head.
Does the content actually reside on their servers, or are the images linked in the manner that Google Image Search does it?
S.G.
Does the content actually reside on their servers, or are the images linked in the manner that Google Image Search does it?
S.G.
650
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got My Getty Letter - Thank You For This Site
« on: April 03, 2012, 03:12:24 PM »
Something important to note is that being super-cooperative and apologetic won't help.
They just want the money.
S.G.
They just want the money.
S.G.
651
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in Germany
« on: April 03, 2012, 03:11:25 PM »
hmmm... just curious about something...
If you're sent a "cease and desist", and you comply, could it all be over and done with?
Could one simply say that the matter was "resolved", even if they want money later on?
S.G.
If you're sent a "cease and desist", and you comply, could it all be over and done with?
Could one simply say that the matter was "resolved", even if they want money later on?
S.G.
652
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??
« on: April 01, 2012, 04:40:05 PM »
Further to Lucia's comments, I think that the strongest position to be in is as follows.
It's probably best that the alleged infringer could produce the website code to show that he/she didn't host the content on their server.
If one attends court without such supporting evidence and the plaintiff says, "yes it resides on the server", but the defendant says, "no it doesn't", then the judge has to make guess as to whom is most credible.
That can be unpredictable. But, I do think that with such evidence on hand, one probably wouldn't be sued in any event.
S.G.
It's probably best that the alleged infringer could produce the website code to show that he/she didn't host the content on their server.
If one attends court without such supporting evidence and the plaintiff says, "yes it resides on the server", but the defendant says, "no it doesn't", then the judge has to make guess as to whom is most credible.
That can be unpredictable. But, I do think that with such evidence on hand, one probably wouldn't be sued in any event.
S.G.
653
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??
« on: April 01, 2012, 10:42:13 AM »
The problem with attempting to invalidate Picscout's evidence in court is that Getty would spend millions to defend it.
Picscout is Getty's bread and butter, and a strike against it would cost Getty dearly.
It's probably cheaper and simpler to fight Getty on standing (they don't own the rights to much of their collection).
S.G.
Picscout is Getty's bread and butter, and a strike against it would cost Getty dearly.
It's probably cheaper and simpler to fight Getty on standing (they don't own the rights to much of their collection).
S.G.
654
Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: EFF Slams Righthaven CEO For Pretending He Can Ignore Court Orders
« on: March 31, 2012, 11:37:44 AM »
The whole Righthaven fiasco was a scam from day one.
They never thought that people would fight back the way that they did, and it killed Righthaven off.
I feel sorry for anyone who paid them; they'll never get their money back.
I doubt that any criminal investigation will ever be made, but Gibson et al are fraudsters.
This is why people who receive demand letters from anyone should do their homework.
Righthaven was never entitled to any settlements.
S.G.
They never thought that people would fight back the way that they did, and it killed Righthaven off.
I feel sorry for anyone who paid them; they'll never get their money back.
I doubt that any criminal investigation will ever be made, but Gibson et al are fraudsters.
This is why people who receive demand letters from anyone should do their homework.
Righthaven was never entitled to any settlements.
S.G.
655
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??
« on: March 30, 2012, 05:42:27 PM »
I quite agree with everyone here that lying about anything is a bad idea.
Most judges are quite experienced, and can ferret out the truth.
S.G.
Most judges are quite experienced, and can ferret out the truth.
S.G.
656
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??
« on: March 30, 2012, 05:13:33 PM »
I wouldn't be too surprised if some "faked screen shots" came up at some point, from some copyright troll.
Look at Riddick; it has been reported several times that he was faking things; say that his image was used when it wasn't the same image, fake letters from lawyers, etc.
In the case of Getty and their ilk, there's probably quite a few actual infringements found daily.
They wouldn't have to even think of having to fake it.
It would be interesting if one could show on an Internet archive that the image in question wasn't on the alleged infringer's site, thereby showing that a screenshot was faked.
That would be one way of proving it.
S.G.
Look at Riddick; it has been reported several times that he was faking things; say that his image was used when it wasn't the same image, fake letters from lawyers, etc.
In the case of Getty and their ilk, there's probably quite a few actual infringements found daily.
They wouldn't have to even think of having to fake it.
It would be interesting if one could show on an Internet archive that the image in question wasn't on the alleged infringer's site, thereby showing that a screenshot was faked.
That would be one way of proving it.
S.G.
657
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Expiry of Arius3D's Agreement to Acquire Masterfile
« on: March 30, 2012, 05:04:46 PM »
I really thought that Arius3d saw value in pursuing copyright infringements, and wanted to get into the game and step it up a notch.
That's the only valid reason that I could see that Arius would want MF's portfolio of stock images.
I don't think that MF's "distribution network" would have added much value to Arius3d's business.
This is also speculation on my part...
S.G.
That's the only valid reason that I could see that Arius would want MF's portfolio of stock images.
I don't think that MF's "distribution network" would have added much value to Arius3d's business.
This is also speculation on my part...
S.G.
658
Getty Images Letter Forum / Expiry of Arius3D's Agreement to Acquire Masterfile
« on: March 30, 2012, 10:34:48 AM »
Expiry of Arius3D's Agreement to Acquire Masterfile
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/expiry-of-arius3ds-agreement-to-acquire-masterfile-tsx-venture-lzr-1638082.htm
I think that this would have been a money loser.
Fewer people are paying infringement claims. If they took many people to court, it would destroy their reputation eventually.
S.G.
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/expiry-of-arius3ds-agreement-to-acquire-masterfile-tsx-venture-lzr-1638082.htm
I think that this would have been a money loser.
Fewer people are paying infringement claims. If they took many people to court, it would destroy their reputation eventually.
S.G.
659
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the letter ....A question and my plan....
« on: March 29, 2012, 08:42:05 PM »
Interesting thoughts, Buddhapi... I'm looking forward to your findings.
Also, the Masterfile/ Arius3d deadline comes up tomorrow...
S.G.
Also, the Masterfile/ Arius3d deadline comes up tomorrow...
S.G.
660
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: A good read regarding Pinterest and infringement
« on: March 28, 2012, 04:24:43 PM »
I enjoyed your post and the linked article, Buddhapi.
I also agree with you about the "linking" issue.
I think that when a person uses "technically" when speaking of legalities, it's just a weasel word to imply that people are liable when they aren't.
My opinion is that it's way too late to change copyright laws to make "linking" an infringement. Search engines, etc., are too valuable and ingrained into our daily lives.
I think that the author's estimation of the market "shadow economy" for stock imagery is grossly inflated.
We could evaluate the auto industry to be worth 5 to 7 times what it is, assuming that the bulk of customers purchase Acuras, Cadillacs and Lexus's. However, the bulk of the market is buying economy cars.
The same is true for the stock image industry. We could estimate that each infringed photo is worth $1000 to $10,000 each.
But, the people that infringed wouldn't have bought those photos at anywhere near those prices.
These days, commercial sites put up photos of their products on their valuable web real-estate for the most part.
The whole Web business has been changed from "cool sells" to "customers want value, they research carefully, and we have mere seconds to capture their interest and dollars".
The article implies that infringements have something to do with stock image companies going out of business.
While I'm sure that's true to some extent, I'm not so sure that we should lament that a company that goes out of business because there's no market for the products that they sell, or that they cannot sell their products for some reason, especially price.
To suggest otherwise would be some form of communism.
The author also states that:
"To wit, Pinterest’s own TOS stipulates that when you upload a photo to Pinterest, you are granting it a "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license to use” your photos on its site and "application or services." While this is applicable if you own the photos you upload, you cannot grant this permission for photos that aren’t yours."
I say that the author and Pinterest are clearly incorrect. You cannot transfer "ownership" or "rights" electronically. An actual signed, dated agreement must be drawn up.
Furthermore, the author mentions that, "But to do so in compliance with copyright law would require a series of rights access that cannot be scaled up to serve the public at large without a centralized (and streamlined) rights clearinghouse... Without such a clearing house, the law is the law, and the courts will eventually be forced to reconcile the law with society’s desires."
My opinion is that we already have a "clearing house" called the Copyright Office. It's just that it's not fine-tuned and optimized for trolls.
I'm quite glad that it isn't.
Copyright trolls hide behind lies and twisted legal claims.
They even try to suppress public discussion of what they are doing.
Here's a mask made just for them:
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/9753/freehitlermask133296405.jpg
But, trust me... we know who you are.
S.G.
I also agree with you about the "linking" issue.
I think that when a person uses "technically" when speaking of legalities, it's just a weasel word to imply that people are liable when they aren't.
My opinion is that it's way too late to change copyright laws to make "linking" an infringement. Search engines, etc., are too valuable and ingrained into our daily lives.
I think that the author's estimation of the market "shadow economy" for stock imagery is grossly inflated.
We could evaluate the auto industry to be worth 5 to 7 times what it is, assuming that the bulk of customers purchase Acuras, Cadillacs and Lexus's. However, the bulk of the market is buying economy cars.
The same is true for the stock image industry. We could estimate that each infringed photo is worth $1000 to $10,000 each.
But, the people that infringed wouldn't have bought those photos at anywhere near those prices.
These days, commercial sites put up photos of their products on their valuable web real-estate for the most part.
The whole Web business has been changed from "cool sells" to "customers want value, they research carefully, and we have mere seconds to capture their interest and dollars".
The article implies that infringements have something to do with stock image companies going out of business.
While I'm sure that's true to some extent, I'm not so sure that we should lament that a company that goes out of business because there's no market for the products that they sell, or that they cannot sell their products for some reason, especially price.
To suggest otherwise would be some form of communism.
The author also states that:
"To wit, Pinterest’s own TOS stipulates that when you upload a photo to Pinterest, you are granting it a "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license to use” your photos on its site and "application or services." While this is applicable if you own the photos you upload, you cannot grant this permission for photos that aren’t yours."
I say that the author and Pinterest are clearly incorrect. You cannot transfer "ownership" or "rights" electronically. An actual signed, dated agreement must be drawn up.
Furthermore, the author mentions that, "But to do so in compliance with copyright law would require a series of rights access that cannot be scaled up to serve the public at large without a centralized (and streamlined) rights clearinghouse... Without such a clearing house, the law is the law, and the courts will eventually be forced to reconcile the law with society’s desires."
My opinion is that we already have a "clearing house" called the Copyright Office. It's just that it's not fine-tuned and optimized for trolls.
I'm quite glad that it isn't.
Copyright trolls hide behind lies and twisted legal claims.
They even try to suppress public discussion of what they are doing.
Here's a mask made just for them:
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/9753/freehitlermask133296405.jpg
But, trust me... we know who you are.
S.G.
Official ELI Help Options |
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |