691
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 08, 2012, 01:56:19 PM »
Like I said, please feel free to "release the krakken".
Looking forward...
S.G.
Looking forward...
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.
692
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« on: March 08, 2012, 01:54:42 PM »
The clock "normally" begins to run when the "owner" of the content discovered (or reasonably should have been aware) of the "infringement".
However, if the site was taken down in '06, can I assume that they found the infringement on some archive (such as they waybackmachine)?
If this is the case, then the limitation have expired. They've missed the point wherein they should have been "reasonably aware".
S.G.
However, if the site was taken down in '06, can I assume that they found the infringement on some archive (such as they waybackmachine)?
If this is the case, then the limitation have expired. They've missed the point wherein they should have been "reasonably aware".
S.G.
693
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 08, 2012, 12:18:08 PM »
Good discussion here; and yes we'll ease up a bit on Nick. In fact, I agree with the points that he made in his last posting.
Indeed, if people need professional help, so be it.
"Suing" has always been easy. You just pay the nominal fee, write your complaint, and you're in business.
It costs just over $300 dollars in the US, and only $50 in Canada.
"Winning" a lawsuit is the hard part. You must have everything in order, hire an expert, and have some luck on your side.
The "letters" effectively stop the harassment if you're being "trolled". But, if somebody wants to sue you, they can just do it anyway.
A large part of what has made people pay up (in my opinion) was the looming question of what companies like Getty had up their sleeve.
Recently, they've failed in an embarrassing way. But, yes, they may get their act together in the future, or come up with new strategies.
However, we needn't worry or speculate about what tools they have or don't have.
Because we can find out, and then make logical decisions accordingly.
If somebody wants to "release the krakken" so to speak, I'd love to hear about it on the forum!
S.G.
Indeed, if people need professional help, so be it.
"Suing" has always been easy. You just pay the nominal fee, write your complaint, and you're in business.
It costs just over $300 dollars in the US, and only $50 in Canada.
"Winning" a lawsuit is the hard part. You must have everything in order, hire an expert, and have some luck on your side.
The "letters" effectively stop the harassment if you're being "trolled". But, if somebody wants to sue you, they can just do it anyway.
A large part of what has made people pay up (in my opinion) was the looming question of what companies like Getty had up their sleeve.
Recently, they've failed in an embarrassing way. But, yes, they may get their act together in the future, or come up with new strategies.
However, we needn't worry or speculate about what tools they have or don't have.
Because we can find out, and then make logical decisions accordingly.
If somebody wants to "release the krakken" so to speak, I'd love to hear about it on the forum!
S.G.
694
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 07, 2012, 11:26:22 PM »
Matt, I wasn't referring to you and Oscar. I should have been more clear. I'm referring to the UK guy (Nick).
You've given a lot of your time for free, and so has Oscar for a very long time now.
Therefore, I feel that charging for "value added" services is fine (especially when such a service doesn't cost much more than a consultation with a lawyer).
Additionally, there's nothing wrong with fundraising to support the ELI effort. Furthermore, I feel that your approach has been balanced.
I just feel that we've established what Getty "has", and I also surmise that "Advernet" was the "big one".
I have no reason to believe that Getty "held back" on that case just so they could lose.
As such, I don't think that it's productive for the UK guy to come on here and try to make Getty into some sort of juggernaut.
If Getty can't do it who can?
I get the impression that this UK guy wants to increase sales of letters through fear.
S.G.
You've given a lot of your time for free, and so has Oscar for a very long time now.
Therefore, I feel that charging for "value added" services is fine (especially when such a service doesn't cost much more than a consultation with a lawyer).
Additionally, there's nothing wrong with fundraising to support the ELI effort. Furthermore, I feel that your approach has been balanced.
I just feel that we've established what Getty "has", and I also surmise that "Advernet" was the "big one".
I have no reason to believe that Getty "held back" on that case just so they could lose.
As such, I don't think that it's productive for the UK guy to come on here and try to make Getty into some sort of juggernaut.
If Getty can't do it who can?
I get the impression that this UK guy wants to increase sales of letters through fear.
S.G.
695
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 07, 2012, 06:10:51 PM »
My understanding is that the changes to the UK court system aren't intended to make it "easier" to sue people.
The changes are intended to streamline the system to save time and money, which benefits both the plaintiff and defendant.
But, if I'm mistaken, kindly clarify this.
I feel as if there's a bit of scare-mongering going on here. I know that people are entitled to their opinions...
However, making it seem as if Getty has it's house in order and are going to sue a lot of people is misleading given historical evidence.
Unless somebody has something to gain financially by scaring people.
S.G.
The changes are intended to streamline the system to save time and money, which benefits both the plaintiff and defendant.
But, if I'm mistaken, kindly clarify this.
I feel as if there's a bit of scare-mongering going on here. I know that people are entitled to their opinions...
However, making it seem as if Getty has it's house in order and are going to sue a lot of people is misleading given historical evidence.
Unless somebody has something to gain financially by scaring people.
S.G.
696
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Don't get mad, get even
« on: March 06, 2012, 07:35:38 PM »
Yes, a loser.
But, it's "feasible"... a lawsuit can be filed for any reason.
So, it's not a question of whether or not it's possible.
There just needs to be a sound strategy, and somebody would have to spearhead the effort.
S.G.
But, it's "feasible"... a lawsuit can be filed for any reason.
So, it's not a question of whether or not it's possible.
There just needs to be a sound strategy, and somebody would have to spearhead the effort.
S.G.
697
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Don't get mad, get even
« on: March 06, 2012, 03:43:05 PM »
Here's a new class action brought over high popcorn/candy prices at the theater:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/03/06/michigan-man-pops-amc-theaters-with-class-action-over-concessions-prices/
Ergo, it's totally feasible...
S.G.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/03/06/michigan-man-pops-amc-theaters-with-class-action-over-concessions-prices/
Ergo, it's totally feasible...
S.G.
698
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Don't get mad, get even
« on: March 06, 2012, 11:44:14 AM »
About a class action; it's come up several times on the forum.
The short answer is "yes", as people can sue for anything that they want, as long as they pay the fee.
In fact, I do think that there's some basis for such a lawsuit because of the points that you mentioned, among several others.
But, that's just my opinion. Of course, Getty would fight this quite vigorously, as a lawsuit such as this could kill their industry as we know it.
Here's the problem. While many wish that such a lawsuit would arise, the same people who'd like to see it happen don't have the motivation to bring it on.
For the most part, the people who paid when they didn't have to, or paid too much would be the plaintiffs because they've suffered "damages".
However, the very people who end up paying aren't "fighters" by nature. They've paid, it's over with, and they aren't going to start fighting after the fact.
You could probably categorize people by personality type (if you believe in that sort of thing) and predict the outcome of their situation according to their personality category.
S.G.
The short answer is "yes", as people can sue for anything that they want, as long as they pay the fee.
In fact, I do think that there's some basis for such a lawsuit because of the points that you mentioned, among several others.
But, that's just my opinion. Of course, Getty would fight this quite vigorously, as a lawsuit such as this could kill their industry as we know it.
Here's the problem. While many wish that such a lawsuit would arise, the same people who'd like to see it happen don't have the motivation to bring it on.
For the most part, the people who paid when they didn't have to, or paid too much would be the plaintiffs because they've suffered "damages".
However, the very people who end up paying aren't "fighters" by nature. They've paid, it's over with, and they aren't going to start fighting after the fact.
You could probably categorize people by personality type (if you believe in that sort of thing) and predict the outcome of their situation according to their personality category.
S.G.
699
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 06, 2012, 12:16:33 AM »
I have to agree with your post McFilms.
I'm not sure what the productive purpose "admitting guilt" has, or automatically assuming that Getty has some sort of "legal standing" without checking into it.
It's probably faster to just write them a cheque.
S.G.
I'm not sure what the productive purpose "admitting guilt" has, or automatically assuming that Getty has some sort of "legal standing" without checking into it.
It's probably faster to just write them a cheque.
S.G.
700
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Canadian Advice
« on: March 05, 2012, 11:43:57 PM »
Hi Chris,
I posted some Canadian info recently as follows:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/are-there-any-special-legal-considerations-for-lucky-canadians-receiving-el's/msg5487/#msg5487
I'm not a lawyer or anything of that nature.
Getty did file a couple of lawsuits in Canada back in 2007 and 2008:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_queries_e.php
It appears that they were settled out of court, or Getty dropped the cases.
You may request the dockets via fax or in person from the Can. Federal Court if you're interested.
I still don't see anything registered to "Getty Images" in the copyright database.
Another way that Getty could make a claim is if the photographer/artist has signed a valid exclusive contract with Getty with regard to the image(s) in question.
Then, Getty would essentially have "ownership" while the contract is in force.
However, Getty's been notoriously sloppy with their paperwork.
S.G.
I posted some Canadian info recently as follows:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/are-there-any-special-legal-considerations-for-lucky-canadians-receiving-el's/msg5487/#msg5487
I'm not a lawyer or anything of that nature.
Getty did file a couple of lawsuits in Canada back in 2007 and 2008:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_queries_e.php
It appears that they were settled out of court, or Getty dropped the cases.
You may request the dockets via fax or in person from the Can. Federal Court if you're interested.
I still don't see anything registered to "Getty Images" in the copyright database.
Another way that Getty could make a claim is if the photographer/artist has signed a valid exclusive contract with Getty with regard to the image(s) in question.
Then, Getty would essentially have "ownership" while the contract is in force.
However, Getty's been notoriously sloppy with their paperwork.
S.G.
701
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 05, 2012, 07:10:07 PM »
"I ain't even mad". (^_^)!!
S.G.
S.G.
702
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 05, 2012, 06:16:36 PM »
Very well said.
Yeah, we've really gone back and forth on the forum a ways back about Getty having "exclusive agreements", "registrations" and "standing".
There wasn't much ever produced to that effect, and the absence of evidence was used by trolls to argue that Getty had to be paid, because they had some "ace" up their sleeve.
Turns out that it was a bluff a whole time. Oscar did mention something in the past about the "Stone Collection" being registered.
But I just feel like the ship has long ago sailed on the whole "Getty has strong legal standing", and "they don't have to tell you anything" train of thought.
The danger of paying off people in case they "have something but won't tell us" has the effect that anyone could cook up a threatening letter, send it off,
and tell us to "pound salt" if we ask any questions. Then we pay it out of fear. Get ready for an epidemic of threatening letters if that's the case.
So, folks have to put up some resistance and be patient. Because companies such as Getty have to show their their hand sooner or later.
Heck, we could probably check it out on our own if we wanted to.
S.G.
Yeah, we've really gone back and forth on the forum a ways back about Getty having "exclusive agreements", "registrations" and "standing".
There wasn't much ever produced to that effect, and the absence of evidence was used by trolls to argue that Getty had to be paid, because they had some "ace" up their sleeve.
Turns out that it was a bluff a whole time. Oscar did mention something in the past about the "Stone Collection" being registered.
But I just feel like the ship has long ago sailed on the whole "Getty has strong legal standing", and "they don't have to tell you anything" train of thought.
The danger of paying off people in case they "have something but won't tell us" has the effect that anyone could cook up a threatening letter, send it off,
and tell us to "pound salt" if we ask any questions. Then we pay it out of fear. Get ready for an epidemic of threatening letters if that's the case.
So, folks have to put up some resistance and be patient. Because companies such as Getty have to show their their hand sooner or later.
Heck, we could probably check it out on our own if we wanted to.
S.G.
703
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 05, 2012, 04:57:43 PM »
"Sooner or later Getty will start providing this evidence and then where will you be?
You can deny everything until the cows come home but you really have to think beyond that point."
One needn't speculate and gamble on what evidence they (Getty) may or may not have.
Because, they'd have to submit their evidence before a court foray. Such evidence can be examined well before a court date.
They cannot just arrive on court day with "surprise" evidence.
If they cannot provide compelling evidence, then it's worth fighting them; in fact they might even back off before court.
But, if they have in fact registered the image(s) in question, and the one cannot "win", then a reasonable settlement could be made.
So, let's just cool it with the made-up bullshit.
S.G.
You can deny everything until the cows come home but you really have to think beyond that point."
One needn't speculate and gamble on what evidence they (Getty) may or may not have.
Because, they'd have to submit their evidence before a court foray. Such evidence can be examined well before a court date.
They cannot just arrive on court day with "surprise" evidence.
If they cannot provide compelling evidence, then it's worth fighting them; in fact they might even back off before court.
But, if they have in fact registered the image(s) in question, and the one cannot "win", then a reasonable settlement could be made.
So, let's just cool it with the made-up bullshit.
S.G.
704
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 05, 2012, 10:26:29 AM »
Just a few comments.
While Getty may be actively registering some of its images, I think that there's a roadblock to this process in many cases (besides the financials and time involved).
Getty doesn't want to pay the artists any more than it absolutely has to.
If an artist is approached about transferring "exclusive rights" upon Getty, the artist will definitely want quite a bit more compensation for that privilege. That's the hurdle.
Getty recently tested the court system. In "Getty vs Advernet" in the US, Getty lost even though the defendant didn't show up for court.
That's as weak as it gets. That's how bad things are for stock photo industry.
Some have reiterated here that "admitting the offence" is dangerous. I tend to agree.
In most cases, it's best not to ignore the letters, etc. However, going completely in the opposite direction and giving your adversary everything they need to fleece you is ill advised.
One may remove the offending image as a precaution, and may even offer a settlement without admitting any "guilt".
Sure, the concept of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is fairly universal.
This sort of thinking harkens back to the old concept of "no matter what, you've infringed", which I mentioned in a previous post in this thread.
If you think this way, you really need professional legal advice, because in most cases, no infringement has been made against the actual owner of the image (assuming that there is one).
One should quietly recognize the fact that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", while saying as little as possible in order to mitigate any damages.
Let the likes of Getty prove their case, don't do their work for them. Being too cooperative may get a "thanks for your honesty" response, but it could also cost you in a big way.
It's always bothered me when people want to be too cooperative with companies like Getty.
They're not your friends. They don't want a "fair price" from you; they want as much as they can possibly get. By assisting them, you'll pay much more (possibly even have to hire a lawyer).
They won't provide any proof that might assist you with your side of the argument.
I want to wrap up by saying that trying to keep a sense of "goodwill" with your adversary has some advantages.
I do, however, feel that it's a bit overrated, as it doesn't change the material facts of an alleged case of infringement, and it can play into the hands of the stock image company/photographer.
S.G.
While Getty may be actively registering some of its images, I think that there's a roadblock to this process in many cases (besides the financials and time involved).
Getty doesn't want to pay the artists any more than it absolutely has to.
If an artist is approached about transferring "exclusive rights" upon Getty, the artist will definitely want quite a bit more compensation for that privilege. That's the hurdle.
Getty recently tested the court system. In "Getty vs Advernet" in the US, Getty lost even though the defendant didn't show up for court.
That's as weak as it gets. That's how bad things are for stock photo industry.
Some have reiterated here that "admitting the offence" is dangerous. I tend to agree.
In most cases, it's best not to ignore the letters, etc. However, going completely in the opposite direction and giving your adversary everything they need to fleece you is ill advised.
One may remove the offending image as a precaution, and may even offer a settlement without admitting any "guilt".
Sure, the concept of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is fairly universal.
This sort of thinking harkens back to the old concept of "no matter what, you've infringed", which I mentioned in a previous post in this thread.
If you think this way, you really need professional legal advice, because in most cases, no infringement has been made against the actual owner of the image (assuming that there is one).
One should quietly recognize the fact that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", while saying as little as possible in order to mitigate any damages.
Let the likes of Getty prove their case, don't do their work for them. Being too cooperative may get a "thanks for your honesty" response, but it could also cost you in a big way.
It's always bothered me when people want to be too cooperative with companies like Getty.
They're not your friends. They don't want a "fair price" from you; they want as much as they can possibly get. By assisting them, you'll pay much more (possibly even have to hire a lawyer).
They won't provide any proof that might assist you with your side of the argument.
I want to wrap up by saying that trying to keep a sense of "goodwill" with your adversary has some advantages.
I do, however, feel that it's a bit overrated, as it doesn't change the material facts of an alleged case of infringement, and it can play into the hands of the stock image company/photographer.
S.G.
705
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 04, 2012, 12:55:12 PM »
Good discussion as usual.
The thing about the ELI forum that is particularly good is that while we all have our own opinions which may differ slightly at times,
a great deal of proof and references are commonly provided to back up opinions and arguments.
While I don't think that there has been very much "trolling" on the ELI forum (by Getty or otherwise), there have been a handful that cropped up from time-to-time.
These people went away fairly quickly, as they couldn't back up their statements with anything of substance.
Indeed, anytime that I read that something "always" happens, or "never" happens the other way, I'm thinking "troll".
For me, the greatest single concept that's come out of ELI and actual court cases is that even the legal community has gone from, "no matter what, you've infringed",
to "better check out the whole story carefully".
Additionally, we've seen that even average people can and will fight to the bitter end and win (Righthaven).
While the contributors here don't get "paid" in the traditional sense, I must say that I've enjoyed how butthurt these stock image companies and photogs are.
I mean, don't cry me a river, just register your images and stop scamming people.
Here's what my facial expression has been during my entire foray with this:
S.G.
The thing about the ELI forum that is particularly good is that while we all have our own opinions which may differ slightly at times,
a great deal of proof and references are commonly provided to back up opinions and arguments.
While I don't think that there has been very much "trolling" on the ELI forum (by Getty or otherwise), there have been a handful that cropped up from time-to-time.
These people went away fairly quickly, as they couldn't back up their statements with anything of substance.
Indeed, anytime that I read that something "always" happens, or "never" happens the other way, I'm thinking "troll".
For me, the greatest single concept that's come out of ELI and actual court cases is that even the legal community has gone from, "no matter what, you've infringed",
to "better check out the whole story carefully".
Additionally, we've seen that even average people can and will fight to the bitter end and win (Righthaven).
While the contributors here don't get "paid" in the traditional sense, I must say that I've enjoyed how butthurt these stock image companies and photogs are.
I mean, don't cry me a river, just register your images and stop scamming people.
Here's what my facial expression has been during my entire foray with this:
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. |