Messages

76

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers

« on: September 20, 2012, 10:16:25 AM »

I am so sick of all these freaking monsters for whom life is nothing but a constant quest to extract money without doing a flea's lick worth of honest or meaningful work...

Explains why copyright trolling was so appealing to Dan.

77

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Recruiting Extortionist Lawyers

« on: September 20, 2012, 09:22:45 AM »

Not really sure if this is new information but it seems it is the same Dan Levine everyone assumes it is.

Found this online:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/08/9999999997-08-041894

It's a sec filing for "The leveraged tax lien fund L.P" signed by a Mr Dan B. Levine.

Google that fund and the first hit? http://iwireinternational.com/index.php?page=3&lang=e

How does that tie in with the Dan Levine in the email of the CDL? Check the phone number given in that first link against the phone number given in the CDL email. Identical. That's actually how I found this information. I googled the phone number. Amazing what you can find just from a phone number.

Also having viewed the other forum thread about the facebook profiles and somebody mentioning his wife Donna I found this. http://villageofbrookville.com/uploads/2/7/0/5/2705391/reportprinter_report.pdf

There is a Donna and Dan Levine registered at 16 Evans Drive, Brookville NY 11545. It's listed on page 35 (thats page 35 of the page numbers on the document, not sure it's the same page number as the pdf). Further information given list it in the Jericho school district. Also shows the market value of their house to be $2,750,000. Nice

That first link I posted shows the tax lien fund to be registered in Jericho.

78

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: September 19, 2012, 06:57:33 AM »

Well, thanks to that reply from Atradius I think you can firmly tell them where to go.

UK law is quite clear: "Only the owner of the copyright or exclusive licensee may bring an action for
civil copyright infringement"

Copyright holder: Photographer
Exclusive licensee: Getty (although debatable)
Not a copyright holder or exclusive licensee: Atradius.

You mentioned your letter was the same as the one earlier. Having checked that Atradius requests that payment is made to their bank account, not Getty's. They also offer a payment plan which Getty do not do. All of these point to debt collection.

If, as they state, they are pursuing you for copyright infringement then quite simply they cannot and have no right to unless they can produce documentation assigning them that right by the copyright holder (the photographer, not Getty).

Tell them not to contact you again unless they can provide proof they have the right to chase this.

79

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: National Photo Group LLC Documents uploaded

« on: September 13, 2012, 10:34:55 AM »

Are they in any way related to National Photographer Group, llc  http://www.thenpg.com/ ?

I've only read through the first document and it appears the photos they claim infringements for were filed in a bulk registration on one specific date, or at least that is how I read it.

80

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: September 13, 2012, 09:07:23 AM »

Cheers Ryan and well done for following up with the relevant authorities.

Let us know when you hear back. Have the OFT suggested any action they can take on your behalf?

81

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: September 12, 2012, 08:01:39 AM »

I did a little more digging on Atradius and can see why they aren't on the register in that guise. They are now based in Amsterdam and 'passport' their services into the UK using EU law.

This is the information I've found.

ATRADIUS CREDIT INSURANCE N.V.
DAVID RICARDOSTRAAT 1
1066 JS AMSTERDAM
THE NETHERLANDS
Company No. FC02138

UK Establishment Details
UK Est. Number:   BR004651
Name, Address:    GERLING NCM
3 HARBOUR DRIVE
CAPITAL WATERSIDE
CARDIFF
CF1 6TZ
Date Open:   01/10/1998
Closed(Y):   
Type of Business:   EXPORT & DOMESTIC CREDIT INSURANCE

Oversea Company Info
Registered at:   CARDIFF on 01/10/1998
Country of Origin:   NETHERLANDS
Parent Registry:   TRADE REGISTER, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY OF AMSTERDAM NL
Registration Number:   33024388
Legal Form:   LIMITED COMPANY OF ORDINARY STRUCTURE
Number of UK Establishments:   1 Open
Documents held at Company / UK Establishment office:   BR004651
Required to publish accounts from:   / to /
Accounts delivered to:   20111231

Unfortunately for them to passport in they have to register with the Financial Services Authority. It would be very easy to make life difficult for them by complaining about them to the FSA for their unfair debt recovery practises along with complaining to the office of fair trading particularly highlighting the 5 days to pay.

Their FSA number is 203118.

82

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help! Debt collection letter arrived

« on: September 11, 2012, 08:21:37 AM »

Depends how you came to have the image on your website.

If it was an innocent mistake or somebody else put it there and you have asked Getty for proof they have been assigned the right, by the copyright holder, to bring a claim against you then consider the matter closed until you have received such proof.

If you haven't asked for such proof then it's probably a good idea to write them a letter requesting it.

At that point I think it's fair that you can consider the matter closed until you receive such proof. Just note they'll try to tell you a screenshot of your website along with being able to find the image on their website is proof. It isn't.

If you can be bothered send the Atradius letter to the Office of Fair Trading and make a complaint about a 5 day deadline for settling any demand which is blatantly a tactic to scare you into paying.

If it wasn't an innocent mistake and you placed it there after taking it from a site that clearly displays a copyright notice then I'm not sure anyone here can assist you and you should probably get legal advice.

83

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter, now what???

« on: September 07, 2012, 07:25:13 AM »

I don't understand the logic of making an offer subject to proof of claim.

The logical order of things to me would be:

1) Receive a claim from Getty.
2) Ask Getty to prove their claim.
3) If proof is received then assess what you feel is reasonable and make an offer based on the specific factors of the claim.

Would a judge penalise somebody who had taken the time to deal with the issue just because they hadn't written down arbitrary figure in a reply to a claim that had no proof?

84

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Don't Pay Getty - Thank you ELI

« on: August 16, 2012, 07:15:39 AM »

Getty will not check that an image is public domain but burden the person uploading it to confirm they have the copyright.

All images I've seen on Getty that are public domain have been available for editorial use only and the fee is for the trouble of someone obtaining the image from archives and uploading it. If someone has claimed copyright it appears they have misled Getty.

If Getty claim this image has copyright, but you have proof it is public domain then send them the proof and tell them to climb back into their hole.

I wouldn't be so sure Getty will pursue this. If you have sent them proof the image is public domain they would be taking a huge gamble in requesting any further payment. We have seen evidence in the past Getty has dropped cases where it is clear they cannot pursue it further.

85

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lawsuit filed against Getty images for Copyright infringement.

« on: August 09, 2012, 09:52:35 AM »

Just more evidence that Getty have no idea who owns copyright for any of the photos on their site.

A copy of that lawsuit would be a nice addition to any reply back to Getty asking them for proof of copyright.

86

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: July 27, 2012, 11:21:51 AM »

Seems at the moment there's either been a dip of activity or not enough letter recipients coming forward .

I wonder if the dip in activity is the usual Getty letter dip in between a new extortion letter run or if it may be something to do with the possible upcoming sale or public listing. Maybe trying to keep any negative publicity out of the spotlight. Around the time of a public listing it's a lot easier to get coverage for the negative aspects of a companies behaviour so is it possible they are laying low?

Lack of new stories to discuss does lead to speculative threads such as this.

87

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: July 27, 2012, 05:45:23 AM »

S.G.

I agree with you that having too many discussions of little relevance of interest devalues a forum. I'm sure we've all been on one but I think you're being a little harsh in this case.

I know Class Action Suits have been discussed but from what I've seen on many forums they've been along the lines of "Let's start a class action suit for this extortion" etc without any meaningful starting point.

In this case Scraggy asked a specific question regarding two collections from which Getty distributes images. He did this on the basis that he himself has started a class action lawsuit and wanted to discuss the particular merits of that in the USA.

I understand his Class Action Lawsuit is relating to a different company but within that he is also arguing that some of the images tried to collect on in Getty's name weren't even exclusively licenced to Getty (or so he believes).

I disagree that asking a specific question on a topic that may or may not have been discussed before devalues the forum.

88

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has anyone in the UK settled?

« on: July 26, 2012, 05:14:51 PM »

I'd write back and tell them that an infringement does not give anyone the right to charge what they like as their response claims and that I look forward to Getty explaining that to a judge.

I'd then report them for blatant lies in their letters to  consumer credit agency.

In answer to earlier point about statue of limitations I don't think one exists as it does in the US but is generally taken at 6 years. However Getty would have to explain to the judge why the lawsuit was so long in coming when there wasn't a complex mediation.

89

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: July 26, 2012, 05:05:11 PM »

Happy to be corrected if wrong but I thought section 106 rights still had an element of exclusivity when assigned but instead of assigning exclusivity in it's entirety you were instead transferring exclusivity to distribute in a particular way only.

The assignee would be able to claim for an infringement of their assigned right only.

Could be wrong because legalese is bloody confusing  :-$

90

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: July 25, 2012, 11:25:55 AM »

Marot is a different company.

I think the point made is that Marot tried to collect on an image that was both available through Getty and directly through the copyright holder online and Scraggy was spitballing about the possibility of a class action suit against Getty on the basis they may also be scaring people into paying for images they know they do not have the exclusive rights for.

I know the point has been made that Getty has questionable right to collect anyway for any infringements.