Messages

76

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

« on: August 16, 2012, 04:06:00 PM »

I like Robert's theory. Not to mention his graphic rant.

I wonder how automated their process really is. Could it be they only use humans to change the toner in the laser printer and everything is handled by simplistic scripts generating letters for anything that has a better than 50% chance of being a match for any image in "their" collection?

That would explain a whole lot of the sloppiness and lack of discretion.

77

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Sold!

« on: August 16, 2012, 12:48:00 PM »

That's true, S.G. You can't make this shit up, it's like a Coen Brothers script or something.

Mulligan makes a very good point. I don't think Carlyle intends to lose money with this acquisition. They may just find a way to monetize Getty by mixing its operations with some of the other Carlyle holdings, including defense contracts and other media holdings.

Why not? The C.G. has a long track record of squeezing profits from government contracts. It will be interesting to see how the C.G. manages to pull that off.

78

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

« on: August 16, 2012, 12:40:38 PM »

Actually, "rights-managed" doesn't have anything to do with copyright ownership by the stock image company (in this case Getty).
Rights managed simply refers to the type of license that's granted to the end user.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_managed

S.G.

That's true legally, but it appears to have something to do with it in Getty's bizarre and grabby mind. Why else would they even dream of sending a copyright infringement claim to someone regarding an image that's in the public domain?

This could be one scenario: PicScout flags obvious resemblance of public domain image to image on Getty's portfolio, sends report to "compliance technicians" at Getty. "Compliance technician" is supposed to vet the information to determine whether you have a false positive, but fails to identify the possibility that the image was legally obtained elsewhere and that the copyright user is NOT compelled for any reason to show them a license for the image or buy one retroactively.

So the letter could have been issued based on the fact that the copyright user did use the image and the same public domain image happens to be on Getty's website as "rights-managed", requiring the purchase of a license for use. This was probably not meant to happen but someone screwed up at Getty's "compliance department." I really doubt they would pursue this claim in court, and I'm actually surprised they've even sent a second letter. Maybe if one of their REAL lawyers got wind of it they would wise up and crawl back in their hole.

This is why I find it very dubious that Getty claims that they have the right to sell a "license" for a public domain work they simply converted to digital format. They should be able to charge a service fee but should not be allowed to claim anything like the right to manage it as a copyrighted work that needs to be licensed from them by the end user.

79

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

« on: August 15, 2012, 10:57:14 PM »

I agree with Oscar. The registration of a digital photograph should include the author, date of creation, date of publication and a digital copy of the image for each and every one of the individual works. How else is one supposed to know which image the author owns?

For instance, in some of HAN/VKTs infamous wallpaper images, there are actually more than one version of the image circulating the baitpaper sites. The registrations were done by compilations on a number of these images, listing titles, creation dates and publication dates and of course all listing a common author.

However, I don't know that there's any way to look up a copy of each actual digital image that is being registered. Am I wrong? Does the copyright office actually offer digital samples of the copyrighted images upon request?

It's not unusual for a photographer to take several very similar images during a photo shoot. The author should have to register each version if they want full protection for every version of the shot they took.

80

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Sold!

« on: August 15, 2012, 10:41:15 PM »

Carlyle Group is very well connected politically, both in the US and abroad. They have inspired all kinds of conspiracy theories because of their global connections and octopus-like structure. They have huge investments in national security, but also invest in other things.

For example, they own the corporation that owns Dunkin' Donuts.

As Matt says, I don't see much of a future for the Getty game plan, so maybe this is one Carlyle Group investment that REALLY has a hole in it.

81

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

« on: August 15, 2012, 10:27:54 PM »

Thanks for sharing, Dan Evans, this is really fascinating.

This forum recently discussed how Getty has "adopted" some public domain works by buying the negatives and scanning the images, making them available on their catalog, or by "representing" organizations that do the same.

I don't mind that they charge a fee for their trouble making the images digitally accessible, but I think it's a stretch that they claim they actually own the copyright of a public domain image because they converted it from analog to digital media.

One image we were discussing was a photograph of Lyndon B. Johnson being sworn in as President of the US. The image is in the JFK library archives, available for free at a very high resolution. Getty acquired this and many other such public domain images and has them in their catalog. We were not aware of anyone being shaken down for any of these images — until now.

This is the Getty catalog entry that claims the image you used as "Rights-Managed" — meaning they think they own the copyright:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/henry-david-thoreau-american-naturalist-and-high-res-stock-photography/AB30213

I think you could have a very valid legal challenge of this claim if they pursue it. They might have accidentally made a slip which would expose a very questionable practice of theirs. I really doubt they'll actually sue you for this, but their intent is simply to scare you into paying them. It appears they failed at that — good on you!

Thanks for sharing your story, Dan. This is certainly one of the most interesting developments we've had in some time. Would you be willing to share the letters Getty sent you with this forum? From what you describe, these are some particularly sloppy letters sent by particularly sloppy "compliance agents."

82

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Defense Letter Program

« on: August 13, 2012, 06:04:03 PM »

joe-from-texas, the website in question was up in 2003? How long did it stay up? Are you saying they started making a claim in 2010 for a 7-year-old infringement? How did they find out, through Archive.org? I'm curious about the timing of their claim.

83

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: More Vincent K Tylor seeding?

« on: August 13, 2012, 12:20:09 PM »

Some of those images are very well-seeded already. This may be just one more attempt. Who would start a seeding blog page under VKTs name and post images with little explanation? There's at least one image that belongs to another photographer. It's kind of an interesting page, very messy in so many ways.

It could also just be an innocent attempt to report on VKT and his work by a "fran" of his. Who knows. The images are almost wallpaper sized, though!

84

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 12, 2012, 06:23:48 PM »

As promised, here's a link to some interesting thoughts about DMCA removal abuse:

Google notes that, “From time to time, we may receive inaccurate or unjustified copyright removal requests for search results that clearly do not link to infringing content,” adding that it does not comply with such requests. How many of these requests are there? According to Google, “We removed 97% of search results specified in requests that we received between July and December 2011.” That means that out of all the requests Google receives, only 3% were sent by mistake or in bad faith.

http://www.copyhype.com/2012/05/rumors-of-copyright-abuse-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/

85

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 12, 2012, 12:55:52 PM »

Good links, S.G. That's the other famous case regarding bogus DMCA removals. The issue of "damages" was a bit vague because Lenz didn't really take a financial hit from having her cute video taken down. Universal also tried to argue that she had no damages because the EFF represented her pro bono.

Here's another interesting opinion on Lenz v. Universal:

A preliminary read on the decision indicates that Lenz can recover legal fees associated with fighting the takedown, but not necessarily fees connected with the cost of pursuing Universal for damages in follow-up litigation. To really sock it to Universal, Lenz would have to make a claim under a code that awards fees at the court's discretion. To do that, she will likely need to show that Universal knowingly misrepresented its initial claim.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/01/us-lawsuit-idUSTRE6200QZ20100301?type=technologyNews

I think the message is that the party filing a DMCA complaint should check to see it's really an infringement before they launch the takedown machine or they could end up paying to say they're sorry. The wrongly accused party should not expect to get real rich from it either.

I think it's an okay standard, but I still agree with S.G. that hitting someone with a bogus takedown is a good way to be a pain in their ass. If someone does that to you, you have to respond and you have to respond proactively. If they're real jerks about it, it may end you up in court. Who needs that?

It really shouldn't be as easy as "he's copying me, I swear", but that's the way the system works right now. The providers wash their hands in the deal and take the "safe harbor", and why shouldn't they? It makes their life a whole lot easier to just comply with the takedown requests.

I'm looking to see if there's any cases where someone intentionally lied in a DMCA removal request and got in trouble for it. I will post if I find anything, it really wouldn't surprise me if someone did attempt to use it as an SEO Black Hat smart-bomb.

86

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: What is Glen Carner's Official Position on Vincent K. Tylor?

« on: August 11, 2012, 09:07:41 PM »

I wonder if Vincent k Tylor is teaching his son the ways of sending extortion letters?
http://www.scottephotos.com/

Well, not unlike his father, his work is on Webshots:

http://www.webshots.com/pro/photo/3275662?path=/travel-north-america-united-states-hawaii-oahu

And not unlike his father, his work is on baitpaper sites, albeit not as many:

http://photosunion.com/photos/Makapuu-Overlook-Oahu-Hawaii/

There's kind of a pattern here, isn't there?

87

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 11, 2012, 08:38:33 PM »

Buddhapi, I spoke wrong when used the word "proof". What Google requires is a verifiable complaint. If you tell them what the valid URL is supposed to be and what the offending URL is supposed to be, they basically check to make sure the URLs exist and that the infringement could be possible. They do turn down some requests; for example, if they find that the alleged infringement simply does not exist or if the infringing party took it down voluntarily before Google was going to take action.

I guess it's a bare minimum standard of proof — it has to check out at the most basic level. They're not going to de-list people if the complaint is clearly inaccurate or obviously false.

There's been precedents for wrongful use of the DMCA removal. Here's an example from 2004:

Diebold is the first company to be held liable for violating section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which makes it unlawful to use DMCA takedown threats when the copyright holder knows that infringement has not actually occurred. The section also stipulates that anyone who issues such frivolous threats must pay damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, to those harmed by the misrepresentations.

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15

88

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 11, 2012, 11:58:53 AM »

I agree that it's a pain to be wrongfully accused and have Google remove one's site from result pages. The onus is on the accused to take action. However, the action is really not that difficult:

What To Do If Google Removes Your Content Because of A Bogus DMCA Complaint

The US congress made it very easy to ask search engines (and other Online Service Providers) to remove allegedly infringing content. However, congress also created a simple way for you to fight back.

All you have to do is send a counter-notification to the company that removed the content, usually Google. The Counter-Notification is just a letter that informs Google that the copyright infringement allegations are false and demands that the removed content be restored. A counter-notification is often called a "put-back notice."

After you send your counter-notification, Google will notify the original party who complained against you. Then Google will wait no more than 14 days to restore your content, UNLESS the original complainer files a lawsuit against you. If the original complainer (the third party who sent the take-down notice) files a lawsuit against you, then Google will refuse to restore the content. If the original complainer doesn't file a lawsuit, then Google will restore your content within 14 days.

So basically, if your site was removed because of a DMCA Complaint, the ball is in your court now. You've got to inform Google that it made a mistake by filing a counter-notification. It will restore your site, unless you get sued.

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/what-to-do-when-google-bans-your-site-because-of-a-bogus-dmca-takedown-notice

The search engines (or ISPs) require some proof, but do not make decisions about the legitimacy of the claim. The claim has to at least make sense, e.g. you can provide a URL that you claim is your intellectual property and another URL that you claim is an infringement of your intellectual property, and they can be visited to verify that at least the URLs do exist and that the infringement could exist.

I don't know if it would be better for the ISPs/SEs to require a higher standard of proof than an affidavit. It appears to me they prefer to stay out of the fray and let people duke it out in court.

S.G., you do make a good point about the impact it could have on an online business. If your site is down for a couple of weeks because of a bogus takedown claim, that's going to be a slim month for sales. I suppose one has the option of taking the accuser to court for filing a false DMCA removal request and sue for lost revenue and legal fees, but that's a huge hassle.

89

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: What is Glen Carner's Official Position on Vincent K. Tylor?

« on: August 11, 2012, 10:37:00 AM »

By the way, Dee, I do have a quick question: Which company did VKT supply images to that distributed them as wallpaper? You mention this on item 2 of your post.

90

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Google to start devaluing sites

« on: August 11, 2012, 09:59:34 AM »

Google has been fairly open about their DMCA removal policies for the past few years. The Chilling Effects website is a fascinating read about trends in DMCA removals and counternotifications. Google has been a faithful contributor to the database.

What they're announcing as new is that those removal notices are going to have an effect on their ranking algorithm, and perhaps they're hinting is that it would be a more direct effect than one would assume.

It makes sense that if a domain is repeatedly accused of copyright or trademark infringements, it's likely to be a low-quality operation of some sort.