Messages

76

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Why are you on ELI? Why do you keep coming back to ELI?

« on: December 07, 2012, 08:49:20 PM »

Oscar, I can't say enough about how much I appreciate what you and Matt have done here.  I have the utmost respect for all that you are doing and have already done.  Thanks!

Stinger,

Wow, another great detail response. I have some inline responses....

It's funny, but I agree with most everything everyone has said.

• Yes, part of me wants to pay it forward where I can, yet I realize that I can never make the commitment Greg or Robert have.  Although, never is a long time, if Getty pushes a little more, maybe they will turn me into the second coming of Robert and Greg.

It isn't a competition to who can be the "craziest and freakiest" contributor although Robert and Greg certainly rank up high.    Every member contributes in a unique style and make an impact in their own way. I think we can all agree Oscar doesn't post as frequently as the rest of us but his impact and presence is HUGE nevertheless. I don't post as much anymore but my ego demands the grandiose notion that I can still make an impact and difference even if I don't post frequently. Jerry Witt, likewise, has been a long-time anchor and steady presence on ELI. Everyone who has become and ELI Defense Team Member did so voluntarily and one of my "mandates" for team members that is they only contribute as they see appropriate. It must NOT be work for them, it has to be work of passion and belief. If it ever becomes work and burdensome, something has gone off the rails.

• I do enjoy the characters here, but more importantly their different approaches to a common problem.  I miss AuctionApril's posts because she took the fight (albeit a little different fight than mine) to the media in a powerful way.

Yup, I must admit that even I am fascinated by our collective cast of characters. I sometimes feel that ELI Community has become a self-contained online reality show of sorts.

• I, too, am addicted.  When I try to spend less time on ELI, I find it chasing me down through Facebook and forcing me to pay more attention and come back to the forum.

ELI chases you down on Facebook?  I guess ELI forced you to "like" the ELI Facebook page at gunpoint.  *wink, wink *

• I like the way some people try to take programming approaches to keeping Getty out of their lives, while others work the Search Engine Optimization angles to drawing attention to the dark side of what Getty and other Trollers do.  The diversity of approach I learn here captivates me, in a way.

It was never intended that way to see so many different approaches and views but I certainly like the creativity.

• While I don't really want to wrap my life in this dirty trolling business, I feel an obligation to stay connected and help all these committed personalities see this thing through to a successful conclusion.  I realize that my never happen, but I sure wouldn't want to miss it, if it does.

We can certainly dream!

• I feel like my situation is a little bit different than many of the Getty posters here.  Mine was not a single image violation.  My situation was not about not understanding copyright laws.  My company fell for what I believe was either a tacit seeding scheme, or a radical change of corporate direction that resulted in what we did innocently and with Getty's permission, later being construed as copyright theft.  Part of why I hang around is to see if others got caught in the same trap and to see if I can lend assistance to those who might find themselves in a similar situation.

You already help out by making your presence known through your ongoing participation and commentary.

• I certainly feel connected to the passion that the regulars on this site feel for righting an important wrong in this world today.

I agree!

• If there ever is a class action suit or government hearings on the matter or some such thing, I feel like I might learn about that first here.  If I can in any way participate in eradicating this world of the dreaded copyright troll, I will want to be a part of that.

Members of the ELI Defense Team gets contacted on a semi-regular basis by bloggers and members of the smaller press.  Bloggers and small press do read what we post! You would be surprised.  The ripple effect of what each of you contribute continues to resonate daily, weekly, monthly, and now yearly.

Like everyone else's, my list can go on.  But what's most important, is to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the organizers, senior members and contributors to this forum for their efforts and contributions.  THANK YOU!

You are welcome! I also thank the ELI community members simply because without the rest of you, Oscar and I would probably have a much less interesting forum if we were the only ones that posted.

This is one battle that I do not expect us to lose.  But even if we did, I could hold my head up, knowing I was on the right side of the fight, and in the trenches with a quality group of individuals.

There is no question we are on the right side of this fight.
[/list]

77

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Why are you on ELI? Why do you keep coming back to ELI?

« on: December 07, 2012, 08:47:16 PM »

Matt,  I appreciate those thoughts ... and I appreciate all you do and have done.  Many thanks!

Lettered,

Oscar and I recognize you as one of our earliest ELI Contributors from 2009. Up until then, Oscar and I were pretty much the only guys who had a semi-steady presence on the ELI Forums.  Please do not minimize your impact from those early years.

I know how people might think that the people who provide answers to questions might make a larger impact than those who simply "converse" or engage in "commentary". That isn't necessarily true.  The ELI Forums continue to buzz and hum along BECAUSE of the ongoing conversations, commentary, and dialog.

There are only so many truly "new" items or "dramatic" events that happen every month.  The ongoing daily conversation, "chatter", "buzz, is also VERY important.

Your early role as commenter allowed others to follow you. You should remember that the posts you made in 2009 still exist and they are very much in the Google search and ELI Forum search engines!

I also appreciate your thought of the historical element. I think you will find that EVERY ELI community member including myself and Oscar has grown and evolved over the years.  It is entirely possible to go back to 2008 to read what we said and our positions back then and compare them to now.

When I think back to ELI of 2008-2009 and compare it to ELI of 2012, it really is mind-blowing all the changes and growth we have experienced.

Lettered, you are very much part of our history and I ask you to NOT minimize your contributions over the years.  Oscar and I do recognize you from the early days as we do now.

I continue to invite and solicit crazy new ideas ELI can try out.  So much of what you see throughout the ELI website and ELI forums all started out with some crazy idea mentioned by someone which I took and ran with.

I got the letter quite some time ago.  I think it was not long after Matthew had just started the ELI site.  Even though it was early on, the site gave me confidence that
1) I had solid legal ground to not pay the exhorbitant fees asked for
2) I was on solid ethical and moral ground to not pay the exhorbitant fees

As the web-site grew I kept checking in and making comments and asking questions here and there.  The community support of others doing the exact same thing let me know I was on the right track.

So I continue to check in from time to time as a small way to "pay it forward".  By themselves, my comments here are squat . . . I know that.  But the collective effect of all of our comments together combined go a long way in giving the two points I mentioned above to people who find themselves in this situation. 

And that's just the contribution of the "small time" commenters here like me.  Of course the main support is coming from the elite few (not me) that pour hours into research and commentary here.

The whole thing's kinda got a cool historical element to it as well.  Its only relatively recently that the internet has been around as a tool to fight these types of injustices.   It feels good to be a part of it even if it is in a small way

Kudos to Matt and Oscar for being pioneers in this type of effort.

78

Legal Controversies Forum / tattoos and copyright

« on: December 07, 2012, 09:08:05 AM »

http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/02/17/tattoo_artist_sues_nba_star_for_copyright_infringement.php

This has me wondering about all of the Harley Davidson tattoos in the world.  For a lot of reasons, I wouldn't expect to ever see HD suing folks with their logo as a tattoo (hope Im not being naive), but where does all of this crap end? 

Do we honestly have to show up at the tattoo shop with a copyright release in hand now?  Is it really that bad?

Maybe the bulk of the professional legal community is content with all the chaos, uncertainty and ensuing potential legal fees being generated by our poorly thought out and poorly written copyright law ... so that it will never change?

79

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Why are you on ELI? Why do you keep coming back to ELI?

« on: November 23, 2012, 06:32:41 PM »

. . . that psycho and her stupid poem . . .

I just have to wonder if these idiots ever think about the legacy they will leave behind.  All the dirty laundry and behavior documented on the web and out there to see for generations to come.  What must it be like to be forever known as "that psycho and her stupid poem" ?

80

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A must read!

« on: November 14, 2012, 05:46:45 PM »

First, I have to say that I like this guy, too.  That said, I really think he is taking a big chance here.   Things like the following quote (bolding mine) could easily be seen as disrespectful to the court:

Defendant apologizes for comments that may not be appropriate, but I can’t afford legal representation and I am really pissed off that there are peoplein this country who are supposed to be officers of the court and represent it inan ethical and proper manner . .

In my very limited time in courtrooms (always in a non professional capacity), I have seen judges get irate about what seems to me to be a lot less than using foul language in official documents (smirks, appearance, attitude).  Maybe someone with more extensive time in the courtroom than me can comment on how they think this might go over.

81

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Why are you on ELI? Why do you keep coming back to ELI?

« on: November 13, 2012, 06:40:19 AM »

I got the letter quite some time ago.  I think it was not long after Matthew had just started the ELI site.  Even though it was early on, the site gave me confidence that
1) I had solid legal ground to not pay the exhorbitant fees asked for
2) I was on solid ethical and moral ground to not pay the exhorbitant fees

As the web-site grew I kept checking in and making comments and asking questions here and there.  The community support of others doing the exact same thing let me know I was on the right track.

So I continue to check in from time to time as a small way to "pay it forward".  By themselves, my comments here are squat . . . I know that.  But the collective effect of all of our comments together combined go a long way in giving the two points I mentioned above to people who find themselves in this situation. 

And that's just the contribution of the "small time" commenters here like me.  Of course the main support is coming from the elite few (not me) that pour hours into research and commentary here.

The whole thing's kinda got a cool historical element to it as well.  Its only relatively recently that the internet has been around as a tool to fight these types of injustices.   It feels good to be a part of it even if it is in a small way

Kudos to Matt and Oscar for being pioneers in this type of effort.

82

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I am getting slammed by photographers

« on: October 15, 2012, 09:42:32 AM »

There are a couple of legitimate comments from the Getty supporters on that blog.  I agree that some images may be worth $1000 or more.  However, I really doubt that the vast majority of the stock shots are worth anywhere near that.  I think the vast majority of the innocent infringement cases like those found here on the ELI site are in the < $20 market value range.

  In my opinion, if Getty were being genuine, they would base their demand on past sales history for each particular image, and supply that information to the alleged infringer to support their claim.

83

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image not live, but got a letter...

« on: October 01, 2012, 10:04:05 AM »

Lettered may be wrong about the statute of limitations.  I believe that begins when the infringement is found.  If the company in question found out about the infringement recently, through something like archive.org, you may still have the better part of three years ahead of you.

But don't worry.  Moe is spot on.  Read the forum.  Tell us more.  You will put yourself in the position of choosing how you wish to deal with this issue, rather than being bullied through it.

I think it's not straightforward.  It depends on if the court would decide to apply the injury rule or the discovery rule.  Even if the discovery rule applies then "known or should have known" comes into play (you could argue that since it was on a public website they should have known it was there soon after it was put up.  Even if discovery rule is applied strictly by the date they did find it, I think the one year that it was down reduces any "actual damages" calculations.

I don't think it would be fair to let Getty sit on these cases for three years to get the damages up before sending the letter.  I wonder if it would be fruitful to argue that this is exactly what Getty is doing?  Are there any cases where someone recieves a letter on an image that's been up for just a month or two?

 Not sure how much of a stretch any of the above is , but it sounds reasonable to me.

So I think that the extra time down makes him a harder target (not that he was a soft target at all with just one image), but, point taken . . . champagne uncorking is probably 3 years from letter date just to be safe.

84

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 28, 2012, 10:44:02 PM »

Buddhapi makes a very important point.
Let's not lose sight of what kind of fight this really is.
It's all trolling/extortion.  These trolls lose on the basic of legal standing.

Additionally, before transferring any rights, one must actually own the image, and register the image as copyrighted.
Wonder if anyone is doing that?  Probably not.

S.G.

I didn't realize the image had to be registered before transfer.  Which section is that?  If you're right about that, that would take away Getty's standing to sue in most cases I would think.

85

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 28, 2012, 05:56:19 PM »

So my thinking condenses down to this:

Getty comes after you for infringing on a digital image.  They produce the copyright transfer contract from the photographer.  You find the same image on other sites for sale and somehow compel the second website owner to supply you with a copy of the second copyright contract.  You show that both contracts transfer the same "exclusive right" and that neither contract was registered with the copyright office within the 30 day timeframe. 

Doesn't this mean no one has standing to sue you?

86

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 28, 2012, 05:37:58 PM »

I'm still not sure how it would pan out if the exclusive rights were divided into geographical areas.

If the geographical divisions were creatable and enforceable, then you would still have territorial exclusive rights.

Regarding the display and licensing of images on the Internet, is any such territorial exclusivity theoretically possible?

I suppose you could divide it up in any way agreeable to the parties of the contract?  For example I think one person can have exclusive digital media rights while another has print media rights?  I'm still foggy on the divisibility part of exclusivity.

However, it seems to me that if you were sued by Getty and could show that the same copyright "exclusive right" transfer existed for another company for the same image(s), that Getty would either have to show they documented their own transfer with the Copyright Office within the allocated timeframe (highly unlikely, I think) or back off.

87

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 28, 2012, 03:27:22 PM »

Interestingly 205(d) seems to make it quite clear what takes place for conflicting transfers.  I think it also makes it clear (if I am reading it correctly) that two entities cannot own the same exclusive right(s) at the same time.  I'm still not sure how it would pan out if the exlusive rights were divided into geographical areas.
Thanks to Scraggy's posts on other threads for some interesting reading that led me to this.

(d) Priority between Conflicting Transfers. — As between two conflicting transfers, the one executed first prevails if it is recorded, in the manner required to give constructive notice under subsection (c), within one month after its execution in the United States or within two months after its execution outside the United States, or at any time before recordation in such manner of the later transfer. Otherwise the later transfer prevails if recorded first in such manner, and if taken in good faith, for valuable consideration or on the basis of a binding promise to pay royalties, and without notice of the earlier transfer.

88

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Fair Use?

« on: September 28, 2012, 12:37:16 PM »

The linked to page gives a reasonable assessment of the issue, I think.  It's not just the fact that it's a single frame out of a movie that makes it fair use (although that's probably part of it).  Rather it's the entirety of all of the elements of the usage (non-profit, critical commentary, web resolution, etc) that make it fair use.  That's my take on it anyway.

So, in my opinion, a single frame taken from a movie (under the right circumstances) could not only be "troll material", it could also be legitimate grounds for a legitimate infringement lawsuit.  For example if you made posters from a single frame of a copyrighted movie and sold them over the internet; that would be grounds for a legitimate infringement lawsuit, in my opinion.

Out of curiosity this morning I tracked down literally hundreds of uses of a single frame image lifted apparently from one of the Batman movies, and that tracking led me to this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bat-signal_1989_film.jpg

... where there's interesting reading material regarding fair use.

I may have been reading too quickly, but near as I can tell the above page gives no definitive answer as to whether an image taken from a single frame of a movie could be copyright troll material.

Thoughts on this?

89

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image not live, but got a letter...

« on: September 28, 2012, 08:17:58 AM »

one piece of good news for you, if I am correct, is that you're nearly one third of the way to the statute of limitations already.  Do take the time to read throught the forums, but I think you'll find that it doesnt make sense to worry much about one image.

90

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 26, 2012, 01:09:09 PM »

. . .
Legally, an exclusive rights holder can do certain things, while a non-exclusive rights holder can do more limited things.

S.G.

This is the murky part for me.  What happens when someone transfers one (or several) of the Exclusive Rights (defined by sec 106) to more than one recipient?  I suppose the first valid transfer would overide subsequent attempted tranfers?