Messages

751

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received extortion letter from Masterfile... Have some questions

« on: August 29, 2013, 07:54:48 PM »

NCS probably won't be involved at this point, what is going to happen is that Masterfile ( Geoffrey Beal most likely) will cut you out of the loop and he will harass your client, as ultimately they are responsible, and that douchebag Geoffrey Beal needs that check to come in so he can get paid, every person that fights back directly effects his income and his job security.. You might consider hiring Oscar at this point , so these assholes can't harass your client..If you decide to go that route, you may also consider sending one more email to MF and advise them to not contact your client as they have representation.

752

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 28, 2013, 09:14:33 PM »

yes the thread did kinda get derailed with the whole pinterest thing, but I blame that on that turd-polisher Geoffrey Beal.. Damn I can't in good conscious call Beal a turd polisher, that name is reserved for Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack!...with that being said I guess I'll simply refer to Masterfiles Geoffrey Beal as an asswipe.

sometime I have to much fun with these copyright trolls... 

753

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photog Accuses Getty of Loaning Images to CafePress Instead of Licensing Them

« on: August 28, 2013, 02:51:13 PM »

Here's another blog post regarding Getty allowing Cafe Press to "borrow" images.. In this article the photographer severed ties with Getty Images, was consequently banned from the Getty forums for bitching about the measely % Getty pays, and to boot still had his images appearing on Cafe press as well as in ads on facebook and other places.. It's worth the time to read some of the comments from other photogs, seems many are truly pissed about this and have severed ties with Getty....

Last week photographer Remi Thornton penned a post about why he quit working with Getty Images. Remi alerted photographers to a new scheme by Getty Images whereby they were “loaning” photographer images (without pay) to Cafe Press for marketing purposes. The idea is that Cafe Press could use photographers’ images without paying, unless a sale was made, then a photographer might receive a royalty.

Allowing Cafe Press free use of photographers’ images for marketing did not sit right with Remi or other photographers, Remi felt that Cafe Press should have to pay a royalty for using the image at all and not get to use the images to market Cafe Press for free.

On March 25th, I submitted my own resignation to Getty Images. Shortly thereafter on March 27th I received acknowledgement from Getty along with the following:

“As per your recent request where you expressed your desire to terminate your outstanding contract with Getty Images, this is your official notice of termination of the Agreement between yourself and Getty Images, which had a Commencement Date of 3/11/2009.”

A few days later my images disappeared from Getty’s website for sale.

http://thomashawk.com/2013/04/how-to-lose-control-of-your-photos-with-getty-images.html

754

Legal Controversies Forum / Photographer Estevan Oriol Files Copyright Suit Against H&M, Brandy Melville

« on: August 28, 2013, 12:23:02 PM »

Renowned photographer/video director Estevan Oriol has filed a lawsuit against Swedish fashion brand H&M and fashion house Brandy Melville for the use of his copyrighted image known as "L.A. Fingers."

The photo was first used during a 1995 photo session, depicting a female model's long, ring-clad fingers forming the letters "L.A." for Los Angeles. The image has since become iconic and has been legally published worldwide in various magazines and Oriol-branded clothing.

http://www.ballerstatus.com/2013/08/26/photographer-estevan-oriol-sues-hm-brandy-melville-la-fingers-image/

755

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images find itself in court....again

« on: August 28, 2013, 11:44:41 AM »

More likely too much MSG on the take out egg rolls and chop suey!

nah, MSG as in the spice isn't the problem, it's the LSD on the eggrolls that was the problem!!

756

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved Letter from getty

« on: August 28, 2013, 09:03:49 AM »

OK, just to make sure I am not dropping the ball on the McCormack letter...I need to reply to that letter with the same requests for proof of license and all that I requested originally from Getty?

This time, I will leave out the offer for a deal though.

You can reply or not, doesn't much make a difference, being as Getty Images did not address your request for information, neither will asshat Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack from mccormacklegal.com

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/timothymccormackcopyrig.jpg
 

757

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: three days to reply, considering copyrightinfringement.org.uk

« on: August 28, 2013, 08:21:57 AM »

whether to ignore or not is totally your decision, I don't think I would return it as address unknown, as you've already opened it, but you could return future letters as undeliverable / no such company at this address.. Some suggest ignoring all letters, I guess it depends on how long you can stomach being harassed.. Maybe some other UK users will chime in here.

758

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: three days to reply, considering copyrightinfringement.org.uk

« on: August 28, 2013, 07:53:38 AM »

If Getty does not have a name, it's typical of them to send it to "Legal Dept"...in the hopes that someone will reply, then they will have a name to pursue...bottom line is if the company doesn't exist, they really can't sue said company. Their intent is to make you shit your pants, and act before being educated.

759

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images find itself in court....again

« on: August 28, 2013, 06:38:24 AM »

Living in the past again BuddhaPi?

hahhaa, needless to say every once in a while a have some good flashbacks..like 5 consecutive nights at MSG in the 80's... 

760

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: three days to reply, considering copyrightinfringement.org.uk

« on: August 28, 2013, 06:26:25 AM »

If the company doesn't exist, you don't own the domain, and on top of that if you have no money, you don't have much to worry about...Lets say they did decide to pick you out of 1000's of other recipient to sue, and lets say they even win ( doubtful), and if you what you say about your financial status is true, they would never get paid anyway... Another point you bring up, is that every case is different, so why would you then hire a firm, that generates a "template" letter that was not geared toward your particular situation?

761

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved Letter from getty

« on: August 26, 2013, 05:19:36 PM »

The statute starts at the date of the first Getty letter, 3 yrs.. Being in LA has no bearing on anything, IF it ever went to court it would be federal court...they'll send at least a couple more letters, and then maybe you'll be passed off to NCS collections, whom have no power to do anything..remember it's a claim..not a debt..

762

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: HHEROES OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT – THE PHOTOGRAPHER LITIGATION AGAINST SYFY/NBC

« on: August 26, 2013, 12:03:18 PM »

Here's someones take on it...I tend to agree, it's a mess...

What a pretty mess. And not as "clear cut" as the blog linked would make it seem.

NBC is claiming that the vast majority of the images were submitted to them by the subjects (with proof to back it up supposedly) and that the images are "joint works."

The claim that the images are co-owned by the subjects is not without merit... the reason for the photographs in the first place is the costumes, and the subjects spent considerable time/effort/money in creating them. In fact, it could be argued that the costume itself is an "original artwork;" that the photograph is a "derivative work" and therefore the copyright to it is "owned" by the costume creator.

The second question becomes "how did the subjects come into possession of the photos in order to submit them?" If the photographer provided the pictures without anything in writing it could be problematic. First, it would support the argument above. It could also be argued that providing the images without a statement of use constitutes unlimited use. And just because there were no rights granted in writing does NOT necessarily mean no rights were granted "legally." There is such a thing as "implied rights."

And then there's the Facebook TOS which says you sign away all rights when posting stuff there, that you will be governed by CA law, and that you waive the CA law protecting you from signing away your rights when it's not to your benefit... If the images were lifted from there it could add another wrinkle. Facebook strips all exif...oops. And publishing (text so far) to facebook/twitter/et all has been determined to be "publishing to the public domain" where no copyright is possible. It's not a big leap to see this going sideways.

Because it's NBC, there's potential that many are going to want to "cash in." I'm sure a lot of these photographers were just "taking pictures" and posting/distributing their stuff without restriction and now they want to "change their minds." If it gets costly enough NBC could choose to fight it, and they could win at least some (or not loose nearly as much). In the end, I hope NBC is found to be at fault, as well as the subjects who submitted the images as being "theirs." But I wouldn't count on it.

This is a convoluted mess because a lot of people did not know WTF they were doing...

763

Legal Controversies Forum / HEROES OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT – THE PHOTOGRAPHER LITIGATION AGAINST SYFY/NBC

« on: August 26, 2013, 07:58:41 AM »

As you may know, Heroes of Cosplay is using dozens of images on their show to introduce costumes and the cosplayers/stars of the show. Who do you think took those pictures? Not SyFy – which is what they should have done from the start. I mean c’mon, they are NBC Universal – do you really think they didn’t have the funds to properly pay a photographer to follow them and shoot? Or possibly, they liked the quality and concepts of the photographs already taken so much that they just used stolen images from the cosplay community of photographers. But for some reason, they didn’t feel like paying them like REAL photographers – because that makes sense, right?

http://bgzstudios.com/blog/photography/heroes-of-copyright-infringement-the-photographer-litigation-against-syfy/

764

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 24, 2013, 07:52:29 PM »

BTW: I should add that Pinterest and pinner's liability in copying wouldn't be 'on or the other but not both'.  It could be that both are liable.

I'd have to go back and look, but I'm fairly sure when Pinterest rewrote / changed their TOS, they made sure any liability fell solely on the user/pinner.

765

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 24, 2013, 04:21:49 PM »

Glad to have Robert clarify.

Right now Pinterest is just a "sharing what you love" site and the bottom line is as Robert stated:

So technically there is a "COPY", Pinterest clearly states that it's the user or "pinner" that holds the responsibility, and to boot King douche bag Jonathan Klien pretty much stated on video, that when pinterest starts showing a profit the lawsuits will come.

sharing what you love is one thing, but what  is going to happens to all those companies incorporating Pinterest into their social media marketing?? They're gonna find themselves on the hook someday, and it woldn't surprise me if the likes of getty / Masterfile didn't wait / monitor company boards until they had literally dozens of pinned ( infringing) images, and then swoop in for a large settlement. We can call them dumb asshats all day long, but that doesn't mean they are clever..