Messages

751

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: They don't know who I am?

« on: February 14, 2012, 11:47:04 PM »

My understanding is that your case is regarding one image with Getty.
As I mentioned previously, this isn't a big deal at this time.  Although they'll try to bother you a bit for payment.

Nobody wants to say "ignore it".  No lawyer could tell you to ignore it
They can't do that, as it doesn't facilitate a "legal resolution" in terms of what I call "fairplay".
Even though evading service of actual court papers isn't illegal (but yes, that would look quite bad if your adversary could prove that you were doing that).

However, if Getty cannot find out what your name is, then they're dead in the water.  It's as simple as that.
Delivering something to an "address" is simply that; delivery to a place.  There's nothing to say that the anon that they're looking for ever resided there.
If this issue isn't about a lot of money, they're not likely to expend much effort to find you.

All anybody really worries about is getting sued.
Keep in mind that they can't mail you an actual lawsuit labeled "occupant" or "legal department" of some company that never existed.

Personally, if I received threatening letters to my address, and it didn't have my name, or the name of a business that I owned on it, I'd simply shred it because I would assume that it's a phishing scam.

Just be wary of signing for certified letters or unexpected courier deliveries.

S.G.

752

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I guess I screwed up

« on: February 14, 2012, 05:21:13 PM »

I think that the hotlinking issue (expecially as it relates to banners, etc) was first mentioned on the forum in July of last year.
There was a lot of discussion in August.

S.G.

753

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I guess I screwed up

« on: February 14, 2012, 03:56:22 PM »

The "Hotlinking" issue long predates Lucia's demand letter.
Getty has been sending letters alleging infringement over hotlinked content including ad banners for ages.
Also, Getty has been made aware of the issue long ago; it's not that they don't check the HTML.  They just don't care, and they want your money.
They threaten people over a long period of time so they they'll get worn down and pay regardless.

Everybody needs to understand that the main issue with Getty is that they aggressively demand money over cases that they know aren't really infringements.
We ARE talking about a company that IS technically savvy and has legal counsel at hand.  They know about this stuff.

S.G.

754

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Picscout IP range to block.

« on: February 14, 2012, 02:18:49 PM »

Good info as always...

Yeah, I don't think that I'll be using that application any time soon.

Besides, PicScout's partners are too expensive.
At one time, it was perceived that a "cool" website made more money.
Now, it's more important that the site is easy to find and navigate.
Additionally, companies need to make/sell what the customers want, at the best price, and with the best deals on shipping.
I also think that "real estate" on a web page is best used for photos of product, and info about features/benefits.

The high-priced stock photo market is dying.
PicScout's the box they're going to bury it in.

S.G.

755

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I guess I screwed up

« on: February 14, 2012, 02:10:43 PM »

A good method to find places where an image occurs on the Web is to use Google Image Search.
Go to Google, click on "images", next click on the little blue camera icon next to the search box, then click "upload image".
Upload the image that the alleged infringement is about.
Now, click "search".  Google will show a listing of oher places where the image can be found.

I think that Lucia is saying that you should check to see if other (unrelated) companies are selling the same image.
If this is the case, that could indicate that Getty doesn't have exclusive rights to the image.

In any case, if it's Getty that's bothering you over 1 image, it's probably not very serious.

S.G.

756

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Picscout IP range to block.

« on: February 13, 2012, 08:54:03 PM »

Good work by Lucia.  Nice!!

We shouldn't be surprised that PicScout's application is some sort of spyware.

The question that comes to mind is, does the EULA (license) of the PicScout application explain what the program actually does?
In addition, is a program like this illegal if includes what appears to be spyware?
Should an infringement be detected by this (illegal?) application, would it be a court defense that the discovery was made by illegal means?

I usually keep most applications from "calling home" by using a firewall unless absolutely necessary.

BTW, what's the actual name of this application?
It would be a good idea to reference it here for search engine purposes...

S.G.

757

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Hawaiian Art Network get 50 percent of income from infringements

« on: February 09, 2012, 11:54:45 AM »

Not sure if it's been posted previously...

PicScout’s Image Tracker software has helped Glen Carner’s Hawaiian Art Network... revenue recovered from infringements accounts for about 50% of Hawaiian Art Network’s income...

http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JHP2276

S.G.

758

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Glen Carner's Screen Saver / Wallpaper Entrapment Links

« on: February 08, 2012, 02:04:37 PM »

SG no like.

S.G.

759

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty's may have a solution but probably not interested in using it.

« on: February 08, 2012, 12:03:20 PM »

This reminds me of the movie "Minority Report" and the "Department of Precrime".

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2007/08/precrime.jpg

There used to be a spoof "Precrime" website.  When you went there, you'd hear a bunch of little kids say, "Get PreCrime!!  It Works!!"

Lol.

S.G.

760

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Certified Letter

« on: February 07, 2012, 06:15:33 PM »

Lol'd, Buddhapi.
I gotta watch that again.
I'll rent it, not download it, though!!

S.G.

761

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Certified Letter

« on: February 07, 2012, 05:57:36 PM »

I know that "official folks" here can't really say "ignore it", and that's part of the reason that I didn't formally "join".
As for asking questions of Getty, they won't tell you anything other than "we won't provide that unless we go to court", and "you have to pay or we might take legal action".
So, I think that I've saved some people a lot of time with the above statement.  Save your breath.

Just be forwarned that once you begin communications with these people, they'll bother you relentlessly.
Then, their lawyers will threaten you, and then they'll send it to collections which will pester you relentlessly.
There's a slim chance that you could be sued.  So, now you know what to expect if you come forward.
Many pay just to make the threats stop.

Many people have "blogs" without much identifying info on them.
If you've been simply contacted by email, and they don't know your home address or workplace, I would not come forward.
Keep in mind that they won't know for sure if you're "ignoring them"; they may just think that a spam filter is intercepting their threats.

Had I "come forward", I could have been out nearly six figures by the time legal fees were included in the event of a loss.
Even if I had "won", I wouldn't have gotten my time and frustration back.
Even before court, coming forward would have meant a few different hundred-dollar consultations, a five-thousand-dollar retainer, 200 to 600 dollars for each letter written and 300 to 500 dollars an hour on top of that.

So just think about what kind of "fighting back" that you do.
"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu says "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."

S.G.

762

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Certified Letter

« on: February 07, 2012, 03:01:54 PM »

So, you're saying that the Original Poster in the thread should call up Getty of MF and give them their contact info?
I strongly disagree if that's what you're saying.

In addition, I think that some of the arguments here assume that the trolls will go to the ends of the earth to find you.
That usually isn't the case.  It's usually not worth it.

If you're quite difficult to find, it'll go away probably 50 percent of the time.  I like those odds.
But, if people feel that they'll get off easier by calling up the trolls and saying "here I am", then that's an option, I guess.
If somebody does that, I hope that they'll report back and tell us what a "good deal" they got. lol.

If you're "laying low", then they "find you", it wouldn't change the material facts of your case.
Now, if you're actually "served" and you "disappear", there could be consequences.

Keep in mind that putting your name "out there" and exposing your communications with the trolls (while amusing) can get you into more heat than "laying low".
I wouldn't bait them too much.  If they serve you (even out of spite), you're going to lay out a lot of cash to defend yourself.
If you get sued, you have to file a defence.
But, it's not my money, I guess...

Just my opinions.

S.G.

763

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Certified Letter

« on: February 07, 2012, 12:16:02 PM »

I know that "laying low" isn't a very popular concept on the forum.
But, it`s the first step that everyone should take if possible.

We need to keep in mind what "winning" really means.  It means not paying the copyright trolls.
"Facing it head on" as some have previously stated might mean that you get sued (thanks for your honesty!).
Then, you'll end up paying 100 dollars to talk to a lawyer for 30 minutes, paying a retainer of thousands, and 300 dollars hourly (or more for a "good" lawyer) afterwards.

So, now is the time to very careful what you sign for, watch out for "weird" phone calls, and get your workplace info off of LinkedIn.

Others feel that getting their name and story out there has value.
But that only has value if you`re a crusader like Matt, or a figure that the public will have sympathy for.
Besides, we`ve know for years what the trolls have been doing.

S.G.

764

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response

« on: February 06, 2012, 02:46:22 PM »

Lucia made a good point about regular mail, too.

Anyway, while most wouldn't say "ignore them", what's the point of engaging these people (Getty) after making them an offer?
If they refuse it, what the point of further communication?  They'll just say "you have to pay".
So, you either pay, or don't.  They already know that they're usually in the wrong legally and many people have told them that.
What's the point of wasting time debating it?

They don't normally sue people over 1 or two images.
If they threaten to sue (through McCormack), I would then state my legal standing informally.
Or pay it.  But, there's no real "discussion", as they're not going to change their position.

They're making you "work", and that's what they want.

S.G.

765

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response

« on: February 06, 2012, 01:49:21 PM »

In all seriousness, just so everybody knows, there's quite a bit of "plausible deniability" with emails.
One can send an email to another person, and that person can simply say "I never got it".
So, we should keep this sort of thing in mind when dealing with legalities.

Anyway, I'm going to enjoy some Canadian beer (it's Monday, you know), play the best sport in the world (hockey!), then go for some free healthcare just for shits and giggles.

S.G.