Messages

781

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Summary Judgment Info

« on: February 02, 2012, 04:45:04 PM »

I'm not an attorney.
However, the following is my understanding.

You could file an "answer" to a lawsuit wherein the responses to each "point" are a flat out denial "such as Defendant denies this accusation".
However, this is a very, very weak position unless the given point is obviously very frivolous.
You should endeavor to answer every point with a solid statement to the contrary, and you should be able to firmly back up that statement with evidence.
One may also consider using a "flat-out denial" if the point that the plaintiff is making cannot be backed up by any evidence, or is simply an opinion without precedent.

You may start with answering each of the plaintiff's accusations point by point at first.
Then add any remaining pertinent info at the beginning of your response.

You local court will have forms and documents online that you can download.
Submissions and forms must be made according to rules, which are also posted.

Note that you cannot represent yourself if the dispute involves a corporation (in most places).

All of this will require lots of reading and studying.

S.G.

782

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Cease Communications" request

« on: February 02, 2012, 04:32:34 PM »

Idea for revenue generation: a $50 dollar donation allows one to use an avatar.
Got my 50 bucks right here. lol.

link... link... hmmm...
See Matt's second post down here:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/buddhapi-has-officially-joined-the-eli-defense-team!/

S.G.

783

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How many infringements is that?

« on: February 02, 2012, 04:26:05 PM »

My personal opinion is that Getty doesn't send DMCA takedown notifications unless the alleged infringer won't take the images down.
They normally just send a demand for the images considering the amount of usage, and ask you to remove them.
That's because if you comply with a DMCA takedown notice, then they couldn't take you to court if needed; you've done what was asked, and the dispute is over.

The number of infractions depends on how times each image appears on your site.
If the alleged infringement is of a photo of an apple, and the apple appears on three separate times on your site (even on the same page), then that's three infringements.

Sometimes, they'll demand more money for images that appear closer to the top level (home page) of the site.

S.G.

784

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: TinEye.com

« on: February 02, 2012, 04:20:03 PM »

I think that this is what jpicker is looking for:

http://www.techiecorner.com/95/block-ip-from-accessing-website-using-htaccess/

You can block entire countries (such as Israel, which PicScout normally operated from):

http://www.countryipblocks.net/country-blocks/htaccess-deny-format/

It worked for me and Buddhapi.
If you have further issues, you can consider tougher methods.

You can search on Google for the latest Picscout IP addresses if needed.

S.G.

785

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Cease Communications" request

« on: February 02, 2012, 01:32:54 PM »

This issue (avatar) has been addressed before.
Please read the forums...!  lol.

S.G.

786

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Providing Proof of Infringement

« on: February 02, 2012, 01:12:02 PM »

I really don't see the point of trying to submit a "defense" if you're not sued.
They won't listen to you, and will keep sending letters to wear you down.

Even if it's a "TemplateMonster" issue, they'll keep bugging you.
In that case, you'd have to contact TM, and they'll pay off Getty.
Getty will grudgingly take the money from TM, and leave you alone.  But, grudgingly.

If it's not your site or something, that's different.  They might listen to that.

S.G.

787

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Introduction

« on: February 01, 2012, 11:49:30 PM »

I enjoyed the discussion here.

It occurred to me that photographers have also benefitted from technology; it's made them much more productive and has saved them money.

With film, one couldn't know what the actual photo would look like until development.
Now, you can see it on screen as you go, or in real-time on a laptop.
At one time, professional photographers would need their own lab, equipment and supplies to develop their photos.
That has been completely done away with.  Imagine the time and money that's saved.
In addition, any special effects (even subtle ones) would require quite a bit of lab work and materials.
Now, with some software knowledge, the same effects can be performed in minutes.

I think that the hardware is much less costly now than in decades past.
I know that some are stuck on the big names like Hasselblad, etc.
But, it's probably unrealistic to expect the customer to pay for such high-end brands, unless he/she can actually benefit from it.

That's just some of the recent benefits that photographers (both professional and otherwise) enjoy these days.

While the prices on stock imagery have fallen (aside from the high-end market, which is faltering), the cost of producing high quality photographs has also decreased immensely.
So, photographers aren't hurting quite as much as they'd lead you to believe.

S.G.

788

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile / Arius3D deal deadline today

« on: February 01, 2012, 11:31:02 PM »

Yes, they probably make more from legal threats than traditional sales.

I think that there was probably some good growth in the first five years after the web became "graphical".
Back then, many businesses equated a cool website with increased sales.
Now, customers are are savvier with their purchases; the actual product and how a site functions is more important than appearance.
Business people who need a website aren't concerned with the "cool factor" so much these days.
They want to talk numbers.  Now, people will use more economical images for the most part.

You know what else grows "organically"?  Mold.

S.G.

789

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Cease Communications" request

« on: February 01, 2012, 12:26:25 PM »

Good discussion.

MF will usually send information about its ownership of intellectual property.
So, at least it's easier to make an informed decision in that case.

Now, for me personally.
For everyone else who doesn't send any information about who owns the intellectual property in question:
I wouldn't pay them.  I would cease communications with them if a request for clarification of ownership is denied.
Some may say, "they might sue".  Sure, they might pay the hundred dollars and sue.  But, then I'd get the information that I want at the discovery stage.
Then, I can either settle if everything is "legit" (and Soylent doesn't think it's legit BTW).
Or, if the paperwork isn't legit, I know that 99 percent of the time they'll back right off.
If it does go to court, I get to fight it for shits and giggles.  Then I win, collect all my fees and gloat about it on the Internet.

Heck, these days, you can get a letter from a "lawyer" who says "write a check made out to my trust account".
How do if that's an actual lawyer working for Getty, of just some fat toad with a shit-smeared ass-crack trolling for a quick buck?
How would I know if the "details" are "none of my business"?   Wow.  Let me get my check book.  lol.

S.G.

790

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile / Arius3D deal deadline today

« on: February 01, 2012, 11:10:28 AM »

It's pretty clear that Steve Pigeon wants to get out of MF and the stock photo business.
I can't say that I blame him.  But, any new owner of MF would have to make sweeping changes to stay competitive.
It would probably be easier for someone to start a completely new company with a different business model.
Rather than buy MF and then try to fix it, that is.  They should have made changes many years ago to stay competitive.

In the words of GE’s former CEO: “Change or die”.  The company's value rose 4000% during his tenure.

S.G.

791

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: "Cease Communications" request

« on: January 31, 2012, 04:03:36 PM »

Such rules apply only to actual collection agencies, unfortunately.

As long as the communications are lawful, it would be difficult to stop Getty or McCormack from contacting you.
That's one of their most powerful tactics; they keep at you for a long time.
It works, as many people get tired of it over time, and settle with them.

There's only three ways to stop the communications, or stop them from reaching you directly:
1) Retain a lawyer (such as Oscar), and Getty will have to communicate with him.
2) Make a settlement with them Getty.
3) Hold out for the three year statute of limitations to run out.

If was easy as telling them "don't bother me", we wouldn't need this forum, lawyers or even copyright law!  lol.

If the issue is about one or two images, and you don't want to be bothered, Oscar's letter program is a good choice.
You won't get the letters anymore, and the likelihood of a lawsuit would be rather remote.  You could sleep at night.

S.G.

792

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: TinEye.com

« on: January 31, 2012, 03:52:27 PM »

Thanks for the further info, Lucia.

I'm not that active on the 'web right now, so I'm not receiving much traffic.

At the present, I could only make guesses as to why your traffic pattern is so brutal.
I do know that most people need only undertake such countermeasures as you have when they're the victims of DDOS attacks.
I'm not saying that you're under attack.  But, your info is quite interesting indeed.

Do you know of any other bloggers whom are experiencing the same kind of traffic?

S.G.

793

Getty Images Letter Forum / Masterfile / Arius3D deal deadline today

« on: January 31, 2012, 12:15:43 PM »

Masterfile / Arius3D deal deadline is today...
Inb4 shitstorm!!

S.G.

794

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Introduction

« on: January 31, 2012, 11:23:51 AM »

Yeah, it's slowly dying, and H.A.N.'s the box they're gonna bury it in. lol.

S.G.

795

Getty Images Letter Forum / Anyone else been S.L.A.P.P.'ed by F.E.C.A.L. Lawyer Julie Stewart?

« on: January 30, 2012, 12:35:44 PM »

Anyone else been S.L.A.P.P.ed by F.E.C.A.L. Lawyer Julie Stewart?

S.L.A.P.P.: Strategic lawsuit against public participation...

"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]"
 
"The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims."

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

Many jurisdictions have legislation in place to deal with "S.L.A.P.P.'s" in an expeditious manner.

S.G.