Messages

796

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Will soon receive letter from Getty

« on: January 30, 2012, 12:16:29 PM »

Thanks for the kind words!!
Thankfully, I was cured completely by a surgery.
S.G.

797

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network v. Moku-aina Properties observations

« on: January 30, 2012, 12:13:44 PM »

It would be a tough go for H.A.N./Tylor in court, that's for sure.
I rate their chances as very slim as to a "win".

S.G.

798

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: TinEye.com

« on: January 30, 2012, 12:10:46 PM »

Thanks for all the detailed strategic and tactical info that you provide here, Lucia.
I know that this is quite a bit of work to put in that amount of detail.

I blocked PicScout, and the idiots who were harassing me and their lawyers with a simple htaccess file.
They haven't gotten through, or bothered to try to get through since.
Could somebody be eating up your bandwidth as an intimidation tactic?
What would be the point of constantly scanning your blog, other than to harass you?
I don't want to sound like "conspiracy theorist" or anything; I'm just throwing this out there.

S.G.

799

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Will soon receive letter from Getty

« on: January 29, 2012, 02:14:18 PM »

They ALL send letters to ANYONE regardless of what alleged infringer's online purpose is.
My site was a blog/resume thing.  I was quite sick at the time, and I was offering free work to charities on my site.
I wasn't completely unemployable, and I thought that it would be a good way to stay productive.
That didn't stop anyone.  But... yeah... I'll keep my money, thanks.

S.G.

800

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NCS Recovery using the name NCS IP Solutions?

« on: January 29, 2012, 02:10:10 PM »

Actually this NCS thing IS like Righthaven.
They'll threaten you in order to get money (like Righthaven).
But, they can't sue you and "win" because they don't own the intellectual property in the dispute (like Righthaven).
They aren't a "law firm" so they cannot act as an attorney on behalf of a client (like Righthaven).
Without a court win, they cannot do anything punitive such as affect your credit rating.

BTW, interesting link from Bekka.  I've heard many stories about the wrong people being sent to collections.
Usually it's because of a mistake over names or addresses.  When something like that happens, it's best to legal representation immediately.

S.G.

801

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NCS Recovery using the name NCS IP Solutions?

« on: January 29, 2012, 11:20:36 AM »

They should have bought the Righthaven domain.

S.G.

802

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Interesting development in a German Case

« on: January 28, 2012, 06:00:17 PM »

Each "circuit" in the United States courts of appeals refers to a geographical region.

Lucia's correct that when a precedent is set in a court appeal, it will apply to that "circuit" or "district":

"Court of appeals decisions, unlike those of the lower federal courts, establish binding precedents. Other federal courts in that circuit must, from that point forward, follow the appeals court's guidance in similar cases, regardless of whether the trial judge thinks that the case should be decided differently.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals

"Linking to infringing content: The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent DRM (digital rights management) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.[4]  There have been no cases in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Linking_to_infringing_content

Whichever side we're on, we can agree that neither side is "guaranteed" a court "win" unless it's already been tested at the highest court level in the land.
That rarely happens.  But, it's important to look at the "big picture".
If we only fight back when we have a Supreme Court precedent to assure us of a "guaranteed win", then we'd all be paying 2500 to 12,000 dollars (per alleged infringement) to everybody who sent us a threatening letter.
There's a lot of those letters flying around, because we don't manufacture dick-all here anymore, and people want to "monetize" their "intellectual property".
Which sounds like a good idea until people fight back in a big organized way, or third world countries get cameras and PhotoShop.

Some people pay a lot of money at the notion of "no guarantee".  Others weigh the likelihood of a successful outcome, and take other routes.  Some will simply never pay a cent, no matter what.

S.G.

803

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Popular Local radio Station ~ HAN & VKT

« on: January 28, 2012, 04:59:07 PM »

So much "win" detected....

S.G.

804

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network v. Moku-aina Properties observations

« on: January 28, 2012, 10:56:01 AM »

Love it, man.  Describes their actions perfectly.
Good work.

S.G.

805

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Aldrich Law Firm Letter

« on: January 26, 2012, 06:26:13 PM »

heehee..!  That's the stuff!!

S.G.

806

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Will soon receive letter from Getty

« on: January 26, 2012, 05:21:25 PM »

Good discussion here, and all points well taken.

Something else to consider is how many alleged infringements have been made.
If it's Getty and one image for example, one could question how far they'd be willing to go in their pursuit.

I guess that I assumed that OP's posting was having to do with a blog with not too many personal identifiers.
I figured that's why somebody else got his/her letter.

But, I've been wrong before.

Guess that I'm just not the type to do some copyright troll's work for them.  Make it hard for them every step of the way.
An analogy... if there's a big football sized bee's nest, I usually don't throw rocks at it.

S.G.

807

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Will soon receive letter from Getty

« on: January 26, 2012, 03:52:15 PM »

Good point made here by Buddhapi.
Now's a good time for OP to get domain privacy.

S.G.

808

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Will soon receive letter from Getty

« on: January 26, 2012, 01:37:42 PM »

When your Getty letter arrives, write "moved: return to sender" all over it.
Then, shove it back in the mail.  Do that for every letter.
Also, do that for any letter that comes from "McCormack".

S.G.

809

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Aldrich Law Firm Letter

« on: January 25, 2012, 09:02:43 PM »

I too received an Aldrich Letter Dated Jan 5. I have talked to Mr. Aldrich concerning the image (just one) and told him I didnt have the money to pay ($1070). In an email a few days later he told me that his client was probably understanding and that if I paid by Thursday the 26th I would "only" have to pay $500.
My website was made over 10 years ago, the company that did it is out of business so there are no licenses to be had. So in a few days I guess I'll be popping out money that I dont have. I own a small business that in no way consciously infringed on a copyright. A takedown would have sufficed. Strong armed law.

Don't pay these scammers.

Fight them.
First, "You've got to GET MAD."

Fight Back.
Say, "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!".



When companies and people want your hard-earned money, don't believe everything that they tell you.
Getting educated about the facts is key.

Fight it.

S.G.

810

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Statute of Limitations Copyright Law

« on: January 25, 2012, 02:19:58 PM »

Just because a photo has been on your site for ten years does not necessarily mean that the staute of limitations has run out.

The statute dictates that the copyright holder has a three year window within which they can take legal action after discovery of an alleged infringement.

However, they cannot legally claim damages for a time period greater than the three years prior to the detection of the alleged infringement.

I'm sure that the case that you speak of was brought to court within such a three year period.

S.G.