Messages

811

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lawsuit filed against Getty images for Copyright infringement.

« on: January 24, 2012, 12:50:00 PM »

Wow!!  An interesting read indeed!!
Getty should have stopped displaying and selling those images as soon as they were notified of the photographer's concerns.

Also, this document is one of quality; unlike many that we see from the troll lawyers.
No spelling mistakes, plagiarism, or phony legalese.

S.G.

812

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lawsuit filed against Getty images for Copyright infringement.

« on: January 24, 2012, 12:15:05 PM »

Another gem of a find.
Interesting that Getty didn't want to settle, and it's become a lawsuit.

If Getty infringed on the photographer, that's rather hypocritical.  One would think that Getty would be an expert in the business.
It's like being the CEO of a leading condom company, and then contracting a raging STD.
Pretty butthurt if you ask me.

S.G.

813

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: US Feds Shut Down Megaupload.com File-Sharing Website

« on: January 23, 2012, 07:26:15 PM »

Yes, I figure that there's a lot going on with MegaUpload. (ahem...)

Well, if Righthaven proved anything, it's that the business concept of "it's cheaper to pay us than to fight us (even if we're in the wrong)" doesn't work.
Eventually, people fight back.  So, I hope that business and law schools aren't teaching this concept.

S.G.

814

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

« on: January 23, 2012, 12:57:35 PM »

I'm not an expert on this.

However, I'm guessing that one could file a lawsuit in most places that have a formal court system.
I'm sure that 'international' claims would have to be based on laws local to the alleged infringer.
But, it's doubtful that many foreign firms have registered their copyrights with the US Copyright Office.
Even US firms have done a terrible job in this regard.

Does anyone know if such a case would fall under the Berne Convention?

If the dispute is over a small number of images, I can't see how they could enforce payment without expending a great deal of effort.

S.G.

815

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: US Feds Shut Down Megaupload.com File-Sharing Website

« on: January 23, 2012, 12:48:48 PM »

Check out the DOJ/ FBI/ IPR notice "seized" banner on the Megaupload site.
It's pretty impressive.  How come something like that was never done with Righthavens' site?

http://www.megaupload.com/

Also, check out the list of charges on the bottom half.

S.G.

816

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Rights Exclusivity: No Exclusivity

« on: January 23, 2012, 01:12:46 AM »

If Getty issued a receipt to a customer, we can assume that the customer has purchased a license to use an image.
Such a license normally includes what kind of use is intended, image size, resolution, length of usage, etc.

When the receipt reads "Rights Exclusivity: No Exclusivity", I would take that to mean that the customer has not purchased a licence to use the image exclusively.
That is, other customers may also purchase licenses to use the image.

My personal opinion is that the actual copyright ownership of an image does not change regardless of whether the license is "exclusive" or "non-exclusive" when a customer purchases a license to use an image.
The copyright remains in place unchanged, and the customer may use the image as per the terms of the license (contract).

If someone uses the image without a license, then an infringement occurs.
The stock photo company may then take action according to legal/copyright laws.
Therefore, I do believe that the stock photo company could sue for infringement/damages in the case that you mentioned.

What I'm saying is that stock photo companies normally only license the use of images to their customers.
Most people (end users) don't purchase the actual copyright ownership of an image even if they desire exclusive use of it.

S.G.

817

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Advice needed on dealing with HAN: Just got letter from Aldrich Law Firm

« on: January 22, 2012, 01:09:34 PM »

I'm not surprised that it's not slowing them down.
Many people get these letters and just pay a settlement like sheep.

S.G.

818

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn Wright - Photo Attorney

« on: January 22, 2012, 12:46:45 AM »

Even if the properties of a file are "read-only", it can still be copied.
"Read only" simply means that the file itself can't be changed or "written to".

Some people/companies don't have an interest in actually stopping infringements.
That's because the monetary settlements that are gained in settlement disputes are very lucrative.

S.G.

819

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Advice needed on dealing with HAN: Just got letter from Aldrich Law Firm

« on: January 21, 2012, 07:12:12 PM »

I recommend tapping on his momma's basement window.
When he gets out of the fetal position, and comes to the window, ask for references.
lol.

S.G.

820

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfiles 3rd suit for 2012

« on: January 21, 2012, 06:55:45 PM »

Yes, it's important to remove any allegedly infringing content immediately.
Even if there is some question as to whether the content actually infringes, it's best to act quickly and then do the research.

If these images were registered as part of compilation, I don't think that MF would be likely to prevail in court.
I think that the 1.8 million demand is probably intended to make the stakes appear to be very high such that the alleged infringer will be scared into making an out-of-court settlement.

At this point, I feel that 1.8 million is a bit over the top.
It doesn't pay to look desperate, and it's embarrassing to say the least.

S.G.

821

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has anyone brought a class action vs Getty yet?

« on: January 21, 2012, 06:46:26 PM »

I agree with Matt's assertion.
Many of these companies lie in order to get settlement monies.

While a class-action may be plausible on that basis, there's a problem.
Most people who paid settlements also signed a non-disclosure agreement.
I'm not sure how they could get out of that agreement so that they could file suit.

In addition, while many would like to see a class-action, most people are waiting for somebody else to start it.
They're reluctant to take the initiative.

S.G.

822

Legal Controversies Forum / Both SOPA and PIPA shelved

« on: January 20, 2012, 01:16:42 PM »

Both SOPA and PIPA shelved

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-wins-sopa-and-pipa-both-shelved.ars

S.G.

823

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: US Feds Shut Down Megaupload.com File-Sharing Website

« on: January 20, 2012, 11:43:22 AM »

I agree with Bekka.

Also, I think those in the music/film/stock image business feel that when their content is no longer available as "free" that they'll rake in the money on sales.
However, I don't feel that this is an effective method of "demand generation".
There's a huge "customer base" for free stuff.  But, getting people to buy it is a different story.

I hope that we have the opportunity to use avatars on our ELI profiles again in the near future.
Because I found a great one.  It also resembles Buddhapi a little bit:

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3944/itsonnowchaps1327075467.jpg

S.G.

824

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: US Feds Shut Down Megaupload.com File-Sharing Website

« on: January 19, 2012, 07:18:14 PM »

The following sites are down intermittently due to distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) attacks:

www.copyright.gov   - US Copyright Office
www.riaa.com          - Recording Industry Association of America
www.mpaa.org/        - Motion Picture Associaton

S.G.

825

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: US Feds Shut Down Megaupload.com File-Sharing Website

« on: January 19, 2012, 06:41:54 PM »

In a further development, hacker group "anonymous" retaliates by knocking the US Department of Justice (www.justice.gov) offline in a distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS):

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/19/technology/megaupload_shutdown/

S.G.