Messages

826

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

« on: January 19, 2012, 05:42:35 PM »

US Feds Shut Down Megaupload.com File-Sharing Website

http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/

They did it without SOPA. 

The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and three others were arrested Thursday in New Zealand at the request of U.S. officials.

S.G.

827

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Is Riddick Dead?

« on: January 19, 2012, 12:27:31 PM »

The Imageline/HP case was in fact dismissed "With Prejudice", so it is OVER.

"ORDER by Judge S. James Otero. Having reviewed the parties Stipulation for Dismissal of Action With Prejudice 20 and finding good cause thereon, that this case be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees incurred against each other. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)"

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2011cv00172/491489/21/

Is there documentation available that shows that the CafePress decisions was "without prejudice"?
I'm curious about it.

Normally, "dismissed" means that the judge made a decision that the plaintiff couldn't prove his/her case.
If a settlement is made before the judge renders a verdict, the plaintiff would file a "voluntary dismissal".

Yes, he could re-file if the decision is "without prejudice"
However, if the judge in the first round felt that he didn't have a case, this may not be worthwhile.
He could file a lawsuit with the same material facts.  If there's nothing "new", the defendant will just file for summary dismissal.

Recent court precedents have made bulk copyright registrations practically useless for the enforcement of copyright.
Also, the artwork of Imageline/Riddick is mainly too "generic" to enforce as "unique".
Imagine if I made a line-drawing of an apple and copyrighted it.
Then, ran a shake-down business and pursued anyone who has a drawing of an apple on their web site.
That's what it's like.

People pay the $100 dollars to file a lawsuit all the time as an intimidation tactic.  It's $50 in Canada, I think.
Yes, some people are quite intimated by that.  It's stressful.
But, the chances of Riddick gaining any traction with what he has is pretty slim.
Also, he can only afford to lose so many times.

Yes, anything is possible.  But, I wouldn't send him any money.


S.G.

828

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: IT Machines, LLC vs. Masterfile Corporation, NCS Recovery Corp. and Phusion 25

« on: January 19, 2012, 12:06:22 PM »

The last document says that Phusion settled with MF.

Therefore, I'd say that this was a situation such as we hear about all the time on here.
This occurred in the somewhat "early days" of trolling, and it would seem that IT Machines didn't know what was happening.

IT Machines hired Phusion to create a website for them.
Phusion used MF images without license, and MF found out about the infringement.
As per usual custom, MF went after the end user; IT Machines.
IT Machines (having paid for their site in good faith) thought that there was some collusion between Phusion and MF.

It appears that this is a case wherein the developer Phusion made "good" in the end.

S.G.

829

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Analyzing Masterfile's Lawsuit History

« on: January 18, 2012, 11:52:59 PM »

Matt,

Here's a tidbit about the origins of MF:

"Masterfile, headquartered in Toronto, Canada, is one of the world's largest providers of premium still images, in terms of revenues. Masterfile was created within a subsidiary of the Toronto Sun in 1981 and managed by Steve Pigeon until it was sold by the Toronto Sun to Mr. Pigeon and a consortium of employees and contributing photographers in 1984."

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/arius3d-to-acquire-masterfile-tsx-venture-lzr-1551561.htm

S.G.

830

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile & Arius3d acquisition closing date extended, Arius3D pays MF 450k

« on: January 18, 2012, 05:17:42 PM »

There was some previous mention of the Jan 31, 2012 deadline here also:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/no-masterfile-arius-deal/

But yeah, I was already pretty sure that MF is a crooked company what with the outrageous settlement claims it makes, along with the shady paperwork.

I know that it would be wrong to tell people to "ignore" these claims, but I'm pretty disappointed that so many people fall for the ruse and pay.
Which has kept this going for a long time.

S.G.

831

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Is Riddick Dead?

« on: January 18, 2012, 04:30:40 PM »

"With Prejudice" means that he can't can't file a lawsuit over the same case again.  Those cases are over and done.
These IP lawsuits haven't been going well for him recently.
With these major losses, any future case could face a quick summary dismissal based on the failure of his previous cases.

S.G.

832

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 17, 2012, 11:27:11 AM »

Has the judge's ruling in Corbis been appealed? If yes, what happened?

---

Did Corbis not list the names of the photographers? I admit to not knowing the details and not being up on copyright. Is the issue whether or not the creators of the individual images got named important, and does the naming in the attachments Masterfile has count?

Clarification would be welcome.

A big flaw in the Corbis case was that the names of the authors weren't listed.

Some amicus briefs (maybe its briefs amicus?) were filed in an attempt to overturn the decision, however these were unsuccessful.

Mr Michelen had mentioned that if an appeal was filed, it would be in the Second Circuit.
I couldn't find any references to an appeal of this case.

Apparently, there have been two other cases dismissed on a similar basis (bulk registrations).
I also think that in Bernina vs Imageline/Riddick, the images being registered in bulk also contributed to Riddick's lack of standing.

There was some fairly good commentary on the Corbis/Muench/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt just over a year ago.
It's worth visiting.

S.G.

833

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 16, 2012, 11:07:08 PM »

Just a comment on Bekka's info (which is interesting, BTW).
I haven't seen the documents that she spoke of, however, I don't think that a contractual agreement wherein the assignment kicks in only under certain conditions would be valid.
In addition, I believe that a court would be most interested in who owned the content at the actual time of infringement, not who it was assigned to after an infringement was detected.

S.G.

834

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I found a copyright infringement!

« on: January 16, 2012, 02:21:23 PM »

I'm not done herpa-derping this just yet.

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8567/juliestewartlawyercanad.jpg

S.G.

835

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I found a copyright infringement!

« on: January 15, 2012, 08:30:07 PM »

Great work, buddhapi!!  I actually laughed out loud!!
You didn't even need Picscout.
I took screen shots as proof. lol.

S.G.

836

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 15, 2012, 02:38:43 PM »

Great discussion as usual.

As per scraggys' points above.

Clauses 13 and 15 state that MF is the assignee of copyright.
However, that would mean that the original artist has copyrighted the image, then assigned the copyright to MF under contract.
In addition, MF has apparently copyrighted it AGAIN as part of a collection.
This causes quite a confusion as to legal standing of ownership.

Just another shit-tier lawsuit from MF.

S.G.

837

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Looks like someone is attempting some damage control...

« on: January 15, 2012, 02:26:13 PM »

Should probably be called "The Troll Shop".
The one-stop shop for lame-o's who troll.
Lol.

S.G.

838

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: It's always nice to put a face to the people behind the letters..

« on: January 15, 2012, 02:23:43 PM »

Thanks for an interesting post.
I didn't even look for an image of her, as I didn't think she'd post it.
It's weird though.  I always imagined her as being blond; I'm not being facetious.

I'm not sure what she means by "applies collaborative design strategy to innovation in the delivery of legal services".
It seems like a verb-verb issue.

Also, what's this "The Trade-mark Shop" thing?

S.G.

839

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Bruce Rosen (representing Julie Stewart) Sends Certified Letter to ELI

« on: January 15, 2012, 02:16:18 PM »

While we do sometimes have some "fun" here, all that's really being done is the reporting of factual, publicly available information.
We all would like to be seen as "pillars of the community", and "artistic types" want to be seen as "edgy and deep".

However, the entire "copyright trolling" issue is quite controversial to begin with, and lawyer Julie Stewart's involvement with H.A.N., including her reactions to factual reporting are noteworthy.

I really believe in the concept of "Occam's Razor", that is, the simplest explanation is the usually the best one.
It's pretty obvious that H.A.N./Tylor seed their images online to induce copyright infringements.

In the face of weak claims and non-existent legal standing in almost every case, it seems that some wish to suppress the reporting of the issues.
This isn't North Korea.  People can't tell us what we can and can't talk about.  Things could be much worse.
If I got an extortion letter from lawyer Julie Stewart over those deliberately seeded H.A.N. photos, I'd have my PR machine up and running in seven days.
That would include a website called "canadianlawyerjuliestewart.tv" hosted "offshore", with domain privacy in place.
This site would include all publicly available information about lawyer Julie Stewart that can be shown to be factual.
I would also institute pay-per-click ads "Canadian Lawyer Julie Stewart" that direct traffic to my site.
I would place sufficiently high bids so that the pay per-click ads would stay "on top".
Even if I was outbid somehow, my ads would be at least second.
Everything would be "legal" so as to ensure that any legal efforts to suppress information about Canadian lawyer Julie Stewart would be met with a prompt and successful legal response.
Further efforts would be to involve national media if things escalate.  Blogs would link to my site, and the traffic would keep it on top in the search listings.

Again, things could be much worse for those who intend to prevent people from discussing the issues and people involved.

I'm going to make my own "Canadian Lawyer Julie Stewart" video, but "Adagio for Strings" (from Platoon) is copyrighted, and I have to find some other tragic-fail sounding music for my clip about her.

S.G.

840

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

« on: January 15, 2012, 12:39:52 PM »

A personal opinion here.
I would imagine that they (Getty for example) could pay the artist a large one-time payment for outright "ownership".
For example, that photo of the starving baby with the vulture apparently lying in wait has been purchased by Getty outright.
Additionally, I see no reason that practically any arrangement couldn't be drafted between the artist and company.
For example, "artist signs over ownership for ten years, and we pay x monthly fees plus y percentage on monthly sales".
S.G.