Messages

871

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has any "photographer" ever posted on ELI that was NOT a lying troll?

« on: July 03, 2013, 08:39:41 AM »

By the way... to the subject of this thread... I would just like to mention that I have seen some of Robert K's nature photography and I would definitely consider him a professional photographer. His stuff is better than some of the images I've seen on Getty. AND, as far as I know, he is NOT a lying troll.

Thanks Jerry, use one of my images and see what happens! 

872

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty extortion letter. Picking peoples brains

« on: July 03, 2013, 08:33:57 AM »

yes "going there" or playing "Getty infringed by copying my site with a screen capture", will not get you anywhere, it would simply be refuted by them..You'd be better served to argue items that at least have a chance of standing up in court..

Heres one such thread: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/a-non-lawyer-idea-about-'the-letter'/

873

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty extortion letter. Picking peoples brains

« on: July 02, 2013, 08:35:35 AM »

Don't forget if they have sent you a snapshot of your website showing the image, they have also infringed your copyright for content, design and layout.

Now that's a copyright infringement and I'd bet you could prove how much they benefitted from it! (exactly the amount they are trying to extort). I'm sure everybodys terms and conditions state no copying, storage, reproduction or exploitation for gain!

So you are dragged over hot coals for an image accidentally obtained by mistake but they purposefully and with full intent and flagrancy took a copy of your website and infringed it.

Oh my days!

Snapshots, screen captures and like would NOT constitute copyright infringement, and I would noteven go there and mention this, it's been discussed many times in the forums..

874

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is there a definitive IP range for PICSCOUT - i want to kill the spider!

« on: June 30, 2013, 09:28:35 AM »

There is a good bit on this forum about using your htaccess and basically saying to the bots "don't go to these areas please". If they ignore your warning you ban them!

http://forums.eukhost.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=87709

Just applied it to all my sites plus the little addition of emailing me when one is banned. Within 20 seconds of putting it in place, blinkin Googlebot came along, completely disregarded the robots.txt file and got itself banned. Well there ya go
[/quote

Googlebot DOES adhere to robots.txt, chances are good this bot was simply masking itself as googlebot , If it were me, I would be doing some further digging into this...IP address, ect....

875

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has any "photographer" ever posted on ELI that was NOT a lying troll?

« on: June 30, 2013, 09:24:49 AM »

tineye has been around for a few years, good tool but certainly not fool proof, google reverse image search is also a good tool.

876

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 2nd Getty Demand Letter - Should I Be Worried?

« on: June 29, 2013, 10:15:02 AM »

I just received my Getty letter the other day, so I'm boning up on as much as I can.

I read the summary, as advised. But it appears that most of the information on this site -- including the summary -- is several years old. Can you tell us where things stand in the summer of 2013?

Not much has changed, the language of the letter has changed a bit, Getty still rarely sues over 1 or 2 images. If you have a more specific question that would be helpful.

877

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Considering my life circumstances, I may just ignore them.

« on: June 26, 2013, 07:07:00 AM »

Couple of things, firstly it would cost Getty 350.00 file not 500.00, and you are correct in assuming they would not file unless they saw a slam dunk. Your health while a bad thing could be used as a positive here, as you're pretty much judgement proof..IF they filed they wouldn't be able to collect, so a win would actually be a loss in the grand scheme of things. Also you seem to understand that your letter is among 1000's of others, making it unlikely they would pick your out of the stack to file suit on. Many people don't get this, they all think they are some kind of special and are the only ones in the cross-hairs. Given the amount of times Getty has sued over 1 images and the number of letter sent, the percentage is very low, you probably have better odds buying a scratch off lottery ticket!.. That being said only you can decide how to proceed and whether to ignore them or engage that total asshat attorney from Seattle Timothy B. McCormack.

878

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A friend of ELI

« on: June 24, 2013, 08:03:35 AM »

Are using a proxy?? You have not been blocked, that I can assure you. Some IP ranges have been blocked for various reasons. If you pm me your ip I can look to see if it is on the list.

879

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A friend of ELI

« on: June 23, 2013, 06:56:17 AM »

Note "every photographer"....just sayin. 

880

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter from a "Photo Attorney" who is on Caroline Wrights team

« on: June 22, 2013, 04:34:48 PM »

Oh Dear lord!  Does this mean I could STILL get someone after me for using those photos?   How am I able to "purchase" the right to use them??  THATS messed up!!   Anyone have a good source?  I have tons and tons of images on my site!!   coconutgrovemassage.com

First and foremost, if you have "tons of images", you had better go through everything, and any images you don't have a license for, promptly remove them it's simply not worth the risk. Use your own images, maybe look at pond5.com for micro stock images.. some photographers will allow you to use their images if you gice them visable credit and a link back to their site..but be sure you have something in writing from them just in case..

881

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A friend of ELI

« on: June 22, 2013, 06:42:14 AM »

So that blogger had to decide whether to hire a costly attorney, pay an upfront settlement fee to the attorney's office of $9,000, or ignore the letter and be trapped into paying a court enforced default penalty, which is then subject to collection harassment.

Court enforced default penalty? What is that all about?

I interpret that to mean if the letter recipient elects to ignore it altogether, they would be hit with a default judgement...The only way this would happen is IF they filed suit first, and the then defendant still opted to ignore it after being served..then they may get a default judgement...but in reality a suit would not be filed, therefore negating this statement altogether.

882

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Courtroom Sketch Artist Sues Getty Images For Copyright Violations

« on: June 22, 2013, 06:39:00 AM »

Not surprising, and not the first court room sketch artist to sue either. "Getty Images has no comment"

883

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter from a "Photo Attorney" who is on Caroline Wrights team

« on: June 22, 2013, 06:35:19 AM »

BTW, I am now purchasing from these guys...  http://www.canstockphoto.com/

did you read and understand this:

Section 8: Releases and Captions
Licensor grants no rights and makes no warranties with regard to the use of names, people, trademarks, trade dress, logo types, registered, unregistered, or copyrighted designs or works of art or architecture or other forms of intellectual property depicted in any Content, and Licensee must satisfy itself that all the necessary rights, consents, or permissions regarding any of the above, as may be required for reproduction, have been obtained.  Licensee acknowledges that some jurisdictions provide legal protection against a person’s image, likeness, or property being used for commercial purposes without their consent.  Licensor does not warrant the legality of the Content, the accuracy of caption and keyword information, nor the legality or accuracy of any release information affiliated with the Content. 

and this:

THE CONTENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY, OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING THE CONTENT OR ITS DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NONINFRINGEMENT.  LICENSOR DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE PRODUCT WILL MEET LICENSEE’S REQUIREMENTS OR THAT ITS USE OR THE USE OF THE WEBSITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. THE ENTIRE RISK REGARDING THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTENT IS WITH THE LICENSEE.  IN NO EVENT SHALL LICENSOR OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, ATTORNEYS, AND SUCCESSORS BE LIABLE TO LICENSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ANY GENERAL, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES; LOST PROFITS OR LOSS OF PROSPECTIVE COMPENSATION, GOODWILL OR LOSS THEREOF; OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF LICENSEE'S USE OF THE CONTENT, OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, COSTS, OR LOSSES. 

just sayin.....buyer beware

884

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

« on: June 20, 2013, 06:27:17 AM »

EFF has writtern a great article, as to why this case will not succeed...it will probably end before it begins..

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/buzzfeed-faces-36-million-copyright-suit-not-so-much

885

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I emailed letter on Jun 6th but have not received any answer yet

« on: June 19, 2013, 06:53:42 PM »

I will call them tomorrow.

Good deal, don't fret to much about Seattle Attorney and copyright troll Timothy B.McCormacks "deadline" it is largely a scare tactic designed to make you act blindly...