871
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« on: September 11, 2010, 12:14:43 AM »
The case got adjourned again, he still has no lawyer representing his company
| Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program | |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
872
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)
« on: September 03, 2010, 03:11:12 PM »
It looks that way. The documents I've seen show that he took money from his mother and another person to fund this infringement program.
873
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images
« on: September 02, 2010, 11:46:20 AM »
Hey SG:
Just want to clear up a point you address in your latest post. Copyright is owned by the author of the material. With photographs, the original author would be the photographer unless the photo was a "Work for hire" then the author would be whoever hired the photographer. However, the author has the right to assign r o transfer that right to any third party. Most of the photographer's agreements that Getty uses contain a complete assignment of rights including an assignment of the right to enforce the copyright the author's own. So, Getty can bring an action if they have such an assignment
Just want to clear up a point you address in your latest post. Copyright is owned by the author of the material. With photographs, the original author would be the photographer unless the photo was a "Work for hire" then the author would be whoever hired the photographer. However, the author has the right to assign r o transfer that right to any third party. Most of the photographer's agreements that Getty uses contain a complete assignment of rights including an assignment of the right to enforce the copyright the author's own. So, Getty can bring an action if they have such an assignment
874
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images
« on: September 01, 2010, 11:40:00 PM »
Slamberth:
The federal rules say that settlement discussions are not admissible in court and normally settlement agreements in copyright matters are kept confidential. That is standard practice. However, you have not settled with them so you have no obligation to keep anything confidential unless you have already agreed to do so. If you would like my help in representing you against Getty on this case, you can email me at [email protected]
The federal rules say that settlement discussions are not admissible in court and normally settlement agreements in copyright matters are kept confidential. That is standard practice. However, you have not settled with them so you have no obligation to keep anything confidential unless you have already agreed to do so. If you would like my help in representing you against Getty on this case, you can email me at [email protected]
875
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)
« on: September 01, 2010, 11:35:18 PM »
Next court date is 9-3-10 Can't wait to see what happens
876
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« on: September 01, 2010, 11:34:11 PM »
Love it Matt
877
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile and Template Monster
« on: September 01, 2010, 06:31:28 PM »
TM also settled with Getty in some states. For example, I think the Idaho Attorney General got on Getty's case for continuing to send out demand letters on cases TM had accepted as their responsibility. Will follow up with more info.
878
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile and Template Monster
« on: September 01, 2010, 12:51:47 PM »
Contact me on my email xxxx
879
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images
« on: September 01, 2010, 12:50:57 PM »
Dear Shane:
While I don't think its wise to automatically assume that Getty won't litigate, it is highly unlikely that they will litigate over just one image. I agree with SG that you should send the letter out, retracting your offer, and await their response. Please keep us posted
While I don't think its wise to automatically assume that Getty won't litigate, it is highly unlikely that they will litigate over just one image. I agree with SG that you should send the letter out, retracting your offer, and await their response. Please keep us posted
880
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photo Databases Duplicates?
« on: August 27, 2010, 04:54:20 PM »
Dear Spartan:
Good question, with no easy answer. It used to be the law many years ago that the copyright notice had to be located on or near the copyrighted work. You could not get damages otherwise. That was undone by regulations many years ago and no requirement now exists for copyright notice to be affixed or near the work. When a search engine produces images from an image search result, it usually has a disclaimer saying the images may be subject to copyright. What the "anonymous" definition means is that if a list of songs on a record album does not identify an author for a particular song, it is presumed that the song was anonymously written. That does not mean that the artist's version of that song would be free from copyright however. Here, I think the law is clearly in favor of the copyright holder in that no notice is required and the burden is on the user to make sure they have a copyright free image.
Good question, with no easy answer. It used to be the law many years ago that the copyright notice had to be located on or near the copyrighted work. You could not get damages otherwise. That was undone by regulations many years ago and no requirement now exists for copyright notice to be affixed or near the work. When a search engine produces images from an image search result, it usually has a disclaimer saying the images may be subject to copyright. What the "anonymous" definition means is that if a list of songs on a record album does not identify an author for a particular song, it is presumed that the song was anonymously written. That does not mean that the artist's version of that song would be free from copyright however. Here, I think the law is clearly in favor of the copyright holder in that no notice is required and the burden is on the user to make sure they have a copyright free image.
881
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photo Databases Duplicates?
« on: August 27, 2010, 02:14:19 PM »
Hey SG:
In order to get statutory damages and legal fees the image must have been registered at the time of the alleged infringement (or infraction, as you called it) so registering it the day after Getty finds out or issues the letter would not allow Getty to get legal fees and statutory penalties. Filing for registration of the work PRIOR to filing the lawsuit is mandatory in Federal court so Getty would file the registration sometime before filing the lawsuit and be only entitled to receive its "actual damages."
I have reported on a few cases that have looked at the compilation issue and have ruled in favor of our position.
In order to get statutory damages and legal fees the image must have been registered at the time of the alleged infringement (or infraction, as you called it) so registering it the day after Getty finds out or issues the letter would not allow Getty to get legal fees and statutory penalties. Filing for registration of the work PRIOR to filing the lawsuit is mandatory in Federal court so Getty would file the registration sometime before filing the lawsuit and be only entitled to receive its "actual damages."
I have reported on a few cases that have looked at the compilation issue and have ruled in favor of our position.
882
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photo Databases Duplicates?
« on: August 27, 2010, 10:56:45 AM »
Couldn't have said it better myself Lettered, except to add that in order to sue in Federal court they MUST register the image before filing the lawsuit. We also argue that "actual damages" should be fair market/replacement value not their inflated pricing scheme.
883
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: settlement demand letter from Getty Image. What to do?
« on: August 24, 2010, 05:55:05 PM »
Getty rarely registers their images which is why they rarely sue (since without registration at the time of infringement they cannot get legal fees). Generally, only the entity that has registered the copyright can bring a lawsuit over an infringement. If Getty wanted to sue they would first have to register the images. As to how to proceed, that really is up to you but there are numerous posts and videos on this site to give you some frame work for making the decision. Good Luck!
884
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Corporation
« on: August 24, 2010, 05:39:44 PM »
See my response to you other post Lynn
885
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Extortion Letter
« on: August 24, 2010, 05:38:51 PM »
Dear Lynn:
Believe me it was worth it to settle the matter and put it to rest. Generally Masterfile treats "hobby" or "non-commercial" sites much differently that e-retail or business websites which is why they came down to that number so quickly. Masterfile would not have stopped bothering you and may even have filed suit if you did not work something out with them. Their program works because it would have cost you far more than $500 to call their bluff and find out you got sued. I think the only way this burdensome program ends is if more Federal Courts agree with our position and declare that they cant use compilation registration to enforce individual image infringements. Don't worry too much about your payment, at least it puts an end to the contacts from Masterfile
Believe me it was worth it to settle the matter and put it to rest. Generally Masterfile treats "hobby" or "non-commercial" sites much differently that e-retail or business websites which is why they came down to that number so quickly. Masterfile would not have stopped bothering you and may even have filed suit if you did not work something out with them. Their program works because it would have cost you far more than $500 to call their bluff and find out you got sued. I think the only way this burdensome program ends is if more Federal Courts agree with our position and declare that they cant use compilation registration to enforce individual image infringements. Don't worry too much about your payment, at least it puts an end to the contacts from Masterfile
Official ELI Help Options |
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |