Messages

886

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Who can I get images from?

« on: December 28, 2012, 07:27:16 PM »

Here is a thread from a while back where Jerry Witt made a list of companies.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/

I recently had a letter from Getty which I have dealt with. So my question is: when I want to get decent images, who is a reputable company that is known to have the appropriate licences (so that I don't have to then deal with Getty et al. again), and has the ethics to not use extortion type tactics for alleged infringers? Do we have a good company list? I want to reward companies who play fair.

887

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PDN Article on ELI, Copyright Extortionists, and my position on the matter

« on: December 28, 2012, 07:23:42 PM »

Don't forget they also like to send out letters for images in the public domain too.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/don't-pay-getty-thank-you-eli/

Not only is Getty's opinion just an opinion, we know that their decision was to not pursue the matter in court.

The article is worded to make it seem like Getty wants to be "tough" and is just exercising their rights. But it drops the ball when it fails to point out that while the initial letters are threatening, in many-- if not most-- cases, that's really as far as it goes.  Moreover, when they do go to court, they either (a) lose or (b) win pyrrhic victories (a violation found but very small fine levied or they find they've sued a bankrupt company.)

Also, the article doesn't mention flat out mistakes on Getty's part-- sending letters for hotlinking.  Never recognizing "fair use" and so forth.

888

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PDN Article on ELI, Copyright Extortionists, and my position on the matter

« on: December 27, 2012, 01:02:41 PM »

It was a very good article; I wish it had mentioned the fact that Getty refuses to provide any proof of claim to continue good faith negotiations.

889

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: December 21, 2012, 11:01:01 PM »

Well, still nothing yet from the SEC, I was hoping for a Christmas present from them and I imagine they are shut down now until after the first of the year.  Oh well, hopefully shortly after the first

890

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent k Tylor no longer associated with Copyright Services International

« on: December 21, 2012, 11:17:17 AM »

Great job Robert on reaching out to Mr. Carner and kudos to Mr. Carner for responding.  I too think that what he is doing is most certainly a step in the right direction and I commend him for being the first that I have seen to do it.

I will say that if I had received a letter like that from Getty even though I still would not have agreeded with it at all I would have most likely paid it instead of starting as Stinger says my war to end all wars with Getty

891

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter help: Fair Use

« on: December 21, 2012, 11:07:01 AM »

HAHA we were posting at the exact same time, great minds think a like.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

From: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Getty will claim that fair use does not apply, and still demand payment, bottom line is they want your money however they can get it..they don't always play by the rules, and you must also rememeber that the person sending the letter is not a qualified legal person, they are just some lousy clerk sitting in a cubicle of many, spouting out the corporate garbage..

892

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter help: Fair Use

« on: December 21, 2012, 11:05:27 AM »

Getty will most likely say that they do not consider it fair use so be prepared for that, Getty doesn't care about any of the facts they only want the money.  I would send the letter via mail, I sent all of my correspondence registered with return signature because I wanted proof they got it and who.  Please keep us posted as to what happens.

Thank you all. I think I will write back (registered mail presumably?) stating their automated image matching did not take into account that I was showing the book cover and that this use could be considered fair use - that it is normal for the book cover to be shown when doing this. I will then state that I consider this notification closed. Anything else? It would be interesting to hear from anybody else as well as it pertains to fair use.

893

Legal Controversies Forum / Tough Times for Trolls and their "Copyright Negligence" Scheme

« on: December 21, 2012, 01:06:19 AM »

Here is a good article I found over on the EFF site,

Despite at least five smackdowns by federal judges, copyright trolls are still accusing Internet subscribers of "negligently" allowing someone else to download porn films without paying. Last week, subpoena defense attorney Morgan Pietz fought back by asking the Northern California federal courts to put all of the open "negligence" cases filed by a prolific troll firm in front of a single judge - a judge who already ruled that the "negligence" theory is bogus.

The entire article may be read here:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/tough-times-trolls-and-their-copyright-negligence-scheme

894

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter help: Fair Use

« on: December 20, 2012, 10:18:07 PM »

I would still think that if the images is on the same page as the review and it is part of the review then it would be considered fair use, but again there is a large grey area and I am not a lawyer.

I agree with Robert, in my non-lawyer opinion this would fall under fair.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Well after seeing that image, I know I would politely tell them to pound salt, thats the site is a review site, where yourself and users comment on book reviews ect...the image in question was of the book cover, even tho they claim to own a portion of it.. I think fair use would apply here...hopefully Oscar will chime in as he's the expert...

I would clarify that it's not a review site, but rather a site about analytics and data, hence the Freakonomics review. The blog is attached to my consulting website (the company has little revenue).

895

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter help: Fair Use

« on: December 20, 2012, 09:13:08 PM »

I agree with Robert, in my non-lawyer opinion this would fall under fair.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Well after seeing that image, I know I would politely tell them to pound salt, thats the site is a review site, where yourself and users comment on book reviews ect...the image in question was of the book cover, even tho they claim to own a portion of it.. I think fair use would apply here...hopefully Oscar will chime in as he's the expert...

896

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new copyright thug to add to the list?

« on: December 20, 2012, 03:33:00 PM »

There are several instances where this has happened.  I think this is the tread you are referring to:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/don't-pay-getty-thank-you-eli/

There is also a letter in the Attorney General's complaint letters that Robert obtained for us where Getty tried going after a guy who had a picture of an F-16 taken by a military photographer on his site.  He told Getty this as well as it was included in a template he got.  Getty didn't care and told him to pay, he complained to the AGs office as well as to Intuit who supplied the template.     Intuit replied back that they would handle it and low and behold when a large company gets involved with a large legal staff things happen at Getty.  Getty sent a letter to the AGs office stating that you don't need to worry about this complaint as they were happy to announce they were no longer pursuing the case.  Image that

http://www.scribd.com/doc/104557917/Getty-Images-Attorney-General-Complaint-19

897

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new copyright thug to add to the list?

« on: December 20, 2012, 12:43:31 PM »

That is an easy thing to do.  Any image that is taken by the government is public domain such as a military photographer taking a picture of a jet in flight would be, where as a photo of a tank taken by an embedded reported would not be as the reported would hold the rights to the photo once cleared for release by the military.  At least this is the way I understand it.

If you get pictures from government archives, NASA and the like they are generally safe.

Agreed, it could be that the artist has given permission for the images to be used on the government sites or they have purchased licenses for the use.  Be as sure as you can of your facts before you respond.

The fact that is available on so many state government sites is interesting.

I wonder if you reached out to the webmaster of these sites if they would share with you how they obtained them. If they just got them from an image search, it may be nice to warn them that a troll is a'comin'. But wouldn't it be ironic if they got them from some sort of compilation CD-ROM for 50 bucks.

If the image in question is on government sites, whether it be municipal, county, state or federal, the image would be considered in the public domain and can not be in in copyright violation.  Capture screenshots of the image on the government website(s) and inform them of the fact the image is in the public domain the next time they try contacting you.  If they keep trying to press the matter, they will lose.

I'm not sure this is 100% accurate.. this site http://www.fishesoftexas.org/taxon/lepomis-megalotis credits the artist. I think if the image is created by the government entity, it is public domain, thats not to say that government site can't or don't use other images.. I would be weary of grabbing just anything from a government site.. refer to this thread for some PD image resources:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/

I stand corrected.  I was under the impression that any images on a government web site were in the public domain from what I had read earlier and upon further examination, I have found out this is not true.  I suppose the only true way to be sure of using an image on a website that will not violate anyone's copyright is to only use photographs that were taken by yourself.

Think I am going to stick to posts about security settings and computer networks as that is where my expertise is.  Still learning all of this copyright law stuff and the more I learn, the more I feel I don't know.

898

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new copyright thug to add to the list?

« on: December 20, 2012, 10:25:34 AM »

Agreed, it could be that the artist has given permission for the images to be used on the government sites or they have purchased licenses for the use.  Be as sure as you can of your facts before you respond.

The fact that is available on so many state government sites is interesting.

I wonder if you reached out to the webmaster of these sites if they would share with you how they obtained them. If they just got them from an image search, it may be nice to warn them that a troll is a'comin'. But wouldn't it be ironic if they got them from some sort of compilation CD-ROM for 50 bucks.

If the image in question is on government sites, whether it be municipal, county, state or federal, the image would be considered in the public domain and can not be in in copyright violation.  Capture screenshots of the image on the government website(s) and inform them of the fact the image is in the public domain the next time they try contacting you.  If they keep trying to press the matter, they will lose.

I'm not sure this is 100% accurate.. this site http://www.fishesoftexas.org/taxon/lepomis-megalotis credits the artist. I think if the image is created by the government entity, it is public domain, thats not to say that government site can't or don't use other images.. I would be weary of grabbing just anything from a government site.. refer to this thread for some PD image resources:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/

899

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received letters from CEG

« on: December 19, 2012, 10:54:24 PM »

As was mentioned above, I would tell them that this was a link to an image and cite the Google v Perfect 10 case so there is no infringement and to stop contacting you or you will file complaints on them with the attorney general’s office, BBB, and FTC.

900

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: We are the latest victim of the Getty Image extortion scam

« on: December 19, 2012, 12:53:13 PM »

That is awesome, I am looking forward to hearing what happens.