886
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: TinEye.com
« on: December 20, 2011, 12:49:13 AM »
Interesting stuff...
What about google image search?
S.G.
What about google image search?
S.G.
| 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.
887
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My 1st Copyright Letter
« on: December 19, 2011, 11:58:19 PM »
You should ask for copies of the registration documents.
Keep in mind that Getty might have "documents", but many of these are faulty and useless to them from a legal standpoint.
You may have read about Getty's recent court loss; their documentation was useless for each of nearly 40 different images.
Don't be surprised that Getty won't send you any proof.
But, that's a good sign that they don't have much to go on legally.
S.G.
Keep in mind that Getty might have "documents", but many of these are faulty and useless to them from a legal standpoint.
You may have read about Getty's recent court loss; their documentation was useless for each of nearly 40 different images.
Don't be surprised that Getty won't send you any proof.
But, that's a good sign that they don't have much to go on legally.
S.G.
888
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Letter - Canadian website
« on: December 19, 2011, 07:16:49 PM »
We know that you're new to all this.
Since Getty has accused you of infringement on your site, you would need proof that you bought the template containing the infringing image prior to the infringement.
Template Monster will check as to when you purchased the product before settling with Getty, you see.
If you'd like to find out more about Template Monster issues on this site, go to google and type:
site:extortionletterinfo.com template monster
I usually don't recommend starting a dialog with the likes of Getty unless:
1) you actually need some clarification of their claims (they usually won't send you any proof of their claims, though).
2) You intend to pay them a settlement (go as low as you can, but they don't budge much).
3) You have a legitimate, solid defense (they'll keep bugging you even if you're innocent, by the way).
S.G.
Since Getty has accused you of infringement on your site, you would need proof that you bought the template containing the infringing image prior to the infringement.
Template Monster will check as to when you purchased the product before settling with Getty, you see.
If you'd like to find out more about Template Monster issues on this site, go to google and type:
site:extortionletterinfo.com template monster
I usually don't recommend starting a dialog with the likes of Getty unless:
1) you actually need some clarification of their claims (they usually won't send you any proof of their claims, though).
2) You intend to pay them a settlement (go as low as you can, but they don't budge much).
3) You have a legitimate, solid defense (they'll keep bugging you even if you're innocent, by the way).
S.G.
889
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Researching Photo Claim on US Copyright site
« on: December 18, 2011, 04:44:43 PM »
I believe that the numbers starting with "700" are MF's internal serial #'s.
If these image(s) are indeed registered, you'll need those registration numbers from MF to check them out.
If you ask MF, they'll provide them, if they do indeed have them.
I don't think that the "claim number" on the letter refers to a "lawsuit" pending in the justice system.
This is probably just MF's internal numbering system; they send out many, many letters.
If you are actually sued, you'll receive a package from a lawyer via registered mail, or in person by a process server.
MF does send out phony "example" lawsuit documents just to scare people. So, if you receive legal-looking papers by mail, check to see that your names actually on the document.
Personally, if I was going to reject their offer, I simply wouldn't respond.
Or, a good method is to just to make a really low-ball offer that they'll never accept. Then you could say that you tried to "work with them" if need be.
If you write to them and say that you're not paying, they might bring that to court with them to make you look bad in the event of a lawsuit.
S.G.
If these image(s) are indeed registered, you'll need those registration numbers from MF to check them out.
If you ask MF, they'll provide them, if they do indeed have them.
I don't think that the "claim number" on the letter refers to a "lawsuit" pending in the justice system.
This is probably just MF's internal numbering system; they send out many, many letters.
If you are actually sued, you'll receive a package from a lawyer via registered mail, or in person by a process server.
MF does send out phony "example" lawsuit documents just to scare people. So, if you receive legal-looking papers by mail, check to see that your names actually on the document.
Personally, if I was going to reject their offer, I simply wouldn't respond.
Or, a good method is to just to make a really low-ball offer that they'll never accept. Then you could say that you tried to "work with them" if need be.
If you write to them and say that you're not paying, they might bring that to court with them to make you look bad in the event of a lawsuit.
S.G.
890
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Letter - Canadian website
« on: December 18, 2011, 02:21:06 PM »
Regrettably, Canada doesn't have an analogy to the DMCA law of the US.
If Government of Canada's Copyright Modernization Act under the new designation of Bill C-11 goes through, then Canada might have something similar to the DMCA.
The original poster mentioned that the image in question wasn't a part of the template that he/she bought.
If so, it's not worth the effort to send over the details of the template as a potential defense.
It was also mentioned that the image is royalty-free and inexpensive.
That means that it's not "rights-managed" and therefore it's reasonable to expect that Getty wouldn't have this image registered properly in Canada of the US.
In addition to this, this is only a single image; it's very doubtful that Getty would take this past the "threatening letter" stage...
What do Buddhapi and McFilms think of these points?
S.G.
If Government of Canada's Copyright Modernization Act under the new designation of Bill C-11 goes through, then Canada might have something similar to the DMCA.
The original poster mentioned that the image in question wasn't a part of the template that he/she bought.
If so, it's not worth the effort to send over the details of the template as a potential defense.
It was also mentioned that the image is royalty-free and inexpensive.
That means that it's not "rights-managed" and therefore it's reasonable to expect that Getty wouldn't have this image registered properly in Canada of the US.
In addition to this, this is only a single image; it's very doubtful that Getty would take this past the "threatening letter" stage...
What do Buddhapi and McFilms think of these points?
S.G.
891
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Letter - Canadian website
« on: December 18, 2011, 11:32:41 AM »
The DMCA is a US law, not valid in Canada.
Canada doesn't have a "DMCA"-type law as yet.
Although it's in the works.
S.G.
Canada doesn't have a "DMCA"-type law as yet.
Although it's in the works.
S.G.
892
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Masterfile / My web designer is stating they are not responsible
« on: December 17, 2011, 05:40:28 PM »
It sounds to me as if the development company that you're dealing with is closing shop/closed up shop.
If the corporation is out of business, you won't be able to get anything from them.
The fact that there's no forwarding address and they're difficult to get in contact with might mean that several of their clients have infringement claims against them.
If they used stock photos that they didn't pay for on your site, they probably did that with many other sites.
MF would think of this also, and check all of their other sites if they could.
Something to check out before you give in and pay.
S.G.
If the corporation is out of business, you won't be able to get anything from them.
The fact that there's no forwarding address and they're difficult to get in contact with might mean that several of their clients have infringement claims against them.
If they used stock photos that they didn't pay for on your site, they probably did that with many other sites.
MF would think of this also, and check all of their other sites if they could.
Something to check out before you give in and pay.
S.G.
893
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Picscout / DMCA question
« on: December 14, 2011, 11:50:33 PM »
I think that those toads are still operating out of Israel.
Why not just block all Israeli IP ranges?
S.G.
Why not just block all Israeli IP ranges?
S.G.
894
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Zvulony Settlement Demand Letter by Canadian Lawyer Gil Zvulony
« on: December 14, 2011, 12:10:03 AM »
That guy looks like he should be in the movie "Zoolander". lol
Buddhapi's link is ok... linked content doesn't infringe. also lol.
S.G.
Buddhapi's link is ok... linked content doesn't infringe. also lol.
S.G.
895
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Check out this iStock (Getty) photo on a "Free Wallpaper" site
« on: December 14, 2011, 12:08:17 AM »
Interesting...
...could this be a tracking script of some sort, or a cross-site script?
S.G.
...could this be a tracking script of some sort, or a cross-site script?
S.G.
896
Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Righthaven Copyrights to be auctioned off to pay legal fees of defendant
« on: December 13, 2011, 11:29:08 AM »Righthaven Copyrights to be auctioned off to pay legal fees of defendant
Copyright lawsuit filer Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas faced more problems Monday after a federal judge granted a defendant’s motion that Righthaven be placed under control of a receiver and that its copyrights be auctioned off, giving it nothing to sue or appeal over.
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/dec/12/righthaven-backed-corner-copyrights-be-auctioned/
On top of that, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Johnston on Monday ordered Gibson and his wife, Raisha “Drizzle” Gibson, to appear in court on Jan. 5 for a judgment debtor examination to “provide testimony under oath concerning the location of Righthaven’s assets.”
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/dec/13/can-righthaven-survive-latest-legal-blow/
S.G.
897
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Check out this iStock (Getty) photo on a "Free Wallpaper" site
« on: December 13, 2011, 11:10:36 AM »
You're right , Buddhapi.
I should have phrased it differently.
I meant to say, "The legal owners demand payment regardless of whether the use was commercial or non-commercial".
S.G.
I should have phrased it differently.
I meant to say, "The legal owners demand payment regardless of whether the use was commercial or non-commercial".
S.G.
898
Getty Images Letter Forum / Check out this iStock (Getty) photo on a "Free Wallpaper" site
« on: December 13, 2011, 12:45:44 AM »Check out this iStock (Getty) photo on a "Free Wallpaper" site
It has the "iStock" watermark on it.
The site even includes a ready-made code that can be pasted into a website to display the image.
http://allbackgrounds.com/pot-leafs
The site claims that, "All images are property of their respective owners and are strictly for non-commercial use only."
But, everyone knows that in the event of a dispute the "owners" of the image don't care if the use was non-commercial or not.
S.G.
899
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Resolution of Getty v. Advernet (A blow to Getty & Stock photo companies)
« on: December 13, 2011, 12:39:44 AM »
Just quick note to express thanks for this valuable information.
It confirms what many of us (including myself) have been stressing for a long period of time:
1) that Getty doesn't register all of its images.
2) that Getty registers many of its images improperly.
3) that Getty's claims of "exclusivity" in its contracts with its contributors are sometimes false.
4) that Helpi/Photographer on this forum can lick my balls.
This shouldn't be too much of a surprise, given how reluctant Getty is to provide proof of its claims to alleged infringers.
The above list also applies to many others in the media business as well.
It is quite fortunate that the judges dealing with this case looked carefully at the evidence and made a correct decision.
My impression is that some judges don't spend enough time looking at the evidence in "default" cases like this.
So, people should use caution before making a decision to not show up for court. It's still risky.
But, this is truly "so much win"!
S.G.
It confirms what many of us (including myself) have been stressing for a long period of time:
1) that Getty doesn't register all of its images.
2) that Getty registers many of its images improperly.
3) that Getty's claims of "exclusivity" in its contracts with its contributors are sometimes false.
4) that Helpi/Photographer on this forum can lick my balls.
This shouldn't be too much of a surprise, given how reluctant Getty is to provide proof of its claims to alleged infringers.
The above list also applies to many others in the media business as well.
It is quite fortunate that the judges dealing with this case looked carefully at the evidence and made a correct decision.
My impression is that some judges don't spend enough time looking at the evidence in "default" cases like this.
So, people should use caution before making a decision to not show up for court. It's still risky.
But, this is truly "so much win"!
S.G.
900
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Artwork, LLC Files Lawsuit!
« on: December 13, 2011, 12:27:32 AM »
Smitty,
In the US, the image must be registered prior to the alleged infringement in order to collect "statutory damages".
However, if the alleged infringement occurs within 90 days of the first publication date of the image in question, the legal owner may register it and would be able to collect statutory damages in that particular case.
"Although copyright attaches upon fixation, you cannot actually sue someone for infringing your copyright until you have registered your work with the Copyright Office.
And if you register your work within three months from the date of first publication, or at least prior to the date of infringement, you can collect statutory damages from the infringer.
Otherwise, you are stuck with actual damages, which depending upon the situation, may be only nominal."
http://www.benedict.com/Info/Law/Why.aspx
Given your situation, it appears that they could only seek the fair retail price of the image for the time of use, going back to a maximum of three years from the date that you removed the image from your site.
Hardly worth suing over, if you ask me.
S.G.
In the US, the image must be registered prior to the alleged infringement in order to collect "statutory damages".
However, if the alleged infringement occurs within 90 days of the first publication date of the image in question, the legal owner may register it and would be able to collect statutory damages in that particular case.
"Although copyright attaches upon fixation, you cannot actually sue someone for infringing your copyright until you have registered your work with the Copyright Office.
And if you register your work within three months from the date of first publication, or at least prior to the date of infringement, you can collect statutory damages from the infringer.
Otherwise, you are stuck with actual damages, which depending upon the situation, may be only nominal."
http://www.benedict.com/Info/Law/Why.aspx
Given your situation, it appears that they could only seek the fair retail price of the image for the time of use, going back to a maximum of three years from the date that you removed the image from your site.
Hardly worth suing over, if you ask me.
S.G.
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. |