Messages

91

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 26, 2012, 11:21:04 AM »

A person or company holding only "non-exclusive rights" wouldn't have enough legal standing to "win" a copyright infringement infringement case in court.
. . .

Furthering that thought . . . if someone did enter their work into a C-Registry contract, then wouldn't any other distribution rights they grant to others (Getty for example) be nonexclusive as well, therefore taking away any legitimate standing for Getty to sue?

92

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 26, 2012, 10:49:42 AM »

Scraggy,

From the link you posted (bolding mine):

Then note that this limitation is further reinforced in the grant. So, within this limited access, the photographer is granting the right to “access, view, host, cache, route, transmit, store, perform and/or display” the images (or music or video). Note what’s NOT included in those rights. There is no right to copy or modify or use or distribute the images. That’s an amazingly limited grant of rights.

At the very least the semantics of words used in that explanation are messy in my opinion.  What's the difference between "distributing" and "transmitting" the images for example? Seems to me like this guy is saying "trust me I won't do it" while his contract allows him to do anything he wants.  That's the way I interpret it anyway.

93

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

« on: September 26, 2012, 07:00:56 AM »

I'm still kind of foggy on the relationship between "exclusive rights" and the "right to sue" as they pertain to copyright law.  When someone participates in C-Registry they are granting some "nonexclusive rights". 

How does this affect the right to sue for the original copyright owner? Can he still sue?  I'm pretty sure C-Registry can never sue, right?

Of course, anyone "can" sue for anything, but you know what I mean .

94

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 24, 2012, 07:27:10 AM »

My understanding is that the mere act of making a copy of a protected work is infringement.  So, I don't really think what stage the website is in is relevant; if the protected work appears there, then it is infringement (assuming it isnt fair use).  In other words, I don't think it matters if the website is considered published or not by anyone's definition.

Still, like most others here, I don't think there's a need to "sweat" a single image case like this one.

95

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Web Template Case and "Remix" Copyright Law?

« on: September 20, 2012, 08:59:43 PM »

You might have a "de minimis" defense.  I doubt that would stop Getty from hounding you, but I also doubt they would ever sue you for the situation you describe.

96

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Copyright Troll Glen Carner, Hawaiian Art Network and Copyright Services Int.

« on: September 20, 2012, 08:56:52 AM »

. . . He has a new title!!! Which I don't think was ever listed before...
"Copyright Compliance Director" ( John W. Jolin can thank me later when he adopts this title for his own)
. . .

I like the title SG came up with for him so much more.  "Kindly Uncle Glen"  ... wonder why he didn't go with that one?  Maybe he was afraid SG registered it with the Copyright Office? 

97

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League - Inside Strategies Revealed!

« on: September 13, 2012, 03:01:32 PM »

apparently http://senddmca.com/ is owned and operated by CDL .  They offer a service to send DMCA takedown notices on behalf of copyright holders for a fee.  Kind of makes me wonder if senddmca is upselling CDL settlement recovery services? 

98

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League - Inside Strategies Revealed!

« on: September 13, 2012, 12:23:47 PM »

I still see it differently.  They can resolve it any way they like, as long as they maintain their responsibilities outlined in (ii) .  Otherwise the contract seems like nonsense to me, effectively saying "We promise to only give up your info in specific circumstances, but we will do anything we want". 

I would argue that the contract is very clear in outlining the circumstances in which the info could be released, and no exceptions could reasonably be read into the contract.

Suffice it to say, if there were 12 of me on a jury, DBP would be in hot water . . .

99

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League - Inside Strategies Revealed!

« on: September 13, 2012, 08:37:43 AM »

From SG's link:

Reveal Your name and personal information that You provided to DBP when:
A. Required by law, in the good faith belief that such action is necessary in order to conform to the edicts of the law;
B. To comply with a legal process served upon DBP; or
C. In order to comply with ICANN rules, policies or procedures

Not sure if I am interpreting all of this correctly, but I don't see how A, B, or C was satisfied.  I think I would be looking into some sort of action against DBP if this ended up costing me money.

100

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Extortionist

« on: August 25, 2012, 07:09:10 AM »

. . .  I'm willing to be proven wrong and I've read cases on these forums where extenuating circumstances caused by a 3rd party not telling a person that the images they said they could use were stolen from Getty Images, or that documentation didn't show the right owner desipite a legal license agrement and therefore set off a trigger for the form letter.  For those scenarios, I hope folks are able to come to a reasonable resolution with Getty, which given my past dealings with the company, I have no doubt they will.  . . .

Actually I believe that most of us here fall into the innocent infringer category.  In my case (which I believe is probably very (if not most) common here), a third party designed my website using unlicensed copyrighted images unbeknownst to me.  Many others here bought a template in good faith from a template company that contained unlicensed copyrighted images within the template design.

The biggest gripe here in this forum regarding Getty is, as far as I can tell, that they are asking for waaay too much for innocent infringement.  We mostly believe that Getty is trying, in a high pressure way, to extract more from innocent infringer that the law allows for innocent infringement.  I think that most of us would be more than willing to send Getty a check for the fair market value (which is what the law allows for in unregistered infringement cases) of the image  in question and be done with the issue.

I'm willing to be proven wrong as well.  Matt, can I suggest the following forum poll (or something similar)?

Maybe we could ask everyone which category they fall into?

1) I am the victim of third party web designer
2) I am the victim of a template company
3) I sincerely thought the image was in the public domain
4) I copy and display images without paying because I think the image companies charge too much
5) I copy and display images without paying just because I want them for free, even if the price seems fair

101

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A puzzling situation

« on: June 21, 2012, 12:08:04 PM »

so if I understand correctly:  You sell puzzles.  You posted pictures of puzzle boxes.  The puzzle boxes had Getty pictures on the box.  The puzzle manufacturer licensed these images for their puzzles.

This demand from Getty sounds monumentally stupid to me.

To me, that's like saying I cant post pictures of my car I have for sale.  Or that I can't take family pictures if one of these puzzle boxes happen to be in the background.

102

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 09, 2012, 12:07:49 AM »

Im not for silencing Glen Carner, for whatever that's worth. 

He seems to be looking here for help in figuring out how he can make people feel better about overpaying for accidental infringement.  SG's answer is all he needs to know in that regard (no one is going to pay these high fees even if the letter is from kindly Uncle Glen or something to that effect).

The attorney early warning proposal is just absolutely dripping with irony.  I suppose that would be OK is he did the same with a "accidental infringement early warning-free strike one".  That has nothing to do with maximizing his revenue, so I doubt he would give it any consideration.  Why is he worried about lawyer's rep anyway?  Is he starting to have trouble finding lawyers that will participate in trolling?  Score for ELI!

What would be more interesting from Glen would be to see any proof he might have that no seeding is going on (either intentional or passively permitted).  Glen, I challenge you to address this directly and thoroughly here on the forum.

There is probably no need to force him off the forum . . . I think if he keeps getting the message above, he will eventually get frustrated and just stop coming around.

103

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Glen Carner's First 8 Questions for Matthew Chan

« on: June 02, 2012, 01:27:15 PM »

. . . He is frustrated that, unlike everyone else, I demanded a $1,000 ELI Contribution for me to give "silver platter" service.  Maybe the amount was too "extortionate" for him? . . .

Matt,  In all fairness, $1000 + fees are usually reserved for goods and services that require an extremely high level of artistic or technical expertise and ability.  You know, things like snapping a thumbnail quality photo of a seagull,  a shopping cart, or a football for example.

104

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Glen Carner's First 8 Questions for Matthew Chan

« on: June 02, 2012, 07:35:59 AM »

My take on Glen's presence here:

Glen is a businessman.  He's trying to maximize revenue.  He's asking himself which model maximizes revenue:
1) Many smaller dollar amount easily extracted settlement payments
2) A few big wins requiring lot's of legal costs

I think he wants to find the optimum wording and approach for the first type of demands (#1 above).  Any info you give him here helps him estimate a target number that most people would pay instead of fight, and helps him come up with a convincing letter to compel quick payment.

I hope that all this means that approach #2 above hasn't been working out so well for him.  To his credit, at least he seems to want to try a non threatening approach.

Of course that's just my take on it and I suppose I could be wrong.  However, just in case he really wants to know what is right and proper:

Send a C&D letter with a reasonable market value invoice (usually a few dollars per image).  If you don't get a payment and if they dont take it down sue them.  If you just cannot accept the fact that stock images are mostly worth a few dollars each (refering to the type of usage commonly found among those of us on this forum), then you should find another line of work.
And if you are involved in any type of entrapment or seeding, then stop it and pay back everyone that settled with you to date.

Just my 2 cents.  Keep the change.

105

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A win for the bad guys

« on: May 22, 2012, 01:18:34 PM »

Copyright law is supposedly based on the "copyright clause" in the constitution.  I read that clause literally to apply to only copyright protection for written works and patent protection for discoveries.  So on a personal level I would agree that copyright law in its modern form is unconstitutional.  The first copyright law in the 1700's limited itself to that narrow category of written material I think. 

But what do I know?  I still can't see how they get away with denying jury trials to people up on criminal charges in certain cases.  The constitution seems very clear on that issue as well to me.

In the end, I think the powers that be with the deep pockets are going to steer our law in spite of the constitution.

But to answer your question, seeing as how the federal copyright law has been applied to consumer copying of sound and visual recordings for decades, I doubt any judge would agree that copyright law is unconstitutional.

Just curious, I saw in the article where it said:
“Tenenbaum argued that the U.S. Copyright Act is unconstitutional and that Congress did not intend the law to impose liability or damages when the copyright infringements amount to "consumer copying."

I am curious what the views of the group are on this and if it were to be challenged and work its way up through the courts what you think the outcome would be?