Messages

901

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Picscout / DMCA question

« on: December 12, 2011, 01:22:21 PM »

I found Lettered's posting to be quite interesting.
I'm going to read every single word of those documents when I have a little time.
It's the closest thing that I've seen so far as to a defendant testing a defense based on Internet archives and also robot spiders.
Just my opinions, and I wanted to take the opportunity to thank Lettered for the post.

S.G.

902

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiin Artwork, LLC Files Lawsuit!

« on: December 12, 2011, 12:40:31 AM »

Canada Bob,

It seems that while Canada does have "statutory damages", these damages can be sought whether or not the image was registered.
In the 'States, the image must be registered in order to seek statutory damages.

In Canadian law, it appears that the plaintiff must seek either "damages" or "statutory damages".
Wherein plain old "damages" could be just the purchase price, and "statutory damages" would be loss of profits, etc.

A judge can grant "legal fees" (which appear to be separate from "statutory damages"), but my understanding is that this decision would be based on the merits of the case.

Naturally, these facts wouldn't keep a defendant from formulating a defense based on lack of ownership, if it could be shown that the plaintiff doesn't own the rights to the content in question.

S.G.

903

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Picscout / DMCA question

« on: December 08, 2011, 11:23:01 PM »

Yes, buddhapi, I agree it's pretty involved reading.
I'll also have to read it many times, highlight parts and take notes.
It appears that the law wasn't specifically written with our intent in mind.
But, the question is, could it be used as a legal defense anyway if it was presented in a compelling manner?

Lucia, I don't think that the likes of Getty would reveal exactly where or how they collected evidence to an alleged infringer.
But, if a dispute actually became a case for the courts, the question could be brought up.  Getty's counsel would have to respond.
If ignoring a "robots.txt" file is illegal in the US, and Getty stated that the data was collected in the US, then Getty would likely lose.
In a similar scenario, but wherein Getty stated that the data was collected legally from Israel for example, a US judge might still frown upon the evidence.

Just my thoughts...

S.G.

904

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Picscout / DMCA question

« on: December 08, 2011, 08:06:47 PM »

I've been scanning through the .PDF of the law:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ304.105.pdf

I think that "‘‘CHAPTER 12—COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS" ~ ‘‘§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems" (PAGE 5) might be the section to look at first.

One could assume, for argument's sake, that the "copyrighted material" is one's web site, and the "copyright protection system" would be the "robots.txt" file, or other measure.

S.G.

905

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Picscout / DMCA question

« on: December 08, 2011, 07:33:31 PM »

Interesting tidbit there.

I think that the answer's in the DMCA; it'll just be a little bit of work to read it all and understand it.

It would be good if "robots" could be legally precluded from accessing sites.
If this is, in fact, the case:
I don't think that it would help the copyright trolls if they collected data in countries other than the US.
Because, while they may be able to detect infringements in this manner, I can't imagine them bringing such data to court as evidence.
It would certainly seem odd to arrive in a US court with evidence collected "legally offshore", that would have been "illegal" to collect on US soil.
Again, that's assuming that the DMCA prevents the trolls from ignoring attempts to block "robots".

I'm quite interested to hear more...

S.G.

906

Getty Images Letter Forum / List of companies using PicScout to find alleged infringements

« on: December 07, 2011, 02:03:24 AM »

List of companies using PicScout to find alleged infringements

http://palmbeachdns.com/wp/?p=2639

S.G.

907

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Too all webmasters, do you recall this Getty traffic source?

« on: December 06, 2011, 11:43:18 PM »

Thanks, McFilms for your well-thought out comments.
I actually think that the majority would, in fact agree with you.

My thinking is based on considering all options, and doing everything possible to make it difficult for a troll to "harass" or "collect".
Some folks have blogs wherein their only contact info is an email, and I personally wouldn't answer a troll email.
In any case, I've found that troll emails go directly into the spam bin ("the pay or else" part probably triggers that).

While it's probably true that resources could be mustered that would ferret out almost anybody, even the likes of Getty couldn't be bothered to expend much effort to "find" somebody.
It's too costly and there are so many other softer targets.

Some may say that Getty could add the cost of finding somebody to the "demand", but even a court wouldn't enforce that unless Getty could prove that the person was avoiding them.

If I could avoid this level of harassment by not answering an email, then I wouldn't answer the mail.
Some may recall that an actual lawsuit was emailed to an alleged infringer in a multi-million dollar case; the intended recipient never responded, and it ended there.
But, in 99% of the situations where it's a business, or the writer's name and address are all over their site, I certainly agree with you.

S.G.

908

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Too all webmasters, do you recall this Getty traffic source?

« on: December 06, 2011, 06:01:38 PM »

I'd have a hard time taking this very seriously if the method of communication is email.
Is Getty sending so many letters that they've decided to increase profits by saving postage..?

If the recipient doesn't respond to an email, Getty would have no proof that the intended recipient ever got the mail.  You'd have, "plausible denial".
Web servers often don't send a notice saying that a mail is undeliverable these days; there's no way for the sender to prove that the recipient received an email.

I wonder if they're using email because they do not know the home or business address of the alleged infringer?
If this is the case, you might consider "laying low" so to speak.
If they have no proof of where you reside, it would be difficult for them to make you "officially aware" of further developments.
If you're already difficult to find, you may also decide to return any letter mail from Getty as "undeliverable", and refuse courier/registered mail deliveries from Getty.

S.G.

909

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Too all webmasters, do you recall this Getty traffic source?

« on: December 06, 2011, 04:14:56 PM »

All interesting info...

Just a minor addition, the "WAN" in "gettywan.com" probably refers to "Wide Area Network".

S.G.

910

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: December 06, 2011, 11:52:55 AM »

Yes, the fact that they aren't going after the channels of "free distribution" could show their willful intent to "seed" the images under the guise of "public domain"...

It would be pretty easy to convince a judge that it's "innocent infringement" (or less).
Assuming it ever actually made it to court.  lol.

S.G.

911

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: December 05, 2011, 06:33:54 PM »

These trolls have to file some lawsuits in order to keep the "fear level" at a maximum.
Otherwise, many wouldn't pay.

However, I really wonder if they'd actually be willing to take it as far as court, or simply back out at the last moment.
These particular images have been posted on hundreds of "free" sites, some even with a button/code enabling visitors to place the image their site instantly.
One could raise the question of why Tylor/H.A.N aren't going after the channels of "free distribution", but rather the end user(s).
A more logical (ethical?) approach would be to shut down those distributing said images for free to the masses.
That's how you protect copyrighted materials for the purpose of making revenue.

I think that going to court would really be "rolling the dice" for Tylor/H.A.N.
If they lost a case, their trolling business could be largely over and done with immediately.

"Nothing in life is as exhilarating as to be shot at without result" - Winston Churchill

S.G.

912

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another letter from IMUA Legal Advisors

« on: December 04, 2011, 11:32:29 PM »

The Digital Journal article and some others state that the alleged infringer was actually sued.

However, I can't find any hits relating to the alleged infringers' name or his business on Justia Dockets or other similar sites.
Also, I can't find any hits on lawsuits filed by IMUA.
I'm not saying that I searched for hours, because I didn't.  But I couldn't really find anything.
If an actual lawsuit was filed, not just a bs threatening letter, something should have popped up.

Anyway, readers can enjoy PicScout's interview with John Grant of IMUA/Meltzer Grant:

http://picscout.com/imageexchange/blog/?p=359

S.G.

913

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Welcome to Mcfilms (Jerry Witt) to the ELI Defense Team!

« on: December 02, 2011, 11:12:57 AM »

Big congrats to McFilms... a long time contributor here of intelligent info/commentary.
Thanks for your continued contributions!!

S.G.

914

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Looks like someone is attempting some damage control...

« on: December 02, 2011, 11:11:48 AM »

Good research as always, also funny as hell.
So, Bieber didn't call Stewart over his recent paternity woes? LOL.

S.G.

915

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Looks like someone is attempting some damage control...

« on: December 02, 2011, 12:32:07 AM »

The smallest dogs always have the loudest bark.

lol.

S.G.