Messages

946

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image

« on: May 08, 2013, 06:49:52 AM »

This is all courtesy of Seattle Copyright Attorney and douchenozzle Timothy B. McCormack who is acting as a good Getty puppet...Even though Getty didn't even give him a shot at filing his own suit..( speaks volumes of their trust in Timothy McCormack)

Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice

The Court, having considered the Stipulated Motion for Consent Judgment filed by plaintiff Getty Images (US), Inc. (“Getty Images”) and defendant The Herzog Law Firm, P.C. (“Herzog”), hereby enters the following Final Judgment and Order:

1. The Court enters judgment against Herzog and in favor of Getty Images on Getty Images’ copyright infringement claim in the amount of $5,000.00.

2. This action shall be dismissed with prejudice and each party is to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

you can read the court document here:

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/final-judgment-and-order-of-dismissal-wi-25552/

I naturally have other comments, but would also like to get some thoughts from others regarding this ( hint, hint Oscar)..By all appearences the defendant didn't even fight, just simply admitted to everything and agreed to pay..

947

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 07, 2013, 01:55:52 PM »

Only cause I'm known to be an asshat from time to time, I would reply back to this copyright clerk, and thank her for closing the case, whoever I'd be reluctant to remove the feed from my page, as clearly it is not an infringement, and they ( Getty) have no right to tell me that I can't have a feed there, regardless of what shows in it... Getty Images Copyright Compliance Specialist Nancy Monson is not only a fracking troll she's a MORON, she should go work for Prenda Law and assist them with the porn trolling industry..

948

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty and Jupiter Images

« on: May 07, 2013, 06:22:32 AM »

Getty Images and Seattle Copyright Cow Attorney Timothy B. McCormack are such assholes it's not even funny. They told me the same thing when I supplied them with a license, they basically said "anyone could create this license" "show us a receipt or pay us"..Asshats... Timothy B McCormack is nothing but a collection attorney, who makes his living from these letters..he's just a fly surviving off the pile of crap that is Getty Images.

949

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 01, 2013, 05:22:04 PM »

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/getty-images-very-own-nancy-monson-might-deserve-the-asshat-of-the-month-award/

950

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Complaint with BBB

« on: April 25, 2013, 09:09:37 PM »

not to mention that a screen shot is hardly "proof"...that only proves that the image "appeared" on your site..it does not prove that it was hosted there and was not linked from an outside source, which would NOT constitute copyright infringement..

951

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help checking image registration

« on: April 22, 2013, 07:59:39 AM »

@gimby: Just because an image appears on Getty's site,does not mean they have exclusive license to it, nor does it mean it is registered or registered properly..It only shows that the image is on their site.

@a_dezwart:  The stone collection consists of hundreds if not thousands of images, the changes of the image in question being registered since the advernet ruling are pretty slim IMHO, and I still think them filing suit over 1 images is going to be very slim, as it is a very risky and expensive proposition.

952

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help checking image registration

« on: April 21, 2013, 06:09:14 AM »

you can search here : http://www.copyright.gov/records/
The "Stone" collection I believe is registered as a compilation consiting of many, many images.. you might want to read into the getty v. advernet case, which the judge ruled the registrations invalid, and even though he found the defendant guilty of the infringement, he awarded exactly zero dollars because of Getty's sloppy reigistration.

953

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new image bot/spider/scraper

« on: April 19, 2013, 12:26:08 PM »

Lucia, I have a question about method I that you describe.

If Getty comes to my site through picscout, and copies my copyrighted images onto their server so they can then scan them to determine if they are theirs, is that act of copying my images a copyright infringement by picscout?  Or do they have to publish something first?  It seems like they have taken something that is not theirs and made a copy of it.

If it is infringement, one would have to find a way to prove that this is happening.  I don't want to use the words S.G. hates, but could a poorly designed picscout open Getty up to some sort of large scale action?  They are certainly not teaching or commenting on my photos.

If someone steals a priceless painting and doesn't display it, they are still guilty of theft if caught.  Is that also true with digital images?

no it would not be infringement, and picscout operates out of Israel, they don't follow US law

954

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new image bot/spider/scraper

« on: April 19, 2013, 11:43:07 AM »

Although I salute the effort Robert and Lucia put into blocking these bots, I really don't see it worth the effort. I was convinced the first time I tried to visit Lucia's site and my IP was blocked. I can't afford to start blocking potential customers, so I knew this wasn't for me.

Besides, I know if I were designing some sort of "image scanning spider" I would make it possible for it to crawl the site under a proxy and perhaps spoof the user agent. And if that was rejected, I'd simply have a human go poke around.

To me the best course of action is to simply not use images that aren't yours to use.

Are both of you really loosing money to bots that are hogging up bandwidth? Because the hosting I usually have includes far more available bandwidth than the tiny slice that is used by bots.

no Jerry it's not costing me anything worth discussing, and trust me I spend very little time blocking anything, I have better things to do..and trust me I use only "good" images, as a means of protecting my customers, I generally as a matter of coarse block the image bot, if it will save me a headache and them calling me saying "I got letter wut do" it's worth the 5 minutes it takes me...I've also resorted to having clients sign a hold harmless agreement if they supply images to me...I can tell you how many times I've explained in very simple terms, that they need to use licensed images or there own, I direct them to pond, and invariably they send me images from google searches..and I call them out on it, they then get send the hold harmless and they are on their own..becomes frustrating sometimes to say the least.

955

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new image bot/spider/scraper

« on: April 19, 2013, 09:07:06 AM »

as a general rule of thumb I generally do block googles image crawler, for the exact reason Lucia states, I get no valuable traffic on my site due to images...copyright-trolls.com however is different, I do allow google to index those images...clearly they get tagged, captioned and have alt text...simply doing an image search for Timothy B McCormack yields some very good results....

956

Legal Controversies Forum / EFF Moves to Quash Subpoena in Copyright Troll’s Retaliatory Lawsuit

« on: April 19, 2013, 08:59:59 AM »

Good article pertaining to the asshats at Prenda Law, which directly relates to the court decision concerning Matthew Chan.


Yesterday, we filed a motion to quash a subpoena seeking the identity of the blogger behind Die Troll Die, a website dedicated to “News and Views Involving Copyright Trolls & John/Jane Does.”

For years, Die Troll Die has been covering news about Prenda Law and its predecessor Steele Hansmeier PLLC, amoung many others. Prenda Law is a porn troll.  This means that it looks for IP addresses that allegedly downloaded adult films via BitTorrent, seeks to subpoena the ISP for the contact information of the account holder associated with that IP address, and then threatens to name the alleged infringer in a copyright lawsuit, right next to the embarrassing title of a pornographic film. Or just settle, for thousands of dollars.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/eff-moves-quash-subpoena-copyright-trolls-retaliatory-lawsuit

957

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Images files suit over single image

« on: April 16, 2013, 08:59:04 PM »

The times are a changin! Getty files 2 suits in the same week..same law firm, and one of them is for a single image..

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/getty-images-files-suit-over-single-image/

and this one which has been mentioned against Virtual Clinics..

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/trapped-under-the-troll-bridge/

should make for some good discussion.

958

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Should I respond?

« on: April 16, 2013, 03:51:03 PM »

I received an email from Getty today in reply to my letter stating the advice in the post above. Would it be wise to post the reply on here?

email?? I would return it as spam, let them spend the postage to contact you...posting it is entirely up to you, but chances are good Getty will see it, they like to visit from time to time...

959

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new image bot/spider/scraper

« on: April 14, 2013, 05:42:36 PM »

not to mention, that if they are using a google search, who the hell would block a user-agent with google in it??...could be a script that either uses google or maybe even tineye, and brings back results stripping that info out..

960

Legal Controversies Forum / Charles Carreon Encounters Actual Legal Consequences

« on: April 13, 2013, 07:32:07 AM »

Charles Carreon is a piece of work for sure....certainly not the brightest bulb on the tree!

http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/12/charles-carreon-encounters-actual-legal-consequences/