Messages

961

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My 3 year experience fighting back in playing Getty's dirty game

« on: April 12, 2013, 04:15:30 PM »

if you got the first letter in the beginning of 2010, you are probably past the 3 year statute of limitations, you might want to check into that.. and if you hear from them again you can politely ( or not so politely) point this fact out to them...

962

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: A message from the little guy

« on: April 12, 2013, 03:33:20 PM »

Hey! good post and welcome to the forums.. I ( and I think the rest of the community) would totally agree with what you're doing, and yes you certainly deserve to be compensated for your work!.. Most of the cases we see here are are single infringements of mostly mundane "stock" images, that most truly innocently infringe, by grabbing them from google searches or elsewhere.. and most are on personal sites, or site that generate nearly zero dollars.. we're not talking about major corporations like you stated, they should know better to begin with, as they have marketing dept's that should be up to speed, there is simply no excuse for a large company to try to screw the little guy..shame on them!

If Getty and the other stock agencies handled the matter much the way you are none of us would be here in this forum today...Our position is and always has been the "method"  in which these things are handled..

Yes there is the "legal" way, but there is also the "ethical" way..take this scenario for example:

a retired veteran, sets up a small site to collect donated money and cigarettes to distribute to other less fortunate veterans, and he inadvertently uses one of your images on his site..he make NO money from his site, he serves no ads on his site, he's just an old timer trying to help out fellow veterens. Would you open a dialog with him and work something out to satisify both parties?? Judging by your very own post, I'd venture a guess and say you would do just that... Getty images refused to discuss the matter, they only wanted the 1200.00...end of story...this is where we have an issue.

In my case I actually purchased the license for 2 images Getty accused me of swiping, which I even supplied to them..guess what??? they responded with "well anybody could have created this license so pay us".

again thanks for visiting it's nice to see an artist ( i'm also a photographer) come here and be reasonable, as most of them acuse us of being thieves, and having no respect for copyright...nothing is further from the truth..every single user here is a content creator of some sort.

963

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

« on: April 11, 2013, 04:10:02 PM »

http://www.imagewitness.com/index.php

keep an eye out for a new scraper...

the domain belongs to:
Registrant:
   Matthew Johnson
   8-230 Clovelly Rd
   Clovelly
   Sydney, New South Wales 2031
   Australia

there is no info on the site regarding the bot that scan, so I don't know if they abide by robots.txt, I'm doing more digging..probably will have to block them via ip address at the server level..just what we need another bandwidth sucking asshat.

964

Legal Controversies Forum / RE/MAX Sues Local Realtor for Trademark Infringement

« on: April 11, 2013, 11:04:28 AM »

On April 5, 2013, RE/MAX, LLC (“RE/MAX”) filed a trademark lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia against Cumming, Georgia-based McFarland Realty Enterprises, Inc. and two of its principals (collectively, “McFarland”).  The complaint lists federal counts of trademark infringement and unfair competition, and state law counts of dilution, violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, and violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/remax-sues-local-realtor-trademark-infringement-over-blue-white-and-red-sign-backgro


good luck with one REMAX!! not to mention it's in Georgia, so they might even win!

965

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 11, 2013, 08:50:03 AM »

I'm still a bit confused, and the link to the Stop Getty site doesn't work for me this morning so I can't read the primary source material.  If Getty goes after actual damages, what amount would they seek? The actual license cost? What about business related sites; would they seek other actual damages because an image was used on a business' websites??

yeah the site is down again...Getty will seek the maximum allowed amounts 150k per infringement for the registered images, and actual damages for the images that were not registered...this case involve 18 ( i think) images, so it will be a large amount. If the defendant doesn't show Getty will win by default, and you can bet your ass that Getty and McCormack will shout out about a big win, even though it would be a default judgement.

966

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 10, 2013, 07:08:48 PM »

If this is what it appears to be ... Getty going after flagrantly infringing web site designers (and not thier innocent customers) then I think it is to be applauded.  If stopgettyimages.com is indeed a smear campaign by said infringers, I think ELI runs the risk of being "rolled up" with them in the eye of public opinion.

If the above pans out as true, I think ELI should put out a press release praising this action by Getty and distancing itself from stopgettyimages.com .

Also, I think the posts in this thread concerning this issue should be move into a thread of their own.

I will be making a post along these lines on copyright-trolls.com, and furthering that by making a thread here, at which time I will move some of these comments... I suggested to Matt that he make a blog post about this on the front side of ELI, as I agree this will bolster our postition that we do indeed respect copyright, and that we do indeed believe that artists should be paid for their work.. It has ALWAYS been my position, that it is the way the troll conduct themselves that is not right.

967

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 10, 2013, 04:12:18 PM »

@Jerry, I'll be writing a nice little piece about this case...I've looked into virtual clinics about 1 year ago, and there is more to this story that is for sure... heres a tidbit for you

from stopgettyimages.com:
"After a small animal website provider, refused to pay Getty Images fake invoices, Mr. Wilsdon filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement against the owners, who are an elderly part-time retired couple, that provide budget websites for animal rescue, pet adoption organizations, and service dogs.  Getty Images had been utilizing their predatory scare tactics to frighten this older couple for years, however they refused to pay Getty's fake invoices for non-existent copyrights.  Scott Wilsdon filed a lawsuit against this elderly couple on April 5, 2013."

this paragraph is a blatant lie.
a. the "elderly couple" is bogus
b. the suit was filed on the date mentioned, BUT it is against virtual clinics, not an elderly couple.
c. the "elderly couple" develop website as a full time endeavour, they are NOT low cost budget sites, and they are for vet clinics, not non-profit rescues and what not..

look for more in the next couple of days, i'm busy sorting and gather more facts..

968

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile price dropped but still high - seeking advice

« on: April 09, 2013, 06:19:44 AM »

Hi Jerry
MF said it did not matter if I got the pic from a third party.
The business person who helped me said sorry and convinced that she got the picture from a free place.

It's too bad the "local business" doesn't care about it's "local customer" and won't take responsibility . shame on them!

969

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Names Tara M. Comonte as Chief Financial Officer

« on: April 09, 2013, 06:16:24 AM »

A Troll is Born.

970

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Letter: Is this a Scam?

« on: April 08, 2013, 07:45:45 PM »

This is the first time I've heard of Masterfile using a debt collection agency. Either I've missed some information or MF is no longer using strictly ever-escalating threats of lawsuits to get money out of folks.

Hi Mulligan!, good seeing you here and partaking in the conversation! I've seen MF use NCS before...hope you and the missus are well!

971

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Letter: Is this a Scam?

« on: April 08, 2013, 04:02:53 PM »

this is a "claim" not a debt, nicely tell NCS to pound salt....they have no right pestering you and they know this....you can refer to the following thread for more info

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/my-response-letter-to-ncs/

972

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved Letter from getty

« on: April 08, 2013, 03:59:56 PM »

I see there is a ton of documents posted on SCRID. is there a better place to post these, or a place where we can have more open access tot he information? I think if we are serious about Getty and reeling them in, these documents should be more available and easier to handle to upload and if needed download to wage a serious campaign with Attorneys General and others to help end Getty extortion practice.

Thoughts?

scribd is the best option, the documents are public, I don't know how much more "open access" there could possibly be... I guess for your own documents you can upload them to where ever you see fit.

973

Getty Images Letter Forum / Photog Accuses Getty of Loaning Images to CafePress Instead of Licensing Them

« on: April 07, 2013, 08:34:30 AM »

Photographer Remi Thornton recently terminated his contract with Getty after finding out that the agency was allowing online retailer CafePress to use his images on potential merchandise without paying an up-front licensing fee.

In fact, according to Thornton, CafePress has an exclusive agreement with Getty, which allows them use any of the agency’s Royalty Free stock to populate their store, while only paying the photographer if the merchandise featuring their image actually sells.


http://www.petapixel.com/2013/04/06/getty-allegedly-allowing-cafepress-to-borrow-images-instead-of-licensing-them/

http://remithornton.com/news/13768623/terminated

974

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Complaint with Washington ATG

« on: April 06, 2013, 06:28:29 AM »

Certainly keep this on file for future reference! when you get a letter from NCS Recovery, you can then re-address the Getty's answer...and the next question would be...If Getty says " We are not alleging that the Complainant owes a debt; ..." then why would you be hearing from a "collection agency"..

Once again as usual Getty is acting as judge and jury here, and basically stating that by giving you a screen shot, you are guilty... a screen shot is only proof that the image in question "appeared" on the site..It does not prove that the image was "copied", or if the images was hosted elsewhere. Further just because Getty "claims" to represent the artist doesn't make it fact..we've seen instances where Getty tries to extort money from images that were/are clearly in the public domain.

975

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 01, 2013, 11:31:37 AM »

I know it's suggested to read the posts already left to acquire answers to questions, but there are so many threads and posts here, the effort would be like finding a needle in a haystack. So here's my situation. The office I work for had a website designed by a friend of the owner, he used free images found online with no visible attachment or ownership claim (sound familiar?), and several years after a letter came from Getty. It was ignored at the behest of the boss, who said the amount was ludicrous and was determined it was a Phishing scam. But just to be safe, the photo was removed within days. Every 3-4 months another Getty letter came revisiting the same issue, all we're ignored. Then after a quiet period, maybe 6 months, a McCormack letter came. Every few months since another has followed and the last stated it was their "final warning"! All of McCormacks letters have been ignored as well. From what I've seen this is the best response...don't give them anything to work with, such as a response, a worried phone call, etc...am I right? Since the last letter said final warning, what will be their next step? Anybody? Will they send a certified letter? Should I ignore that? Will they call? Should I not return those calls? E-mail? Ignore those too? Since they have (apparently) never taken a case to court, can I just go on ignoring them and have no concern? This has been going on for, I think, about 3 years. I heard there is a statute of limitations of 3 years, but what "exactly" does that mean, and not mean? Could someone shed some light on that for me, and tell me if just ignoring them has been shown to be most effective. People ask all the time on these threads if someone has been taken to court, what happened, etc. If all these guys are going to do is bluff, bluster, and lie, then I will just keep ignoring them. I'd rather not answer them in any way! I'd just like to know what to expect going forward from someone's experience based on what I've done so far and where I am in the process. Perhaps one of you can send me (a URL perhaps) to the proper thread(s) for answers to this. Thanks in advance for any answers.

yup there are many posts to dig thru, all of the info here is FREE so YOU can make a decision what is best for YOU and your situation.. I will say if the first letter from getty came more than 3 years ago, they can't do squat..and it would be safe to tell them that the statute of limitations has expired.