Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND Getty IMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

« on: July 08, 2009, 09:56:04 PM »

You don't support with my view, and you don't want it to seem as if your website encourages people to consult the police.

You don't want people to think my opinion is that of your website. I understand... but I respectfully disagree with the reasoning that leads to you thinking you owe them something. Surely, as intelligent people, you don't believe any of that money is actually going to the artists, do you?

Actual Damage is still $0.00, photos they claim as theirs are still technically unregistered (which means they cannot claim any statutory damage)...

Once again, thank you for the very informative website. Thank you also for remaining mindbogglingly calm in the face of all this (bleep bleep bleep - it's ok, I'll sensor myself this time - bleep bleep bleep). However, unless there's an uproar and the LEGAL system is involved, nothing will really change.

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND GettyIMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

« on: July 08, 2009, 01:15:47 AM »

.... interesting how you keep editing your threads, Lettered. Makes me extra paranoid. Just re-read before posting your messages. Anyway

> The very ACT of refusing to provide proof but
> claiming they have it but will only provide in
> court - is ILLEGAL. It's a very clear case for
> extortion.

This "opinion" - originally I heard it from a JUDGE. Completely unrelated case, but it was completely dismissed Specifically because the plaintiff was asking for an over-inflated amount and refused to explain the reason for this amount but threatened court instead (in their written reply).

I don't want to waste time explaining (different case, after all) but it please - just call 911, ask for a non-emergency police # for your area / precinct, call that number and ask them yourself:

*** is it legally allowed to send letters demanding money, and then refuse to prove why and how it came to that amount?

If YOUR police department says this is LEGAL, and you're in USA, please, tell me where!!!
I'll move nearby ... and I'll open me a very lucrative business! kidding.

ANYway, yes it's harassment. Yes, it's extortion. It's not an opinion. Call the police and see. Sheesh.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND GettyIMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

« on: July 08, 2009, 12:06:08 AM »

Letty: I don't see what's not to understand. With or without robots.txt - once the old history is gone, it's gone FOR GOOD, it does not return (or doesn't return anymore?). I've checked.
Everyone else: Test it if you want, but remember: there's NO need to remove robots.txt, well, ever. Just put it up and file the police report.

Since getty refuses to provide proof it's irrelevant. No proof = no right to make demands. Even archive.org's picture of YOU having it isn't proof of their ownership, or exclusivity, or damages or anything else. IF they had such proof, they would offer it with their letters.

The very ACT of refusing to provide proof but claiming they have it but will only provide in court - is ILLEGAL. It's a very clear case for extortion.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND GettyIMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

« on: July 07, 2009, 10:49:50 PM »

Just as I thought - removing does NOT bring old history back, because it was deleted. New history never appears because Alexa states it's only showing stuff that's 6 months+ old.

Without having to wait too long, I did an even more definitive test! Put in a disallow of a totally different folder.

Now the stuff from that folder is gone from Archive.org AND the from the other folder is gone.

Put it back to the 1st folder disallow.

Now the stuff from the 1st and 2nd folder are still gone for old files. I know the future files will record the 2nd folder but not the 1st - the one I'm currently blocking.

ie:

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /folder1/

vs

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /folder2/

vs both lines gone

*** Alexa is a legitimate business to the best of my knowledge. Alexa's non-profit database is giant. If someone wants their stuff gone, it's GONE. If the domain is later bought by somebody else who doesn't use that robots.txt command, the old stuff will NOT reappear - it is GONE.
*** For those who believe Lettered - you can believe it was an 'oversight that has since been corrected' -- I do not believe it was the case for one second!

I won't point to which site I tested, because Getty can (and DOES) very easily fake ownership - I fear they may attack the site I point to. After all, taking a photo of an existing photo is pretty easy when you have a decent quality computer screen.

And I once again want to repeat this for people in USA, who have access to making a nice free police report:
* GETTY IMAGES (or anyone else, for that matter) has NO LEGAL RIGHT to demand money from you.
* Your website IS automatically the intellectual property of the website designer.
* The copyright belongs to the website designer.
* The copyright does NOT belong to Getty - they claim they represent someone who pressed a camera button, but refuse to offer any proof (copyright, exclusivity, damages, - anything?!?), and just demand money. They have NO RIGHT to do this.
* Do not waste any further time speaking with their telemarketers.
* Copyright your ENTIRE website (just $35 with copyright.org)
* First letter's reply should be short:

--------------
This is not a settlement demand, because we don't have what you claim as yours and you suffered no damages. If you wish to establish a need for settlement discussions, please present us with verifiable legal proof of copyright, exclusivity and damages. Dates are crucial, please provide those as well. DO NOT contact us with any further settlement issues until a need for a settlement has been established.
--------------

Remainder of content removed by Administrator

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND GettyIMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

« on: July 07, 2009, 09:31:41 PM »

Charges are extortion and harassment. Racketeering too, I'm sure.

It's like the mob charging you for "car insurance" and trying to cover it by saying "driving without insurance is illegal in your state" which IS true... but then they add an absolute blatant lie like "it doesn't matter if you paid for your insurance elsewhere, we're THE ONES and THE ONLY ONES you have to pay if you don't want to see awful things happen to your car. We don't care if you already paid somewhere else. We refuse to show proof that you have to pay to us, but we demand it.. or else!"

It's like someone saying they broke their leg in your store, and even though there's explicit evidence that he/she did NOT suffer any damage in your store, they refuse to show any evidence and continue to demand money "or else".

as for archive.org, removing your block (removing those lines from robots.txt) will once again allow for future archiving. It will NOT return what was already deleted.

www.archive.org/about/faqs.php
(the 2nd FAQs question is about removal)

www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/removal-policy.html
(the link from FAQs - please do not be mislead, when they remove records, the past records are indeed REMOVED.)

Allowing archiver to crawl again after it has removed the images will NOT bring back the deleted pages - although I will test that on a completely unrelated website (one that's getty free), and see what happens.

I personally suggest making a partial disallow (just folders with images) and keeping it in your robots.txt - since every site should have a robots.txt anyway.. not a law, just a good thing to have.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND GettyIMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

« on: July 07, 2009, 06:05:54 PM »

First, archive/alexa issue. It absolutely does NOT 'just block access' - it actually removes ALL PREVIOUS ENTRIES from where the access is blocked. I'm 100% certain of this, so please don't try to mislead people. If you put:

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /images/

This will cause absolutely ALL their records that were EVER taken from the folder called imags (www.yourdomain.com/images/) to be PERMANENTLY removed from their records within about 24 hours of you submitting the update to alexa (www.alexa.com/help/webmasters#crawl_site --- submit www.yourdomain.com).

Lettered, it's disturbing that you're trying to mislead people on such a simple fact. It does not just block, it REMOVES.

As for your other .. umm .. point. CREATIVE WORKS are indeed "automatically" protected by a copyright. A photographer points at something that includes creative works of others, and presses a button. Once again, in court, photographer vs web designer - I will PERSONALLY stake my personal freedom (not just money) on the fact that the website I designed is MY intellectual property. I did much more than just press a camera button. I will repeat this once agian, in case someone isn't clear on it:

THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DEMAND MONEY FROM YOU!
NONE. ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. No legal right to demand money.

With all due respect, if you disagree with me and believe they have LEGAL right to demand money without proof that you owe them damages (statutory or otherwise) -- cite something from US Code that starts with the cute little symbol '§' and supports your claim - I'll be glad to look it up.

Therefore, please, - if the images are not on your site AND not on archive.org - FILE A POLICE REPORT. Ask for their false letter to be admitted in court with the word 'settlement' stricken from record. Why? They have NO legal right to make demands.

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can we just ingnore the Getty Settlement demand?

« on: July 06, 2009, 07:01:55 PM »

I'm not sure why everyone is going on the defensive instead of the offensive. Copyright YOUR logo, which is the intellectual property of the person who created that logo. Did the photographer ask every dress designer, every furniture designer, every building designer, etc. if he can claim this as his? NO. It does NOT belong to Getty and it absolutely does NOT belong to ANY of the photographers who don't have an actual Registered copyright to prove their claims to clicking a camera button.

It, in fact, belongs to THE WEB DESIGNER. Copyright it for yourself and sue Getty for harassment / extortion / entrapment / false representation / etc. Again, don't threaten their call center kids. Don't waste any MORE time talking to their telemarketers - just get a Legal copyright, and file against them. They're crooks. Pure and simple. They do NOT own exclusive anything to anything. The actual photographer won't see that money, and the actual author is YOUR WEB DESIGNER, so don't try to settle.

It's very disturbing that people are actually trying to settle. Those letters ARE admissible in court, just with the word Settlement stricken from the record. Because they never had valid cause for settlement, it is therefore just a demand. The logo is the intellectual property of the person who designed the logo. PERIOD.

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / ARCHIVE.ORG REMOVAL, AND Getty IMAGES CRIMINAL LAWSUITS

« on: July 06, 2009, 06:16:56 PM »

(remove image from your webpage, if it's there. If you continue to receive messages -- see instructions below)
(go to www.archive.org (Not archives), search for your website with name and tld extension (ie: example.com) - IF offending images are found, do the following:)

(add this to the TOP of your robots.txt file, to fully erase all archive.org data about you)

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /

(OR, add something like this to the TOP of your robots.txt file, to only erase selective data like a specific folder)

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /images/
Disallow: /pics/
Disallow: /name-of-directory-where-you-keep-images/

(upload your robots.txt to your main directory, then submit your site here:)

www.alexa.com/help/webmasters#crawl_site

(usually within 24 hours, alexa.com will make sure the offending images will be GONE from archive.org)

------------------------------------

The remainder of the post has been removed by the Administrator.