Messages

1

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: LinkedIn Sued for Hacking Users and Spamming Contacts

« on: October 16, 2013, 10:50:43 AM »

Hello everyone!
This is not about LinkedIn, but related - Resume.
To make a story short, I have found my own resume with all my personal contact information, including name, address, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, with a photo of mine on some document sharing website, "a user generated content site where members of the general public may upload or post documents for public consumption".And all this was posted by someone else, not by me, without any permission of mine. The website policy says that the document may be removed on "Copyright Infringement" ground, and that's what they say about "personal privacy", I quote:
"If you wish to request that we remove a document because it contains personal information about you please understand what personal information is.  According to California Civil Code Section 1798.29 "personal information" means an individual's first name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements, [ ]:
(1) Social security number.
(2) Driver's license number or California Identification Card number.
(3) Account number, credit or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to an individual's financial account.
[ ] "personal information" does not include publicly available information that is lawfully made available to the general public from federal, state, or local government records."
Anyway, I am not happy that my document was uploaded by someone else. And I am thinking, is Resume falling in a category for copyrighted work? Since I wrote a resume, it should be. From another side, it is not that unique, because the content of the resume, including skills, qualifications, job responsibilities, etc., can be found everywhere online and once in resume it is modified and personalized by each person.
Any thoughts?

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 15, 2012, 11:28:15 AM »

Nice to see that Katerina is still following the posts here, and contributing again.
Sorry to hear about your divorce, Katerina, however, I'm happy to hear that you've put that infringement issue behind you.

As copyright laws don't go into great depth about "derivative works" and "fair use" in those terms, I think that judges use recent precedents to help guide their decisions.

Readers of the forum may be interested in "The Professional Photographers Legal Handbook"
Don't ask me why it's available online like this; but that's not my concern.  Read it online, don't save it to disk, and you haven't "infringed".
http://images.mescasa.multiply.multiplycontent.com/attachment/0/Sec60AoKCCUAAEnPbSg1/The%20Professional%20Photographers%20Legal%20Handbook.pdf?key=mescasa:journal:63&nmid=231756627

Refer to page 79 "Parody as Fair Use".
In Rogers vs Koons, Koons made a sculpture of the subject matter of Roger's photo, then took a photograph of that sculpture.
Koons lost the infringement case, because the court determined that the photo of the sculpture, while "adapted in a different medium, photographs of the sculpture could harm the original photographer’s market."
My interpretation of this would be that while a painting or sculpture based on a photograph created by another artist might be permissible, the sales of photographic copies of the painting or sculpture might harm the original photographer's market, and therefore be an infringement.

The book makes a further reference to a case against Koon, in which he prevailed (based on fair use) on page 81.
In Blanch vs Koon, Koon had created a painting based on a collage made from a photograph taken by Blanch.
The court found that Koon's use of Blanch's material was "transformative"; that is "he used Blanch’s image for a 'sharply different' purpose than Blanch’s purpose in creating the image."
Additionally, the court found that Blanch's use of the photo was for a glossy magazine inclusion, but Koon's use was intended for an art gallery exhibit.
Furthermore, Blanch hadn't used or licensed her photo for use after that first magazine publication, and therefore Koon's use did not “cause any harm to her career or upset any plans” that she had for the photograph.

The book points out that the courts have begun to take greater note of the "purpose of the person making it (the transformation)", rather than the actual "nature of the transformation" (artistic medium and percentage of the original work used for example).

Again, more often than not, these sorts of things are settled out of court.
Here's a link explaining a lawsuit over a graffiti mural that appeared for a second or two in a Chrysler commercial:
http://www.partridgeiplaw.com/graffiti-and-law-copyright-%E2%80%93-framed-jennifer-lopez%E2%80%99s-fiat-commercial

Another graffiti artist has lost an infringement case against him based on a stencil "copy" of a RUN-DMC photo:
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/06/10/photographer-victorious-in-copyright-lawsuit-against-graffiti-artist/
Some analysis of the above:
http://www.streetartnews.net/2011/01/thierry-guetta-aka-mr-brainwash-sued.html

Clearly, the most uncertain (and therefore the most risky) court cases are those that "the law" really doesn't cover.
One cannot be sure of who will actually prevail in such circumstances.

S.G.

S. G.,
As usual, you always come up with some interesting and helpful information. I guess, now I can be more cleared on how these things work regarding paintings and pictures. I think now I have to refer to a Copyright law again! and of course, more research!

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 11, 2012, 03:20:21 PM »

well, I just couldn't handle all this considering what was happening afterwards. Though, he is happy with settlement. That's fine then. But I have been visiting this forum from time to time, getting some updates on the whole situation with these copyright trolls, for the purpose of education. Again, I was impressed by the number of new companies who try to get fast and easy cash.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 11, 2012, 02:55:55 PM »

Yes, I do understand the difference between "watching" and using bit torrent.
As for my my husband's issue (now ex-husband), he settled it down with McDougal of Masterfile. I cannot give the details of settlement though, as he signed the confidentiality agreement upon settlement.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 11, 2012, 01:16:53 PM »

SoylentGreen, I read the copyright law too I couldn't find anything there about this topic, that's why I asked. Anyway, if I am drawing a picture.... I am creating my own art with my own hands, but not use the same digital image....I can find the the same flower, but I can like the IDEA of composition, or how it is set on the photo, etc....and use it in my drawing. The IDEA cannot be copyrighted. That's the law.
But yes, you are right, if copyright trolls see the opportunity of fast and easy cash - they will do that.  Anyway - hard to prove anything.
I haven't visited this forum for a long time, since that issue of my husband with Masterfile. Now, it is amazing how many new copyright trolls appeared to make money on that. But I wasn't surprised, btw. It is just ridiculous. Thanks God, judges uses common sense in these cases.
Now, it looks that you can infringe even if you watch some videos or photos online.... Not me to teach, but when you watch video or a picture, basically you download this to the "cache folder" on your computer.... right? This is how the internet works. I don't think that they will ever stop "infringement"....

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 11, 2012, 12:58:04 PM »

That link with Obama picture is interesting.... What if the painter just draw the portrait of  Obama? Of course he would look alike as in the picture.... Or what if that painter saw that press over TV, put on pause, and then draw? There could be everything....May be I am not right, but drawing is a drawing, and photo is a photo.....Well, anyway, if it is settled down...

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 11, 2012, 12:23:36 PM »

That's interesting....So, basically, if I see a photo of the rose, and draw it in a little bit different shape/size, using a little bit different shades of the colour, composition, background, etc, in this case it will be hard to say that this particular image was used to create a drawing on a piece of paper....right?

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Notification of Case Escalation

« on: May 11, 2012, 11:36:06 AM »

Hello all! I have a quick question and wonder what you think, just don't know what topic it would apply to....
Let's say I saw a photo of a rose on internet, and draw a picture of this rose with my own hand (on a paper with paint and a brush). But the drawing looks very similar to that photo: the same shape of the flower, colour, position, etc., so you can easily recognize, that the drawing was made using that particular photo. Now, I take the digital photo of the drawing and use it for website design, or a greeting card for sale, or smth else like this (for business purposes). Would the copyright be applied in this case? Would the copyright holder of the digital image of that rose I made a drawing of, say - hey, they used my image to create a drawing they use for business now? Logically, it shouldn't be like this, as I draw this with my own hand and I do not use his/her particular digital image on my website? What do you think, guys?

9

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Both SOPA and PIPA shelved

« on: January 24, 2012, 11:24:42 AM »

Here we go! well done, people!

10

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Oppose Internet Censorship: Help Defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act

« on: January 19, 2012, 02:07:17 PM »

This bill caused a lot of protests, and I read in a newspaper today that it loses its support from lawmakers. Wikipedia didn't work for about 24 hours, Google had a black bar on "GOOGLE" letters, Craigslist was all black and just was flashing about PIPA and SOPA. It all came to public attention. So, hopefully, this bill will not go through. Otherwise, this will be a nightmare.

11

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Copyright Trolls Everywhere!

« on: January 19, 2012, 02:02:53 PM »

If SOPA and PIPA go through, this will be only the beginning of a nightmare. It seems to me like this.

12

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: BuddhaPi has Officially Joined the ELI Defense Team!

« on: September 23, 2011, 09:48:14 AM »

BuddhaPi, my sincere congratulations!

13

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 23, 2011, 02:53:29 PM »

I am thinking of different....
If 2 companies merged, then they form a new legal entity, which is a different firm or corporation, with different tax numbers and stuff like this. in copyright registration forms masterfile puts "masterfile" as the owner of copyright for their compilation. does it mean that their registration will become invalid when they bought out by another company?? I am not sure if it all makes any sense, just wondering.....
also, if Steve sells his company, then he is not responsible for for future,  lets say, lawsuites against masterfile if this happens, right? this will become the headache of a new owner. so what he gets - he made enough on infringement letters, then, considering what had happened with rightheaven and what is going on with getty, he might think of selling as a good idea to leave for "retirement" with 21 mln, as more and more people are getting aware of their tactics and prefer to fight (in one of the articles - they were loosing about 5-6 mln in annual profit, if I am not mistaken - "It had revenues of $22.3 million in 2010, down from $27.5 million in 2009, a drop that was "largely attributable to the impact of the world financial crisis," according to the Arius press release." ). and what the new owner gets? the totally proven scheme of extorting money and a great base of ready compilations from Masterfile + all trained people for that: "Pigeon expects Masterfile will continue with business as usual. He'll remain president for the foreseeable future, and "we get to keep all our people."
This is just a thought, but who knows?

14

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 23, 2011, 01:32:24 PM »

i have checked this web site. it worked fine. but what a crap is there! and this company is buying masterfile??no wonder why Steve of MF turned them down for the first time....

15

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Two Canadian tech firms combine ( Masterfile )

« on: August 22, 2011, 06:54:27 PM »

about the same - different source:


http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/3-D-Imaging-Company--3436.shtml