Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: List of Public Domain stock footage companies

« on: May 20, 2014, 05:09:55 PM »

I just read this:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/05/metropolitan-museum-of-art-releases-400000-hi-res-images-into-the-public-domain/

basically, it states that the Metropolitan Museum of Art, well you can tell by the name of the URL.

However.. I am unable to find any information about it on the actual Metro website..

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the Getty Letter

« on: December 22, 2013, 09:05:20 PM »

Letters have already been drafted and are ready to mail out in the morning.

The very fact that I have already provided proof that I purchased said image is what is really pissing me off right now.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the Getty Letter

« on: December 21, 2013, 05:49:45 PM »

NCS left a second reply on my blog (this time under a different area).

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the Getty Letter

« on: October 30, 2013, 04:47:52 PM »

I've not replied to it, it's a post on my blog that they sent this "demand" to.. and at that, it's on a page that dates back several years.. I'm not even going to consider it legit, as.. it's a reply to a post on a blog.. it looks to me to be one of those "phishing / spam" replies.  At least that's how I see it.  My websites are registered, my actual name is on display as the registrant, as well as my physical address.  They are welcome to contact me via mail.
Once that happens then oh yes, the letters will most certainly rain down.

The dumb part is.. all replies on my blog can be edited to say whatever I want them to say...  So yeah, they can just send me a letter in the mail.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the Getty Letter

« on: October 28, 2013, 11:28:11 PM »

it has IP address, email info, all kinds of "fun" information.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the Getty Letter

« on: October 28, 2013, 02:50:29 PM »

Today I got.. well.. a reply on my blog from NCS.
Now.. I've got by blog set up in such a way that new posts are not published until I approve them.
Strange thing is, it's a different case number than what getty provided.

No, it will never grace the pages of my blog, their reply.

However, what is to stop them from posting on my google+ page or on my myspace page?

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hiring my own photographer and getting the copywrite

« on: October 05, 2013, 09:50:45 AM »

Greetings Jerry,

I'm not sure what part of the world you reside in (or specifically where your business is located), but I do photography and I'd be more than happy to take photos and give them to you (where you retain the full copyrights).  I've done this before where I charge a simple flat rate based on the number of photos needed and the odd "positions" I may have to get to in order to obtain said photo (up a ladder, on top of a building, in the middle of a lake; etc.) .

Copyright is a strange beast; seems like any, ANY, place you look you can find violations of it; it's a strange beast indeed.

8

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Looks like Home Depot is trolling in a similar way Getty et. al. has been

« on: September 11, 2013, 08:38:08 PM »

Unless things have changed with Wal-Mart their "unspoken" policy is to watch you. Even if they see you physically put something in your pocket all they do is follow you and watch you. Unless it's over something like $25.00.
You can read about their policy here:
http://www.wlox.com/story/5147534/wal-marts-shocking-new-shoplifting-policy-revealed-by-wakeupwalmartcom-concerned-workers-question-policy-shift
tho I've read the actual document somewhere.. I'll post a link if I find it again.

ALTHOUGH... It DOES look like Wal-Mart has used this practice at least in the past:
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135138

9

Legal Controversies Forum / Looks like Home Depot is trolling in a similar way Getty et. al. has been

« on: September 11, 2013, 03:00:20 PM »

Looks like Home Depot is trolling in a similar way Getty et. al. has been:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/home-depot-harassing-accused-shoplifters-paying-fees-lawsuit/story?id=20201531

This sounds almost exactly like the same practice Getty Images and the rest have been doing..  Only difference is it's no longer cyber.

10

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI, Florida sinkhole, and pink planet

« on: August 12, 2013, 09:52:17 PM »

I found the same image (helix nebula) on GI a few times.
the one with StockTrek's info on it is RF.
there is one with Robert's info, it is RM (exact same image is also on ST's site which on theirs it's marked as RF).

The one(s) of the sinkhole are RM.

11

Getty Images Letter Forum / GI, Florida sinkhole, and pink planet

« on: August 12, 2013, 08:13:25 PM »

As some of you know, there was a 100' wide sinkhole that happened Florida EARLY this morning (8-12-2013) near Clermont.  I've seen several articles online that are showing photos of it; most of them show: Photo: photographer's name, Getty Images .

Recently there was a new planet discovered that was pink(ish) in color (GJ 504b for those interested).  The image in question if of.. well.. a pink planet on the left against a star background with a sun on the upper right. It was released by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the artist is S. Wiessinger.  USA Today has a cropped version of this image on their website, credit is being given to AFP/Getty Images.  Neither the artist nor his pink planet can be found on Getty, however.

There is another image I've run across of The Helix Nebula that IS on Getty's site and THEY give credit to another stock image website called StockTrek Images..  However, Getty is more than happy to charge for use of said image (and yes, you can also pay for use of said image over on StockTrek's site as well - yet on ST's website they give credit to a Robert Gendler!!!).

I wonder if this is an instance of getty taking an image and trying to "claim" they are the ones who "represent" the photographer.  The more I look into and investigate Getty the more I see how "in the dark" they operate.

I'm tempted to break out my camera and start taking a bunch of new photos just to see if Getty tries to take em...

12

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the Getty Letter

« on: August 02, 2013, 06:55:54 PM »

Despite my sending them a certified letter they responded to me today with an email.  Form letter blah blah blah; they don't consider the matter closed even tho I provided documentation that shows I paid for the template (that included said image) a few years back.  They claim it's not enough proof and I still need to pay them.
I sent a 1 line reply stating I provided proof and I consider the matter closed.

I'm sure they will reply again.  I'll simply reply with the exact same reply I just did, and I'll reply each and every time with the exact same thing.

13

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got the Getty Letter

« on: August 02, 2013, 07:31:17 AM »

I sent my reply to them via cert. snail mail.  I'll let you know what happens.

14

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Latest image scraper – a troll by any other name

« on: July 25, 2013, 05:10:32 AM »

It was explained to me more upon the approach that should a place (getty for example) contact me claiming infringement, that I could in turn go after them for violating my site's terms and use conditions.

Dunno, seems to me that if they are data mining and data scraping that that action alone is not 100% legal.

But then again if they are going about it from outside of the country where the laws are not the same...

15

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Latest image scraper – a troll by any other name

« on: July 24, 2013, 09:06:38 PM »

I ran across a friend of mine today that suggested putting a 'Terms of Website Use' on my website(s).  In essence it reads along the lines of:

"Limits on Use of the Sites and Services
You agree not to engage in any of the following: (a) use any automated means, including, without limitation, agents, robots, scripts, or spiders, to access, monitor, data scrape, copy or transfer any part of the Sites or Services (including without limitation any User data such as Member website usage, purchase history, or any Registration Data, whether individually or in the aggregate); (b) use any device, software or program to attempt to data mine, data scrape or image lift (including without limitation any files contained in published or non-published pages on the site) other than what is stored in a browser's cache or cookie recall;"

He could not vouch for it's effectiveness but did mention that MANY big company websites have similar wordings to prevent various actions.  In essence it's in place as a buffer to prevent anyone from looking and cruising your website in an attempt to purposely find something to try and use to cause you grief.

thoughts?