Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 28, 2013, 07:22:36 PM »

I received a copy of the defense letter today, and approved it.  Thank you, Mr. Michelen. 

The humorous issue with this thread (if you read the earlier posts) is the fact that I never used Pinterest to hotlink the image (it was hotlinked elsewhere).

When I explained to Mr. Beal that I never downloaded the image, but merely used a link, he told me it didn't matter and referred to Pinterest as an example, as if Pinterest TOS would apply to the internet as a whole.

My experience with the issue has been consistent with what has been posted on these forums so far:

1)  I received a threatening letter from MasterFile.
2)  I called and spoke with the contact person (as instructed in the letter).
3)  The contact person, Mr. Beal, was single focused.  Pay!  He attempted to be mildly polite when I first called him (at least he wasn't interrupting or calling me names).
4)  When he learned I was consulting this website -- his tactic changed.  He called me and interrupted me and abruptly hung up after telling me he was escalating the issue to his North Carolina (my state) lawyers.

From what has been said in this thread, Mr. Beal provided me with false information (hotlinked images are the same liability as downloaded images) when he was still in the mood to discuss the issue.

If I had it to do over again, I would not have called.  I would have sent one letter and then if I received a negative response (which I am certain I would have), I would hire Mr. Michelen (which I have now done).

My understanding is that from now on, I will simply refer any agents of MasterFile to Mr. Michelen if they try to contact me about this issue.

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 20, 2013, 06:08:54 PM »

Another thing he told me during our conversation:

Beal: "It does not matter if you link to an image and don't host it.  If it is displayed on your website, you are liable for it."

Me:  "The site is a blog, not a static website.  I did not download the image on my hosting provider's servers."

Beal: "It doesn't matter.  Have you ever heard of pinterest.com?  Look there and you will see they promise penalties there if you link to copyrighted material."

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 19, 2013, 06:39:40 PM »

Thanks for the support, Lucia and Robert.  I PM'd both of you.

I followed the instructions for sending my scanned information to Mr. Michelen.  I hope I will be able to hire Mr. Michelen.  I will wait to post specific information until I hear more about my case (don't want to hurt my case in some way).

Once I learn more, I'll make sure I share details of what I learn and how things turn out.  It helped me to read about others' experience with this.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 19, 2013, 03:36:15 PM »

A very upset Mr. Beal called me a few minutes ago. I was wondering to what extent he would threaten me.  The call went like this:

"I made you an offer earlier today. You posted personal communications with me on the extortion letter blog.  I rescind the offer and I am going to turn this matter over to our NC State attorney who will take it up with you."

At this point, he abruptly hung up. Interesting that in his own words, he is responding to me based on the websites I view and make posts on.

I actually told Mr. Beal in our original phone conversation that I would seek counsel before agreeing to any settlement. I have difficulty understanding what would cause him to believe that our conversation was in some way private when I had not agreed to keep any of it private, nor had he asked me to.

Based on this, I plan to hire legal representation on my behalf.

What legitimate business would oppose consumers being informed and educated of appropriate industry legal & ethical standards and pricing structure?  The ironic aspect is that if I had learned from credible sources that Mr. Beals' proposal were fair and ethical, I would have paid it without being forced to.

Now I am left with first hand evidence that leads me to believe that Mr. Beals' approach is to keep the consumer uninformed and force payment out of a position of lack of information and vulnerability.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 19, 2013, 12:38:25 PM »

I reached Geoffrey Beal of MasterFile today. I explained my rationale that:

1.  Image is no longer on the site
2.  I linked to the image without knowledge that I was infringing.
3.  The blog has no advertising and does not sell goods or services
4.  The posts are educational and public service in nature

His response was that I should pay as this does not constitute fair use because the artist was not credited.

He said MasterFile would settle for 600 (reduced from 1400). This is for a single image I linked to.

I offered 200. I told him this figure was due to the amount courts could reduce judgments to, and also, at the 600 range, I would be able to hire an attorney.

He immediately asked if the lawyer's name was Oscar Michelen. He said MasterFile has pending cases in my state (North Carolina) and hiring Oscar Michelen would only make things worse for me (glad he is looking out for my interests).

He was firm at 600. I took notes on the call and told him I would seek counsel on the issue.

I think I would like to look into hiring Mr. Michelen to help.

Previous posts I have read here suggest to try to fight it if they go higher than 300.00 to settle.

Does hiring Mr. Michelen seem wise in this case, or would it be better to settle for 600?

Thanks for your advice on this.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?

« on: August 17, 2013, 10:04:39 PM »

Masterfile sent me a FedEx letter today.  I began reading your forums for the first time today.  Here is a brief summary of my situation.

I operate a blog with mental health information (I am a clinical psychologist).  The blog contains no advertising revenue and no goods or services are sold on the blog.  The blog links to my website which does list my information for clinical psychology services, but the blog itself does not promote these services.

One of my blog posts contained an image that masterfile claims to own the copyright.  I took the image down upon receiving the letter.

I immediately called the contact person in the letter and explained that I have taken the image down.  I also explained that my blog provides public service information (suicide prevention, mental health information) and is non-commercial and I believe there is a copyright exception for such material.

I asked the contact person to call me so I can discuss the issue further with him.

I have complied with the request to take the image down.  I read about fair use of copyright material and public service announcements and education seem to be legitimate exceptions.

I would appreciate it if anyone could share information on the use of this exception, especially if related to these letters by master file.

Thanks for the helpful information.