Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Newbie to the club

« on: April 29, 2012, 11:24:02 PM »

Hey surfrider

do you mean the images were only up for 10 to 14 days? Or the images had been taken down 10 to 14 days before the letter arrived? In your initial post you said the images were down quite a while before the letter arrived. I was wondering how long before the letter arrived had you removed them from the site? Was it a few months after you removed the images that the letter arrived?

thanks again 

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Newbie to the club

« on: April 29, 2012, 05:54:57 PM »

Since it was in development both sections of that page and the images were removed long before we got the letter.

Sorry to hear you have been dragged into this mess. I took down images from a website after I realised they were from google images and after research some were from stock companies. I took mine down nearly a year ago and no sign of a letter yet. So Im wondering how long had your images been down before your letter arrived.

I just want to stop thinking that I might get a letter. The site is off deleted from the waybackmachine

Many thanks

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Ted talk on patent troll

« on: April 20, 2012, 06:50:23 PM »

Not hugely relevant but you may find it interesting

http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_troll.html

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??

« on: March 30, 2012, 06:25:08 PM »

Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't suggesting that anybody lies in court at all.

It was more of a technique to make them provide more proof that you used it. Anything to make them work harder. I just think a grainy black and white screengrab isn't much evidence when it's easily forged. The same way 'they could' plant images on free screensaver sites etc and wait for you to use it and 2 years later WHAM you have a letter. We have seen this happen so between planted images and easily forged screengrabs, wouldn't most judges see through them?

But I do feel as some of the other trolls are entering the scene that they may stoop to the level of 'planting' images using firebug on very busy blogs where people lose track of the images used, changed etc. All it takes is some vulnerable person to convince themselves they used it a year ago and they have hit the jackpot

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Screengrabs lack of credibility??

« on: March 30, 2012, 01:36:34 PM »

Definitely on to something here. Why should they be believed over you, when they are the ones breaching robots.txt files in most cases to gain access to a site and then take a screenshot which could easily be manipulated

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Screengrabs lack of credibility??

« on: March 30, 2012, 12:58:00 PM »

I haven't been unlucky enough to receive a letter yet but I have done the stupid thing of using images from google images over a year ago ( the site was up 3 months before i realised my stupidity, the images have been down 10 months now and no letter )

Anyway, I was thinking the other day about this. Using firebug (web develpoment tool on firefox) you can change the content the colours, text size, sometimes content and also images on already live sites. So if a case reached court could the evidence of the screengrab really be seen to be legitimate if some one can change the look of the site and then take a screengrab? Just a thought…

Some basic tutorials on firebug:



http://www.ostraining.com/blog/coding/firebug-logos/

or just google 'replacing an image using firebug'

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Image Demand For Image Removed Months Ago

« on: October 25, 2011, 03:25:06 PM »

Thanks buddhapi

They definitely use the archive sites to find the exact time an image has been up, but I do feel they don't use
them to trawl and find past infringers. I think the 5 or so months time between catching and sendin the letter is
backlog, checking the archives, confirming domain owner etc.

Thanks a lot for the links. As usual this site is a great resource and the regular contributors efforts don't go unnoticed.

If anybody has received a letter more than 6 months after removing images due to redesign etc., it would be good
to hear from you. It might put a few minds to rest (mine included)

Thanks again

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Image Demand For Image Removed Months Ago

« on: October 25, 2011, 05:55:57 AM »

Has there been many cases of people getting a letter a long time after they have removed images from a website. Let's say they take them down maybe because of a website redesign, not because they got a letter, and were unaware they ever 'infringed'. But then a year later a letter arrives.

I know people have removed images and maybe up to 5 months later they receive a letter. But what about a year or 2 years? anybody know?

I have a feeling that they use archive.org and domaintools as way of seeing how long an image has been used for after they discover a 'live' image
on a website. I don't think they actually trawl through archives to find past infringers, but use it as a way find the length of time the image has been up and charge 'accordingly'.

Am i wrong in thinking this?

Thanks

9

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Image Demand For Image Removed Months Ago

« on: October 24, 2011, 07:25:34 PM »

How long ago did you remove them? May possibly? I believe from reading other posts it can take up to 5 months for example, for the letter to arrive from GI from when they discover the 'infringement'. What kind of fee are they asking for?

It is possible they discovered them just before you took it down and you are only hearing now. Is it archived on Wayback Machine?

Anybody know of other archiving sites they use?