Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - NotATarget

Pages: [1]
1
Preemptive strike by artist against photographer.

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/15/andy-warhol-estate-sues-photog-prince-photo-copyright-fight/

This one is close to my heart. Actually my wallet, but I didn't have the Warhol Estate's finances to roll the dice.

2
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is posting links copyright infringement?
« on: November 20, 2016, 08:46:09 AM »
SOL day (a useful acronym, particularly for its vernacular usage)... I'd like to thank the folks on this board for their efforts in the war against trolls. The information provided here, while not specifically geared towards my situation, has been an invaluable tool for getting more educated about the playing-field many have found themselves injected onto. And for the trolls, thanks for the three years of completely unfounded accusations and additional stress. No doubt their communications will continue, and I'd almost (but not bloody seriously) welcome them filing against me at this point if it allowed me to counter-sue for $$$ damages (but I'm not a gambler).

Now back to all the other legal joy I get to "enjoy" in my line of web work...

THE MOST DIFFICULT PART STILL REMAINS NOT RESPONDING TO THE TROLLS!!!!

3
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is posting links copyright infringement?
« on: August 29, 2015, 06:14:55 PM »
Had another email. It's almost amusing watching this process tick-tock towards SOL... Certainly, not that I'm laughing.

THE MOST DIFFICULT PART REMAINS NOT RESPONDING TO THE TROLLS!!!!

4
IANAL, but your income level could play a role in determining Chapter 7 or 13, the latter of which I read has become more popular (not by debtors) and would result in a court ordered payment plan. Wouldn't that be jolly? IMO, it also misses the point of the exercise, that what is essentially a shakedown scheme is occurring...

5
Ah, the friends from my letter... 1 yr and counting in the waiting game. The physical letter was signed by no one. A follow up email by Stacy Berkowitz. Physical letterhead listed most of them.

6
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is posting links copyright infringement?
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:58:54 AM »
as long s it hosted elsewhere, you're golden..  You could contact them and tell them is no infringement, cite the perfect 10 case and advise them if they continue to persue YOU will consider filing suit against them!

Thanks, should it progress further than the non-certified "letter" method, then I shall certainly retain a lawyer to write such a letter. It's just interesting, as a NON-lawyer, to read cases on which some of these topics have already been tested (and as such I may be misinterpreting the rulings or applicability).

With Kelly v. Arriba Soft  or Perfect 10 v. Amazon, it took about 3 minutes to find both of those cases, not to mention 17 U.S.C. § 107 (fair use for news reporting; which definitely IMO - though I'd still rather not have to go to court for satisfaction to prove the point applies to the use of the link to the image in this situation).

Aren't such things fundamental, suggesting that attempting to, at least what I perceive, as "shake down" a person via mail or email, is mail and/or wire fraud? That's my biggest problem with the whole situation - the moral level.

18 U.S. Code § 1341 ("Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.")

18 U.S. Code § 1343 ("Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both")

7
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is posting links copyright infringement?
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:54:59 AM »
Well, received an email version of the letter today, again threatening legal action over the use of a inlined image posted by someone else (at the remote location) & hosted elsewhere. There is no way I'm going to plug in the access code to see what they think someone should pay for not infringing copyright.

I'm really rather bemused by this. Since inline linking is not settled, going to watch where this one goes as to my way of thinking it would have massive ramifications on the whole of the internet - but a battle better fought by some entity with deeper pockets.

8
Just an update to this original thread...

It's been more than six months since I received my "letter" from Saunders. There's been no contact since. Whether or not that is a good thing, well TBD.

From following the forum in the interim, two take-aways seem to be of paramount importance:
1) DON'T REPLY. This is particularly tough. I don't know if it'll keep me "safe" from any follow-up, but in the very least it can't hurt, especially for a non-registered letter; and the risk of saying something that can be used against you would seem to make this obvious. Even if you think you're being hard done by, or have an "easy" explanation, just don't feed the trolls!
2) Register a DMCA agent *if* that scenario applies to you (which it did me). Though since anyone can look that up a lesson learned is to NOT use your personal contact details if you don't want those details harvested by third parties...

So... I continue to wait... With far less apprehension than I had when I first received the "letter."

9
In relation to the "letter" I received from BWP, I continue to try and follow what's going on with other cases as the number keeps increasing. One that caught my attention is:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2013cv03627/268872

IANAL, but it appears some are fighting back. It's just hard to tell how many, and under what circumstances. Does anyone have any idea?


10
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is posting links copyright infringement?
« on: January 06, 2014, 06:17:44 PM »
OK, thanks. Naught to worry about then re: linking. Will register a DMCA agent. Seems like the price (a tax or insurance depending on POV) for having a public website.

11
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is posting links copyright infringement?
« on: January 04, 2014, 11:47:53 PM »
Not exactly sure what you are Basking in the 1st part.

Thanks for the response on the second part.

In the first part I'm wondering about DMCA safe-harbor - is the only way to avail yourself to this to have registered an agent? Would the courts not look unfavorably on a complaint that hadn't requested any take-down request prior to filing suit (or extortion)? While I understand the agent being a single location to look-up a contact for a website, isn't having a contact link on every single page "good enough" so that a complainant couldn't fairly argue "I couldn't find a contact to request take-down"? Yet they find your name/address via whois! Where these images seem to be un-watermarked and publically posted on original source sites with no restrictions listed it seems a cheap shot being taken.

12
Getty Images Letter Forum / Is posting links copyright infringement?
« on: January 04, 2014, 02:40:31 PM »
In reference to "those" letters from Sanders, representing BWP:

I'm curious about two things:
1) With a "contact" link on every single static or dynamic page on a website, can DMCA safe-harbor apply when the site doesn't have a registered agent. Doesn't due-diligence play into this - if an image is alleged to be infringing why couldn't there simply have been an effort to click "contact". Seems it would have been more onerous to go through the hoops to determine a DMCA agent... There also seems to be a deliberate skipping of steps that to my way of thinking would more buttress a plaintiff's case (obviously the point in an extortion scheme)?
2) Links. Can you really be sued for a link? Didn't Google go through a similar case for their search engine caching links/thumbnails or such. Where does the law stand on such matters if the image was never hosted on a defendant's site in the first place and, say for example, was simply linked from what was considered an official source?

Pages: [1]
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.