Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image used was part of our Portfolio

« on: July 05, 2013, 11:14:19 AM »

It's actually very common for these companies to claim infringements with regard to works in a "portfolio".
Masterfile is well-known for this practice.

As usual, the real concern is not speculative lawsuits in most cases.  They would be unlikely to sue.
It's all the harassment and threats along the way that are a real pain.

S.G.

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has any "photographer" ever posted on ELI that was NOT a lying troll?

« on: July 05, 2013, 11:08:39 AM »

I said "stock photographer".  I'm not aware that Buddhapi was selling his works?
...and yes, his works are indeed very good!!

S.G.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Velvet fist in the iron glove?

« on: July 05, 2013, 11:06:50 AM »

hahaha... coupons!!   
After they get paid their king's-ransom sized settlement, I'm sure that most people would prefer food stamps.

S.G.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A friend of ELI

« on: June 23, 2013, 12:06:19 PM »

DvG, I don't think that people here have a problem with your efforts to protect your property and to get paid.
I think that the problem that people here have with you is that you are "experienced" in this area.
BUT, you've posted a great deal of misleading information intended to scare people into paying.
Ergo, you're lying to make money.  That's why you're defined as a troll.

S.G.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A friend of ELI

« on: June 23, 2013, 01:01:44 AM »

I personally would also like to add that every photographer that has posted on this forum has really pounded people over the head with the usual scaremongering tactics.
But, that sort of thing just breeds distrust for photographers and their industry.  DvG has been caught in a bunch of lies already.
Are people really going to be more inclined pay people like him?  When he sounds like a scam-artist?

S.G.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A friend of ELI

« on: June 22, 2013, 02:36:36 PM »

I thought that DvG was gone after being exposed for a filthy troll.

He is right that a "cease desist" isn't required, though.
But, it's kind of a moot point, as it's ALWAYS included in the first communication, whether it's a lawsuit or not.
Content creators want their stuff taken down when an infringement happens.

Filing a lawsuit expectedly is extremely rare, as it's always more profitable to coerce the alleged infringer into paying without getting lawyers involved.
After all, you will often owe half of what you get to lawyers such as Wright.
Although, I guess that some people might get some satisfaction of the thought of a UFC-style legal sucker-punch.

S.G.

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trollog Defined

« on: June 09, 2013, 11:14:39 PM »

I was just laughing about "trollog".

But, yes, "perfect 10" is a US precedent.

S.G.

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Trollog Defined

« on: June 09, 2013, 11:19:09 AM »

hahaha... "trollog"...
Ranks right up there with "butthurt".

S.G.

9

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court

« on: June 09, 2013, 12:45:54 AM »

The piece of law that you listed doesn't apply to de minimis infringements such as we deal with here.
It's intended to deal only with large, sophisticated businesses whose main source of revenue is mass infringement of copyrights.
That is, you've listed statutes that focus on entities such as Megaupload or Demonoid, and as such they don't apply to individual infringements of images.

Criminal fraud doesn't apply at all in your case.
That's why YOU have to sue in regard to infringements of YOUR content.
You already admitted that you will have to pay "over $4800 in filing fees alone".
If it was a criminal matter, you could simply phone the police as you suggested, and you'd file a report, and the police would lead the investigation.
But, you can't do that.  YOU have to pay for the civil trial... AND you eat all the costs if you lose. 

So, stop trying to mislead our audience by lying.
You're one step away from losing all credibility by saying that somebody's going to jail for "stealing" your photo.

S.G.

10

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court

« on: June 09, 2013, 12:09:34 AM »

Bro, if I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd be at home with a cigar and a length of hose.
"Fraud" is covered under criminal statutes.  De minimis infringements are a matter of the civil courts.
However, please feel free to post sections of US law that deal with such infringements in terms of criminal fraud, if you feel that they exist.

I don't see people as being of a "black and white" nature.
However, upon reading some of your latest posts, I found them astonishingly misleading.
If even 5 percent of what you wrote was correct, you may have gotten some leeway.
So, you got lumped in with the trolls.

Hell, Getty couldn't even get actual damages in one of its recent big court losses because their filing system was so flawed.
Not 200 dollars, not 10 dollars, nothing.  Makes me wonder if it was intentionally flawed.

You make it sound as if you're experienced in pursuing infringements.
However, you seem to know very little (if anything) of the laws that govern such dealings.
You're either "blowing smoke", or you're intentionally misleading people in the hopes that they'll take your bad advice and you'll gain from that.

S.G.

11

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Thoughts on my Response to Getty Images. Next step.

« on: June 08, 2013, 06:26:25 PM »

I miss him like a Getty class action lawsuit thread. lol

S.G.

12

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Thoughts on my Response to Getty Images. Next step.

« on: June 08, 2013, 03:15:32 PM »

Great responses to obvious troll DvG.

I'd like to add something.
It's technically true that Getty (and others) don't have to provide proof of registration or contracts to those that they accuse of infringement.

But, this tactic only works if they can scare the accused into paying without them ever seeing any proof.
Obviously, many people simply don't pay unless they receive verifiable proof of wrongdoing.

Even more importantly, no lawsuit will make it to court without proof, which must be submitted before trial.
Otherwise, such a suit would likely be rejected in a summary judgement.

S.G.

13

Getty Images Letter Forum / Has any "photographer" ever posted on ELI that was NOT a lying troll?

« on: June 08, 2013, 01:16:56 PM »

Has any stock "photographer" ever posted on ELI that was NOT a lying troll?

Just curious.

S.G.

14

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court

« on: June 08, 2013, 12:56:01 PM »

I think that it was some other troll attorney... I recall that it was a huge shitstorm.
He was reported to the state bar, I think.  I don't recall the name, but we haven't heard from him since.
Long time ELI friends will also remember that Brandon Sand went "full retard" in his demand letters too.

But, Timmy is the king of implying that the maximum statutory damages apply to de minimis infringements.
He also cites case law that has no relation to these kind of infringements.

I'm waiting for some idiot to come on here and say that it's a "felony" or some other milarkee.

Anyway, the "rights managed" sector is dying now that there's so much selection in the royalty free market.
I say, "good riddance".

S.G.

15

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court

« on: June 08, 2013, 12:32:50 PM »

Exactly.  I'm glad that GvD is posting here, though.
Because I'm glad to have an example of what the problem in the industry really is.

In fact, I'm going to be here every day reading GvD's postings, and exposing his/her lies.
That's the way it's going to be from now on.

S.G.