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.

Topics - GoGetter

Pages: [1]
I am really enjoying getting to know all about GETTY IMAGES and their nasty practices (I have full respect for copyright - but none for this business model).

I do wish I knew earlier so I could have spent more of my life educating other people and trying to undermine them. The more people they piss off and the more ammunition those people get to fight them back the more we all win .. right? Do we have an up to date IP Range to block? If so I would appreciate it.

The sooner everyone starts defending themselves from this parasite the better. I know there is some info in other threads but I didn't find a 2013 list. Thanks.

Here is an extract from some news i just found.

A group of media publishers have claimed that three copyright provisions in draft UK legislation are unlawful—and have demanded their deletion.

In a letter sent to business secretary Vince Cable on January 14, the International Media & Archive Consortium said it will ask a judge to review clauses 66, 67 and 68 in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (ERF) if their demands go unanswered.

The consortium, which represents companies such as Thomson Reuters and Getty Images, is particularly worried that the government can amend parts of the act, which is in the final stages of approval at the House of Lords (HoL), without full parliamentary scrutiny.

Under clause 66, which covers exceptions to copyright (uses of work without requiring the owner’s consent), the business secretary can use a statutory instrument (SI) to add or remove exceptions. An SI is a form of secondary legislation allowing new provisions to be incorporated into legislation without parliament passing a new act.

In the letter, from Getty’s corporate counsel Jonathan Lockwood, the parties say they have “fundamental and serious concerns about the true scope of the powers proposed by clause 66, whether those powers are indeed ones that already exist under the ECA [European Communities Act]1972, and consequently the lawfulness and propriety o the action taken to promote clause 66 in the ERR bill in its current form”.

Full story

Getty Images Letter Forum / LETTER SEND TRIGGER - IDEA
« on: January 27, 2013, 04:41:27 PM »
After receiving my letter I decided to search for other examples of the referred image. I notice that a news channel website has a fully licensed original version on a story dated just a couple of days before my letter was sent. This make me think that in many instances a GETTY LETTER is probably send when Getty enters into a contract with a new subscriber. Since CNN want to know that they are getting some exclusivity on the image. So we can conclude that when CNN licenses an image it will be be cross ref's with PICSCOUT to see other incidences of the same. OR the CNN editorial team - MAY - at the time of licensing the image have done their OWN search for similar images and informed GETTY (do you think?) The possibility of this 2 events happening by chance are 2 slight. I won't help the fight though for those of us suffering at the hand of this extortion.

I received a letter (Getter) for a infringement on my commercial blog dating back from 2011. The image in question I had sourced in 2001 and was modified. After reading the through the forum I can see it is a minefield but seems the burden of proof is on getty - for example they may have not had license when I acquired the 'LOL' type image over 10 years ago. It has no visible watermark other than from the site I acquired it from. Which is just some guys BLOG.

In a way I would be happy to pay a nominal sum, but not the ÂŁ800 they ask for. Additionally by paying I don't want to set a precedent for other claims they might want to make against me.

NEVER have I been to GETTY and taken an image.. this is the problem with a lack of good education and this GETTY Spamigation entrapment model. I have over the last 24 hours taken down my entire web portfolio. I need some discussion regarding retrospective claims. In my mind I imagine the PICTSCOUT (or whatever they call it) to have built a HUGE cache that they will process until the end of time.

I expect to see a LOT more life in this UK section over the coming 12 months. Unfortunately

Certainly if you are in the UK please sign this petition in order that the law might get changed. THE PROBLEM is that the UK GOVERNMENT will likely get a revenue share / certainly from GETTY corporation tax.. so their interest is keeping this running. Sign here

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.