1
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Copyright Question
« on: July 19, 2014, 05:29:38 PM »
Thanks for your reply DVG. Pretty much what I was thinking.
Regards
John
Regards
John
| 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.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Legal Controversies Forum / Copyright Question
« on: July 15, 2014, 01:17:55 PM »
I was wondering if I took a still from a movie and hand painted it in oil on canvas say, would I be able to sell it or would copyright law forbid it? What about if I took the still image and ran it through some graphics software which made it look as though it were handpainted complete with brushstrokes etc.?
Thanks
John
Thanks
John
3
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: three days to reply, considering copyrightinfringement.org.uk
« on: August 28, 2013, 04:26:18 PM »
Hi JCK.
The subject of www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk has come up here before. A chap called Nick had some connection with them and was a regular here for a bit (nixlyn1). See this thread...
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/getty-in-the-uk/
I think it looked like he was going to head up the UK side of things for ELI at one point but nothing seemed to come of it and I don't think we've heard from him for a long while now. I don't know of anyone who has actually used copyrightinfringement.org.uk. I got my Getty letter in Feb 2012. I had a couple of sleepless nights and then started googling and found ELI. I replied to Getty saying that i believed the image was obtained legitimately but that I had taken it down anyway as a courtesy and felt that should be the end of it. They completely ignored my letter and sent a 2nd letter repeating their demands and threatening legal action. I replied making them a much reduced offer contingent upon them supplying proof of copyright, proof they owned the exclusive license etc. They ignored this as well and eventually I had a letter with increased demands from their solictors. I decided to ignore this one and I will ignore any further correspondence. To be honest I don't think it makes much difference if you just ignore them from the outset or if you reply to them as I did. If you do decide to reply, make it clear that you won't pay them anything unless they provide proof of copyright and proof that they have the exclusive license.
Oh, and don't worry about the 3 days to reply bit. They're just trying to panic you into paying up. Take as much time as you want to consider what you want to do.
John
The subject of www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk has come up here before. A chap called Nick had some connection with them and was a regular here for a bit (nixlyn1). See this thread...
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/getty-in-the-uk/
I think it looked like he was going to head up the UK side of things for ELI at one point but nothing seemed to come of it and I don't think we've heard from him for a long while now. I don't know of anyone who has actually used copyrightinfringement.org.uk. I got my Getty letter in Feb 2012. I had a couple of sleepless nights and then started googling and found ELI. I replied to Getty saying that i believed the image was obtained legitimately but that I had taken it down anyway as a courtesy and felt that should be the end of it. They completely ignored my letter and sent a 2nd letter repeating their demands and threatening legal action. I replied making them a much reduced offer contingent upon them supplying proof of copyright, proof they owned the exclusive license etc. They ignored this as well and eventually I had a letter with increased demands from their solictors. I decided to ignore this one and I will ignore any further correspondence. To be honest I don't think it makes much difference if you just ignore them from the outset or if you reply to them as I did. If you do decide to reply, make it clear that you won't pay them anything unless they provide proof of copyright and proof that they have the exclusive license.
Oh, and don't worry about the 3 days to reply bit. They're just trying to panic you into paying up. Take as much time as you want to consider what you want to do.
John
4
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Atradius Letter - various thoughts
« on: August 11, 2013, 06:39:13 PM »
Just to let you know that I received my Getty letter on 23/2/2012. My first reply said that I had taken the image down as a courtesy but that I stated that it was my belief it was obtained from a legitimate source. I received another letter in April 2012 simply restating their demands to which I made an offer contingent on them supplying proof that the image is copyrighted and that Getty either own or have an exclusive licence to it. Getty made no reply to my offer and the next letter I received was from Simons Muirhead & Burton Solicitors on 6/7/2012 demanding payment of £1,722 (an increase from the original £1,230). I ignored that one and I've heard nothing for over a year now. I wouldn't be surprised if I still got a letter in the post one day from Atradius but if I do I'll just ignore that one as well.
John
John
5
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ERRB receives Royal Assent - UK - Changes in Digital Copyright
« on: April 30, 2013, 05:49:50 PM »
Can't say I agree with this new act but I would think it's going to be very difficult for Getty to bring a case against anyone now.
More info here www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
John
More info here www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
John
6
ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Matthews complaint / order posted
« on: March 17, 2013, 07:39:54 PM »
Ok, if that's the best way to help - just made a small donation. I'm afraid I have a lot more time than I do money.
John
John
7
ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Matthews complaint / order posted
« on: March 17, 2013, 06:20:41 PM »
Just wanted to say that it's now over 1 year since I received my Getty letter. It's only thanks to ELI that I gained the peace of mind that enabled me to fight back. I've only recently been catching up on the events of the last month or so. There has obviously been much going on behind the scenes with the change in the hosting so many thanks to Matthew and Robert for your efforts in keeping ELI up and running.
With respect to the court ruling the main thing that has bugged me is the removal of all posts, not just the ones that supposedly caused so much distress. As I understand it the ruling has put a block on any future posts related to this topic, regardless of how factual or inoffensive they may be. If this doesn't impinge on our free speech then I don't know what does.
I'm just thinking out loud here but I was wondering if there was anything the ELI community could do as a whole to help. Is there any way that the factual information that has gone missing along with the removal of the forum be put back up in the public domain. Would I for example be able to put up a single (non postable) page on a free hosting site or blog or something. Would you be able to link to it from ELI? I'm not all that techie so not sure what's involved. Is there anything else we could do?
Thanks again,
John
With respect to the court ruling the main thing that has bugged me is the removal of all posts, not just the ones that supposedly caused so much distress. As I understand it the ruling has put a block on any future posts related to this topic, regardless of how factual or inoffensive they may be. If this doesn't impinge on our free speech then I don't know what does.
I'm just thinking out loud here but I was wondering if there was anything the ELI community could do as a whole to help. Is there any way that the factual information that has gone missing along with the removal of the forum be put back up in the public domain. Would I for example be able to put up a single (non postable) page on a free hosting site or blog or something. Would you be able to link to it from ELI? I'm not all that techie so not sure what's involved. Is there anything else we could do?
Thanks again,
John
8
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: British Library IP team
« on: October 28, 2012, 06:04:28 PM »
I haven't heard of anyone contacting them. I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say, though I somehow doubt they will prove to be much help. My guess is they will just advise you to try & negotiate a settlement. Let us know what they say if you pay them a visit.
John
John
9
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty's solicitors re. Getty settlement demand (London, uk)
« on: July 15, 2012, 09:12:18 AM »
Having looked at Getty's letter again it does say "The payment of this settlement demand will release you from any legal claims by Getty Images relating solely to this identified past infringement". This would appear to fall within the terms or your press notice 82/87 stating that this is not deemed to be a supply. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to raise this question with Simons Muirhead & Burton.
John
John
10
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty's solicitors re. Getty settlement demand (London, uk)
« on: July 14, 2012, 07:41:51 AM »
Re. the VAT issue, Getty's letter states the settlement is for " the use of the image in question. Payment of the attached demand will settle your company's unlicensed use of the referenced image". The letter from Simons Muirhead & Burton states the payment "represents the licence fee, costs and legal fees". Getty's letters say that if payment is not made then the case will be escalated to their legal department with the likelihood of increased costs. As the payment is partly towards the license fee for the image concerned then I suppose that would constitute a supply of goods? The letters don't say that in return for payment they are giving up their right to sue.
John
John
11
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty's solicitors re. Getty settlement demand (London, uk)
« on: July 11, 2012, 02:21:26 PM »
Just thought I'd give an update on my own situation. My first Getty letter was dated 23 Feb 2012 and demanded £1000 + £230 Irish VAT. My reply to this letter confirmed that the image in question had been removed and stated that it was my belief that the image had been obtained legitimately from a source other than Getty Images and so hoped this would be a satisfactory end to the matter.
My second letter from Getty was dated 27th April and was pretty much a repeat of the first. There was no acknowledgement of my letter. My reply was dated 14th June and while admitting no liability, included an offer to settle (much reduced) if they could supply me with proof of copyright etc. Coincidentally the same day that I posted this letter I had a phone call from Getty Images trying to get me to pay their settlement demand in full. I told the girl that there was an offer of settlement in the post but she said that if I couldn't settle there and then the matter would go to their legal department.
On the 9th July I had a letter from Simons Muirhead & Burton repeating Getty's claims of copyright infringement. However, the amount now being claimed has risen to £1,722 inc VAT with 21 days to pay. There was no mention of my previous letters or offer.
I'm now in two minds whether to ignore them completely as they have done me or to reply stating that any further unsubstantiated demands will be regarded as harrassment intended to cause distress and that they would then be reported to their local trading standards office for possible breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Adminstration of Justice Act 1970. I suspect it really doesn't matter what response I make but I welcome your comments.
Thanks
John
My second letter from Getty was dated 27th April and was pretty much a repeat of the first. There was no acknowledgement of my letter. My reply was dated 14th June and while admitting no liability, included an offer to settle (much reduced) if they could supply me with proof of copyright etc. Coincidentally the same day that I posted this letter I had a phone call from Getty Images trying to get me to pay their settlement demand in full. I told the girl that there was an offer of settlement in the post but she said that if I couldn't settle there and then the matter would go to their legal department.
On the 9th July I had a letter from Simons Muirhead & Burton repeating Getty's claims of copyright infringement. However, the amount now being claimed has risen to £1,722 inc VAT with 21 days to pay. There was no mention of my previous letters or offer.
I'm now in two minds whether to ignore them completely as they have done me or to reply stating that any further unsubstantiated demands will be regarded as harrassment intended to cause distress and that they would then be reported to their local trading standards office for possible breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Adminstration of Justice Act 1970. I suspect it really doesn't matter what response I make but I welcome your comments.
Thanks
John
12
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / This might be significant
« on: April 19, 2012, 09:16:18 AM »
http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/news/high-court-sets-precedent-after-four-years-of-speculative-invoicing-for-alleged-copyright-infringement
The above link details a high court ruling where a group of pornographic film producers requested O2 (a UK ISP and mobile phone provider) to disclose details of customers whose IP addresses had been linked with illegal file downloading, with a view to sending out speculative invoices. Although this was largely a privacy issue, the court did comment on the nature of speculative invoice letters ...
"The verdict also states that any claim letter sent by copyright-owners or their representatives must properly safeguard the legitimate interests of consumers, particularly those who are innocent of wrong-doing.2 This has big implications in restricting the ability of such companies to send out threatening ‘Pay now – or else letters’, as was also seen in the recent high profile case of ACS Law. The High Court will in a separate hearing impose conditions on the wording of the order and the letters"
The above link details a high court ruling where a group of pornographic film producers requested O2 (a UK ISP and mobile phone provider) to disclose details of customers whose IP addresses had been linked with illegal file downloading, with a view to sending out speculative invoices. Although this was largely a privacy issue, the court did comment on the nature of speculative invoice letters ...
"The verdict also states that any claim letter sent by copyright-owners or their representatives must properly safeguard the legitimate interests of consumers, particularly those who are innocent of wrong-doing.2 This has big implications in restricting the ability of such companies to send out threatening ‘Pay now – or else letters’, as was also seen in the recent high profile case of ACS Law. The High Court will in a separate hearing impose conditions on the wording of the order and the letters"
13
Getty Images Letter Forum / Checking for copyright
« on: March 20, 2012, 05:34:43 PM »
Is there an easy way to check if my particular Getty pic is actually copyrighted? On the Getty website under my image it says "The Image Bank" which I think is the name of the collection if that's relevant.
John
John
14
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty's solicitors re. Getty settlement demand (London, uk)
« on: March 20, 2012, 05:25:11 PM »
Hi Ian,
Just to let you know that I'm in a similar position to yourself. I'm a sole trader working from home. So far I have just received the first letter from Getty demanding £1000 + £230 VAT. Although this site is US based I'm sure that most of the advice on here relates to the UK as well. As far as I can see, the crux of the matter is that Getty do not provide proof that they either own the copyright or have the right to manage it on behalf of the owner. They say this will be made available when the case goes to court. You should know that they have never taken anyone in the UK to court (except for one case which I believe had special circumstances). I believe it is a reasonable argument to say that you won't be discussing payments until they can prove to your satisfaction that they have a legitimate claim by providing the proof that you have asked for. You may feel that it might cover your back somewhat to make a much reduced "without prejudice" offer. Then if it ever did go to court you could show that you were being reasonable throughout and had a least made an effort to settle the dispute.
John
Just to let you know that I'm in a similar position to yourself. I'm a sole trader working from home. So far I have just received the first letter from Getty demanding £1000 + £230 VAT. Although this site is US based I'm sure that most of the advice on here relates to the UK as well. As far as I can see, the crux of the matter is that Getty do not provide proof that they either own the copyright or have the right to manage it on behalf of the owner. They say this will be made available when the case goes to court. You should know that they have never taken anyone in the UK to court (except for one case which I believe had special circumstances). I believe it is a reasonable argument to say that you won't be discussing payments until they can prove to your satisfaction that they have a legitimate claim by providing the proof that you have asked for. You may feel that it might cover your back somewhat to make a much reduced "without prejudice" offer. Then if it ever did go to court you could show that you were being reasonable throughout and had a least made an effort to settle the dispute.
John
15
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK
« on: March 11, 2012, 05:16:38 PM »i had a meeting with our MP yesterday about the getty extortion letters - she was appalled that large companies using expensive lawyers bullying small businesses with extortionate demands for money - using copyright laws not for what they were originally intended - which is to protect the originator and not to be used to keep a company that is in administration from going under by menacing small businesses to pay large sums of money to them.
She wants everybody receiving these letters to contact their MP to make everyone aware that these laws are being abused.
Hi Steve,
I saw your post on the UK Business Forums. I have a meeting with my MP on Friday. Could you let me know the name of your MP and the constituency? Maybe mine might want to contact yours to discuss the issue.
Pages: [1] 2
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. |