Messages

61

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Highsmith v Getty, first amended complaint was filed

« on: August 23, 2016, 04:37:13 PM »

Be that as it may, the Highsmith and Zuma cases are really getting me excited about a possible change for the better.  I know it is early, and both cases might be settled, but I sure hope these guys stick to their guns.  How can we show them how many small people this actually affects?

62

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Highsmith v Getty, first amended complaint was filed

« on: August 22, 2016, 05:24:40 PM »

Keep up the good work, Engel.

Although I am not as active on this board as I was when I was being pursued by Getty, prior to my SOL lapsing, I do read and appreciate everything you post, and look to jump in where my somewhat dated knowledge of the topic can be helpful.

I try not to let the Copyright Trolls efforts raise my blood pressure too much anymore, but your efforts seem to be having the opposite effect.  I now come here for a dose of calming, "it just looks like they might get theirs" mantra that you provide.

Keep up the Great Work!

63

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: SOL finally passed

« on: August 22, 2016, 12:02:00 PM »

Congratulations JohnDoe.

But please don't throw that file in the trash.  I am notorious at tossing my trash, but in this case, I have held on in the event some lawyer might need my experience with Getty in helping to make his case.  I am not about revenge, but when there is a serious wrong in the world, I am certainly about doing my part to help right that wrong.

My opinion is that the world we live in would certainly be a better place without Getty and all their offshoots.  If I get my chance, I will participate in improving this world, and I hope you will consider that, too.

64

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Supreme Court is PhotoAttorney quoting?

« on: August 16, 2016, 07:21:52 PM »

What?

Are you insinuating that an attorney might mislead people into paying lots of money up front for an alleged violation that those people may or may not have committed, by lying about something?

I am certain that if you asked Carolyn Wright about the quote in question, she might say that you misinterpreted her use of quotation marks.

I only say that because in my dealings with attorneys in a similar business, they had a name for what Ms. Wright is doing.  They called it "fiercely advocating for their client."

I guess this is just a case of potato, potato.  I wish the world would better educate the common man to this behavior.

65

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: August 02, 2016, 02:09:05 PM »

Perhaps that judgement is why Getty is now playing the multiple name game.  They may say Alemy was never fined for this transgression.  My hope is that the court will see through all this corporate BS and exact a proper outcome.

66

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer sues Getty for extortion letters over her work

« on: July 30, 2016, 11:08:50 AM »

I remember that there are posts on this site where Getty has claimed copyright control over NASA photos.  If there is hard evidence of this, that might be helpful to Ms. Highsmith in showing the court that this was not a one off mistake, but a calculated pattern to profit.

Of course Getty might hind behind the curtain of the multiple company names it uses.

67

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer sues Getty for extortion letters over her work

« on: July 29, 2016, 08:37:38 AM »

Nothing I read grants Getty the right to extort money by claiming copyright control of Ms. Highsmith's works.

68

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photographer sues Getty for extortion letters over her work

« on: July 27, 2016, 06:48:36 PM »

This is really cool.  I expect that Getty will try to settle this with non-disclosures and the like.

Since Ms. Highsmith is demanding a jury trial, my hope is that she sticks to her guns and pursues this to the max.  Hopefully any settlement or judgement awarded will sound the death knell for Getty.  It is something that I, and many like me, think they deserve for their actions over the years.

At the very least, I would hope that any settlement or judgement reduces Getty to a fraction of itself, so that follow on actions by other who have been harmed by them might put an end to their business model.

I hope that Ms. Highsmith can find ELI.  There are many here, willing and able, to assist her in any way possible, in her suit.  I wonder if Matt or Oscar should reach out to her to see if there are ways the members of ELI might assist in her action.  The more she knows of how Getty has pursued and harmed others over the years, the stronger her case might be.

I would think we could even raise funds for her legal team if necessary.  Perhaps this could turn into a non-class action case that has some of the same effects on Getty as a class action case might. 

Like Robert, I find this wonderful news!

69

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: June 16, 2016, 05:46:15 PM »

I am not an attorney, but I believe any attorney familiar with digital image law will tell you that under U.S. law, only one party may hold the rights to pursue copyright infringement over any image.  That right may not be exercised by more than one party.  The copyright holder has the ability to contractually transfer that right to one, and only one, party.

70

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: May 24, 2016, 08:57:12 AM »

There are examples on this blog where Getty is alleged to have tried to collect royalties on images taken by NASA, which are public domain.

71

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Question if I May

« on: April 22, 2016, 09:40:23 AM »

As long as were asking questions about things Getty does, why do they think that they can demand payments from images that were taken in space, by NASA, which are in the public domain?

72

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: April 16, 2016, 01:49:44 PM »

Educate yourself on this web site.  Lots of people have been through what you are going through.  Get familiar.  Decide whether you want to fight or pay.  In the U.S., the law firm that came after me (mis) quoted lots of case law too.  I didn't want to pay the $50,000 that they wanted for forty some violations.  I didn't.  Only you can decide for yourself.  But get educated first.

73

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letters from LCS - no response after 5 weeks?

« on: March 19, 2016, 01:44:13 PM »

I guess my primary question comes down to this: since this was an innocent infringement of a single photo, do I just shut off my correspondence with LCS at this point, call it a day, and try to stick it out for 3 years, hoping for the best, or do I continue to try and engage these people? If I do the latter, I feel like it could go on ad nauseum, with neither side getting anywhere, so why even bother to do that? I made a first attempt, lawyers and a judge would be able to see that, and their answers didn't make sense. If I shut it down entirely at this point, knowing they won't provide the answers I'm seeking, why bother continuing to draft these responses to no avail?

I'll admit that I hardly slept last night because of their letter. My mind spirals out of control and I envision a ridiculous judgment of tens of thousands of dollars via a prolonged lawsuit. Yes, I know, ridiculous, right? I just couldn't shut my brain off. I can't imagine anyone gets happy feelings from getting these things.

But no, I'm not considering sending them a dime...    It's the principle, how they demand this money with strong-arm tactics, like the Mafia.

I recommend you do what you have underlined.  It's less hassle than engaging them and will get you just as far.  If their badgering over the three year period is too bothersome, you can try Oscar's letter program.

74

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS Inc on behalf of ALAMY

« on: March 15, 2016, 06:47:23 PM »

If the infringement is about 1 image, I would completely ignore everything you receive.

Unfortunately, this will not achieve the result you desire - cease communications.

Persist for three years, and you are in the clear.  If this is too difficult, you might want to consider Oscar's letter program.

75

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images and LCS

« on: March 11, 2016, 05:40:39 PM »

That's a far better letter than anything I've seen from Getty or McCormack IP Law in the past.  In fact, it even acknowledges your letter and answers it specifically.

Be cautious  in that many people on this web site (myself included) have stated that Getty has, in the past, moved images from their Royalty Free page to their Rights managed page.  Doing so could obviously mean significantly greater settlements from their trolling program.  I would try to verify if the images in question were ever offered on Getty's Royalty free page or if they were ever offered by any other company.

The former would indicate that they are playing dirty.  The latter would certainly draw into question their claim that since the image exists on their page and since they provide a warranty on their page, that they have the rights they claim in the image.

There are cases in case law where Getty could not provide a contract, signed by Getty, granting them the rights to the images they claim.  You can find mention of them on this sight.  I think one included a firm called Advernet.

You made the right first move by taking things down.  If these are being handled as separate cases, it's unlikely they will sue because of the costs involved.  If it were me, I might point out to them that because their website says they have the right to market the images, does not necessarily make it so.

If memory serves, a few years back, Getty was not only licensing images but also selling warranty insurance in case anyone else claimed the images as theirs.  I think you are correct in demanding proof and shoot not settle for BS claims.