Messages

16

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty's Change in Tactics

« on: July 27, 2015, 11:55:35 AM »

Welp Aurora (Getty) sent their stinking 2nd notice letter. I replied back to them with a written one.

Upon closer examination, the image I was hotlinked to was not only a different image but a derivative. Not only was I hotlinked to that derivative, but that same derivative image was created by another artist (it even has the url in the lower right corner even on the screenshot of all things). So asking for their proof of ownership was unnecessary since clearly they don't own it. So they have no right to pursue this any further.

Plus, I said if they continue to harass me with beating this dead horse, then I am going to bill them at $1000 an hour and I have 10 hours on record.

17

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has any one seen THIS in an extortion letter before? Courtesy of Deboer IP

« on: July 21, 2015, 08:24:21 PM »

@ Stinger that cracks me up!  I could only imagine. Reading the whole letter with him wearing out my company name was painful to read.

@Greg Sent! I hope it arrived OK.

@ Robert I can't wait for your post! Please post it here when you're done so I can read it and link to it when I go public soon. I'll wait. If you make a picture of a 10 gallon Asshat or something funny I would like to hotlink to it and give you full credit.

Thanks so much for your support! I will keep coming back and contribute soon! 

18

Getty Images Letter Forum / Has any one seen THIS in an extortion letter before? Courtesy of Deboer IP

« on: July 20, 2015, 03:22:13 PM »

After being even more educated about all these extortion schemes, I thought it was time to share this. I haven't seen this in any of the commentary about John Deboer here on ELI and Getty, it's secondary companies, and its thug lawyers including the Copyright Cow Patty (sorry couldn't resist) hasn't even resorted to this level shakedown in their settlement demand letters based on unproven accusations and empty threats, but if they have I would like to know. I will be going public about this and some other things soon. I think he royally screwed up. Of course he didn't anticipate on me researching and getting educated.

What I am sharing in this thread is on the very last page after all the usual rhetoric of the run-of-the-mill extortion letter. The typical shakedown rhetoric is scary enough, but this adds an extra flair and saves the best for last. This attorney is from Texas, so he likes to go big, I guess. So he is a Texas-sized asshat with a ten gallon hat to match. I mean no harm or detriment to anyone from Texas or any disrespect to any cowboys who live there  .

Here is my first post and story about Deboer letter: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/my-very-own-deboer-ip-extortion-letter-from-john-m-doboer/

Robert, I know you wanted to see the whole letter for review and any of my research you may want to see. Let me know how I can send it to you if you are interested.

Greg, if you would also like a copy of the letter and my research for your review, please let me know.

I had also tried to get in touch with Oscar back in March and April, but he was really busy and on a case. I have already sent things to his office (not sure he ever got himself) and talked with his staff in trying to get on the Defense Letter Program, but no one ever got back with me, and I was never billed-- no harm no foul. I didn't pursue the matter since I haven't heard from Deboer anymore as of the time of this writing. I know from other threads that he (Oscar) has dealt with Deboer in the past. If you think I should try to contact Oscar again or if any of you talk with him on a consistent basis tell him about this thread and/or help me get in touch with him.

So basically in addition to usual threats of the statutory damages, costs of getting a lawyer, costs of litigation, etc, Deboer wants to put a subpoena of all my property for a nice little cherry on top in the event it went to court. Of course, if I didn't pay the settlement (once I reviewed and researched thoroughly and found out it was a scam) or respond (which I did and he never responded back), then...the same ole thing--inevitable/likely litigation. He has a history of subpoenaing the crap out of people. This guy loves a good subpoena! Reminds me of the crap from RIAA, MPAA, and Prenda if you ask me when they did that to people.

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/425/ (against Amazon)
http://www.authoreyez.com/2015/04/512h-dmca-subpoena.html (against Authroeyez an IP blog)

Here is Page 8 of my letter for your viewing pleasure (what I referred to as "threatening language" in addition to the usually threatening language of trolling letters. Name of my company has been removed):

NOTICE TO PRESERVE DOCUMENTS AND DATA

[My Company] is on notice that, without resolving the matter, litigation in civil court is
likely regarding its actions concerning Client’s copyrighted materials. [My Company] is
now obligated and has a duty to preserve all evidence that may be relevant to the
dispute discussed above and that may be the subject of pending litigation. This duty of
preservation extends to, but is not limited to, data files, e-mails, calendars, telephone
logs, access lists, and logs that are located on [My Company] computer networks, e-mail
servers, mainframes, individual computer workstations, and external drives, or are
located on any of those devices within [My Company] control but not owned by [My Company], such as its web host. Specifically, but not exclusively, [My Company] is on notice
that it must preserve all evidence of all its uses of Client’s copyrighted materials.

[My Company] is required by law to suspend any practice, even a normal or routine
practice that might purge, delete, or overwrite any electronic document or other
evidence, including database matter and related structural information, files remnants,
residual and hidden data. This duty extends to [My Company] employees and agents.

We request that [My Company] notify any such employee or agent of this retention
request immediately. This duty also extends to the preservation of replaced
computers, hard drives, and other storage media. If [My Company] backs up its
computer drives, it must preserve the back-up files, as well. This office requests that
[My Company] presently back up and archive any documents, including e-mails and all
 [My Company] communications, between [My Company] and all other persons and
entities that relate to Client’s copyrighted materials. It is also requested that [My Company] suspend any act or practice that would cause de-fragmentation, compression, or
reformatting of those hard drives.

Sanctions for violating any of the foregoing duties can be severe and include
substantial monetary sanctions, adverse inferences in evidentiary rulings, and the
entry of judgments by default. It is the hope of this office that this matter be resolved
without unnecessary litigation. The above duties, however, must be satisfied during
any settlement or other discussions that may occur.[/i]

Of course I know I have nothing too worry about. There is nothing to retain as it wasn't used in email or anything, just on the website. All this over one image? Come on now. Of course I have found fatal errors in his case which I won't share in public until my SOL runs out (March 2018). Wouldn't you say that this kind of action is a little extreme based on unproven accusations of willful, flagrant infringement that he can never prove (I can prove that I didn't)? If anything at the most, would be innocent infringement at the worst. I didn't do any of the things he accuses me of without proof in the letter. I could go on, but I'll park it there.

Let me know what you guys think.

19

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty's Change in Tactics

« on: July 19, 2015, 10:46:48 AM »

Thank you, Jerry. Sounds like a great idea! 

20

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty's Change in Tactics

« on: July 18, 2015, 09:24:18 AM »

Thanks, Greg, some good helpful stuff for the photographers' side of things.

Thanks, Robert, for the other lovely suggestion of billing them for my time over something that should never occurred in the first place. Just more evidence it is automated and no humans have visited the site.

21

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty's Change in Tactics

« on: July 17, 2015, 03:23:42 PM »

Hi all,

I've been lurking around here for quite some time reading all the good info here. Anyway, it seems to me that ELI and Getty are in an arms race of sorts. As some people have recently posted quite a bit, Getty seems to be using satellite or secondary companies to keep the heat off the parent company (Picscout and their address gives them away) since it has had a lot of bad publicity and their settlement demand/extortion campaign seems to only keep going or has ramped up (darkest before dawn?). It reminds me of the show Whale Wars in how the Japanese whaling fleet (Getty) tried to keep the Sea Shepherds (ELI) away from the factory vessel so their campaign isn't shut down. The general public can be likened to the whales.

Plus, even though they want the payment sent to Seattle WA (their HQ address), the return address on the physical copy of the letter came from NY and the postage was paid in Wichita KS. That strikes me as weird. Not sure about similar stories about that...

What strikes me as odd is there are predatory pay-to-publish companies that behave this way with having a parent company and secondary and satellite companies that rip off independent authors as well as readers for overpricing books but they try to keep the heat off the parent company. Which isn't illegal either, but it's wrong. So that makes me wonder about the way Getty et al treats their photographers, and do they rip them off too?

I've recently been hit on my personal blog by Aurora Images which is or is owned by or is Getty images just recently (June 30 for the email--they had been sniffing about since January and February) despite I try my best to respect the law and have never had a problem in the past (like so many others). I know I don't have anything to worry about from what I have learned. The image was hotlinked (no copy = no infringement), it is used for fair use (an educational article about the epic failures in schools to deal with bullying--oh the irony) as it was a thumbnail with a caption about FAILURE, and it isn't the exact same image. The original and the derivative (I didn't create or copy) are in the public domain, and there are multiple derivatives. The one I hotlinked to is even found on Facebook. I took it down despite it all. Well maybe Aurora needs to send an extortion letter to Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg while they're at it. I found all that in about 5 minutes without a multi-million dollar Skynet and terminator factory at  my disposal (like other mere mortals have already done here).

I've only received one notice so far. If they send a second (which they probably will) I will take more action. I won't tell the details as I know Getty and their minions reads these forums.

I know it's all BS and I have a plan of action, but it still pisses me off. I plan on writing a blog series soon on a different blog about all this copyright racket to do my part in spreading the word and tell other people about ELI.

What is particularly interesting about Aurora Photos as to say like iStock or Getty, Aurora doesn't give you pricing information for any of it images unless you sign up for an account (so they have your information), and it doesn't matter if it is royalty free or rights managed. They want your to sign up for you to even access any info whatsoever about the photographs. Everywhere else the photo is (and it's on 700 other sites) it is free and Aurora won't give you their price and it's not even the same thing I was hotlinked to. Similar photos range from $50 to $2. So the FMV is around $35. They want $610 for a free picture in the public domain which they probably snatched and stuck it on their RM (which it is now) section so they could go on their jihad. Something stinks.

22

Legal Controversies Forum / Retroactive Licences Question

« on: July 17, 2015, 02:16:41 PM »

I am curious to know what you guys think or know about the topic of retroactive licenses. Some copyright trolls use them and some do not. My trolling attorney DeBoer (which I haven't heard from so far by the way) used this in his extortion letter. Getty isn't known to use them.

I've been reading the forums and I haven't seen any commentary on it or maybe I haven't found it. Point me in the right direction!

I found a couple articles where it is considered invalid, but wanted to check here first.

http://www.mofo.com/resources/publications/2007/12/second-circuit-says-no-retroactive-copyright-lic__
http://www.msk.com/news/article.cfm?id=837&type=Alert&aid=63

23

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My Very Own DeBoer IP Extortion Letter from John M. DoBoer

« on: April 16, 2015, 02:10:09 PM »

Thanks everyone for the advice and additional help.

BuddhaPi, LOC is the Library of Congress. I Google searched to find the copyright archives and from the website it says the Library of Congress/US Copyright archives (that is where I found the other info)--so I did search the copyright archive--I took a screenshot and saved the search URL on a word doc. If you want to take a look let me know how I can get in touch with you. I can also send some of my research and screenshots, if you like. That is the best way I describe the web search where she tried to check the licensing. She also does graphic and cover design. But anyway I don't know where the image came from yet. I don't plan on suing anyone.

I guess I fell into the same trap that everyone does by responding since I didn't want to appear like I was not trying to cooperate. I am an honest person who tries to do the right thing. Almost felt like I had a proverbial gun to my head.

If/when they contact me should I respond? Or should I just ignore them since I have pretty much called their bluff? I don't plan on telling them anything I have found. I  haven't gone out of my way to contact them since then.

I really don't think they really have any proof that I did anything. I have pretty much proven them wrong.

I am really trying to keep my peace about this situation, but I won't say it hasn't been difficult when one is dealing with a lot of other unrelated personal issues (not that it matters a hill of beans, but just saying). I don't see much of a difference from these people and muggers on the street (maybe except for tactics and sides of the legal system?). The mob? The school bully who steals lunch money for the other kids?

I am not going to cave. I am going to fight since I don't owe these frauds a dime (even if I had it to spare which I don't) .

I have been blogging for over 5 years and have never had a problem 'til now.

24

Getty Images Letter Forum / My Very Own DeBoer IP Extortion Letter from John M. DoBoer

« on: April 14, 2015, 03:54:48 PM »

Hello everyone! I am the newest member to ELI and the latest victim of this legal extortion douchbaggery. I have been lurking around the forums and reading a lot on blogs about this stuff  a few days after I received my extortion letter in March of 2015 from Deboer IP from his assistant Diana Diaz which was CCed to John M. DeBoer at 11 pm at night Eastern. All of the threatening language and accusations sent me into a complete traumatic stress episode (as I am a survivor of complex PTSD). It took me three days to calm down and to talk with friends to get me back straight and for my nightmares, edginess, tremors, and the diarrhea to stop. After getting back into my "right mind", I was able to research and approach this methodically and analytically after I had amassed some information.

I had hired a website designer to create a custom designed website for my business since I have been unemployed for quite a while and I scraped together some money to begin this venture. I have made very little money yet and mostly from doing other freelance PR and blogging stuff.

The image was used on a free listing for visiting authors to list their "bargains" on a free list. I didn't make anything from this.

The image in question is not from Getty Images. It is from a duo of photographers Shattil and Rozinsky and Shattil and Rozinsky Photography. DeBoer asserts that went to the clients' website, removed the copyright information, altered it, and am using it illegally so he wants $1320 for a single image or he will sue me. There was no prior cease and desist. This is preposterous and absurd. I contacted my website designer and she told me she had gotten the image off of a stock photo site and she had done the appropriate licensing searches for "free photos for commercial use with modification" since I was on a tight budget. She hasn't gotten back with me about which site in particular she had gotten it from since it has been two years since she did my website and she has to replay the search and if anyone knows the Internet changes constantly. There are several bald eagle photos for the theme of the site and just one has been flagged. I removed this photo the next day after receiving the letter.

I called DeBoer's office and responded to the email twice on the same day I removed the photo and haven't received a single response. Seems to me like he isn't interested in trying to settle this in a reasonable "business to business manner". He also mailed printed versions of the attachments to my home. How did he get my mailing address when I don't have it on the website?

Furthermore he asserts that the photo has been used for three years (since 2012). This is impossible since the domain name and the hosting were purchased in 2013 and the site wasn't started or completed until 2013. I have domain and hosting receipts and the invoice from the designer to prove it.

I researched the so called "copyright document" that was enclosed. The title of the compilation (if that is what it is at all) that it may have belonged to is called "Webshots uploads in some dates in 2004". I tried the individual photo by what the photographers called it and what DeBoer called it at the LOC and there is no record. When I put the ambiguous title in there is a note that there was a prior submission back in 1991 and this new registration was made when "american flag was added to the background". Was this all the photos in the compilation? The bald eagle picture? Some of them but not that one? I don't know, but something tells me this is incorrect documentation. I can't find the file at the LOC for the submission in 1991 unless I had the title to the original compilation  . What is striking to me is that there was another thread from a different person about DeBoer IP that had a similar document with the same ambiguous title of "Webshots uploads with dates in 2004". I wonder if it's the same photographers. If not, then there is some kind of coincidence, or is it just me? As an author a title like this makes no sense. It would be like calling all of my ebooks "Amazon or Smashwords uploads 2008" or something.

I put the url that was enclosed in the "documents" and the photographers' site comes up with an error message. I do a search on Tineye.com and voila, there is the URL with the image (cloak and dagger?). It only works if you go into Tineye. It shows the photo with the copyright information like the one I actually find on the photographers' website, but with a different url. Plus, the photographers have the image for sale on their site for a 99 cent puzzle download. I then use my author contact information to contact the photographers to see if I could purchase the photo from them for a writing project, how much it would cost, and all of those sensible things, and they don't even respond. Looks suspicious to me. From that Tineye search there are 147 other sites with this one photo on it. 147 other potential targets for this one photo alone. I don't think they all removed the copyright information . It almost looks like something like HAN is doing. I wonder if these photographers/DeBoer are seeding the internet on purpose since HAN uses Webshots to seed the Internet. Common denominator: Webshots.

He goes further to assume I have the original copy of the "infringing" photo stored on all my computers (there is just me right now--there is no team). I never did. All I ever had was the altered one. There is just me; I am not a corporation (yet?). Should it go to court he wants access to my computers, blog back ups, you name it. It feels like I am selling documents from the Pentagon to Iranian terrorists and I am getting a complete workup. Seriously? Over one freaking image? I am a sole proprietor right now working on getting my LLC, so I don't have business insurance as I am still poor and trying to build me a job since nobody will give me the time of day despite my skill sets (yes plural) and he mentioned something about "advertising injury" or something if I had said insurance. Why should I buy business insurance when I don't even own a home or a car right now? I am both ticked off and sick right now.

Anyway, people have brought up mail/email fraud, abuse of power, extortion. I think we can add racketeering to the mix. I think these so called "retroactive licences" are a racket. But how about invasion of privacy? What about spam laws?

Any additional information or advice is welcome. I will go public about this pretty soon.

Thanks!