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.


Messages - Engel Nyst

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
31
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 16, 2016, 01:51:46 PM »
For an image, or any other work, people say "sell it", but what does that mean? It used to mean selling a copy, before software and internet took us all over, but in the digital world that copy often comes with licensing terms attached. So what do I sell? If I sell really a "copy" of a public domain image, and not a "license", then it's fine.

In a transaction for a copyrighted image in digital form, like on Getty's site, it's easy to forget or ignore the copy in itself (it's easy to right click), the buyer/seller care instead about the licensing terms, because well that's what they say they're selling: the licensing, or rights to "use". By that license, the seller allows you to make a copy, for a limited or unlimited time, and gives you rights to display etc.

For copyrighted images that they have the rights to license to you, it works.

For a public domain image, however, I can't sell "rights to use" because you already have all rights to use (you can copy, display, distribute the image yourself).

So hey, how about misleading you. I'll just claim "intellectual property rights" in the image and even pursue "infringements" for "uses" on the web. I tell ya that I own something I do not; I deny in your face that you have rights to copy, display the work, and I intently make you believe that you are not permitted to "use" the work unless you pay me up.
Oh and when I end up in court, I'll innocently tell the judge I never claimed intellectual property rights over public domain images...

32
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 16, 2016, 12:23:36 PM »
What Robert says. I can sell images in the public domain all I want, the problem is with licenses.

(I will likely do something more than just sell a digital copy, because it's unlikely someone will buy them from me if it's digital form and I offer customers nothing else for their money - after all they'll just find a competitor who offers it for free. Most decent businesses will add value to the offer, like make a t-shirt embedding the image or a nice print and sell the object. I could try to sell without adding anything, or maybe in a special format that you want [like a Google Play book], I'm not in the wrong as long as I'm truthful. A willing buyer and a willing seller can made a transaction over a public domain image, if they so like. As long as no one was fooled.)

What I cannot do, is come to you and lie to you that I own the copyright when I know I don't. I shouldn't make you buy a "license" to those imaginary "copyrights", or worse, make you pay a settlement under pain of infringement of "rights" I know I don't have. Doesn't that strike you as fraudulent behavior? It does to me.

Getty denied in their memo to the court that they claim "copyright" or "intellectual property rights" over photos they knew in the public domain. Smart, Getty - it knew it can't tell the court it somehow has copyrights out of thin air. But Getty does claim intellectual property rights, this point just sounds like a lie.

Even, Getty had the nerve to actually say: (same memo)
Quote
At most, Plaintiffs allege a risk of consumer confusion: that Getty Images held “itself out falsely as the agent of Ms. Highsmith” and that, as a result, a consumer might believe she must buy a license from Getty Images to use a Highsmith Photo when, in fact, she could obtain a copy of the photo for free from the Library of Congress (albeit without the functionality and other benefits provided by Getty Images). However, allegations of consumer confusion do not rise to “a specific and substantial injury to the public interest” and therefore are insufficient to state a claim under Section 349.

If the harm to the public wasn't alleged enough, the next amended complaint can do it. I'm confident it can easily be.

So, Getty says "oh you got confused and thought you must pay? such a shame, but we didn't do anything wrong by confusing you intently".
This makes me mad. I'd think unfair and deceptive practices can be added against them, only for this, and FTC might be interested.

33
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Judge Rakoff
« on: September 15, 2016, 05:59:05 PM »
In the same case, he had to deal with shady practices from people at Uber, who hired some private investigator to uncover something, some "derogatory" information about Meyer, and his counsel. The investigator wasn't licensed; and apparently was recording calls interstate (with people in states that disallow recording without knowledge), and was lying to people who knew Meyer.

Judge decides to agree to all relief that Meyer requested against Uber on this episode. It wasn't much, even; just to bloody stop, not use the results of this unlawful "investigation" of theirs in the lawsuit, and pay some money for fees and stuff.

From the decision:
Quote
litigation is a truth-seeking exercise in which counsel, although acting as zealous advocates for their clients, are required to play by the rules

Quote
While pleased that the parties have resolved the last prong of plaintiff's requested relief, the Court cannot help but be troubled by this whole dismal incident. Potential plaintiffs and their counsel need to know that they can sue companies they perceive to be violating the law without having lies told to their friends and colleagues so that their litigation adversaries can identify "derogatories." Further, the processes of justice before the Court require parties to conduct themselves in an ethical and responsible manner, and the conduct here fell far short of that standard.

34
Getty Images Letter Forum / Judge Rakoff
« on: September 15, 2016, 05:37:49 PM »
I've said in the past that it would be interesting to see what positions has judge Rakoff taken in other cases. Since then, Getty has well availed itself of a past case of his, in its answer to Highsmith. Might as well look ourselves too.

Judge Rakoff is the judge in Highsmith v Getty. An article about him:

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/judge_jed_rakoffs_stance_on_the_sec_deals_draws_fire_praiseand_change

Meyer v Kalanick and Uber

I knew this one, just didn't realize it was the same judge. It's a recent decision he made, to the surprise of a number of commentators (it seems damn right to me!): he held unenforceable the online contract between Uber and a customer, Meyer, because customers didn't know well enough what the heck is it that they're "agreeing" with, merely "by registering":

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2016/08/01/judge-rakoffs-soapbox-on-uber-arbitration-and-fair-play/

Quote
Since the late 18th century, the constitution of the United States and the constitutions or laws of the several states have guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to a jury trial,” he wrote. “This most precious and fundamental right can be waived only if the waiver is knowing and voluntary, with the courts ‘indulging every reasonable presumption against waiver.’ But in the world of the Internet, ordinary consumers are deemed to have regularly waived this right, and, indeed, to have given up their access to the courts altogether, because they supposedly agreed to lengthy ‘terms and conditions’ that they had no realistic power to negotiate or contest and often were not even aware of.

Full decision here:
https://scholar.google.se/scholar_case?case=13002923224554771362

36
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 13, 2016, 06:41:00 PM »
Quote
I'm not sure this paragraph was clear; it is most disturbing to me, to see how Getty tells the court in no uncertain terms, that it thought the images were public domain, and that's why it "licenses" them - it "licenses" "rights" in them, then claims that no one can do anything about it, if they're free to use by anyone. Anyone but the thousands of users who receive automated letters, that is, anyone but those scared into paying up, when nothing was due.

Does that mean the lawsuit should be amended to claim extortion on Getty's part?

If we find people who paid over public domain pictures or Highsmith pictures (or CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA), then they could claim fraud. Highsmith Team is looking for users of Highsmith photos. Getty says it is needed for Highsmith too, in relation with one of her state law claims, to prove people were indeed deceived.

The thing, it seems to me, is that Highsmith can't claim fraud for herself, because she didn't rely on Getty's misleading "rights" representations (she might be the only person in the world who could have never doubted that Getty is wrong!), while fraud requires reliance... so it requires someone who did rely on Getty's representations and paid or was otherwise hurt.

Source, among others, Rakoff's decision in Antidote v. Bloomsbury:
Quote
Under New York law, the elements of common law fraud are "a material, false representation, an intent to defraud thereby, and reasonable reliance on the representation, causing damage to the plaintiff."
(internal cite source omitted)

Highsmith herself has 3 out of 4: there's false representation, intent to defraud, damage (IMO: damage to her reputation and the public opinion confused on whether she did donate the photos as she said or gave rights to Getty to go after them). But dunno, she wasn't a victim of fraud.

I'd love to be wrong btw. Let me know if that's the case.

The annoying thing with finding them is that they don't know they were being defrauded. They deleted the images. They paid and moved on. Now sometimes some say on the internets "good it happens to Getty, they bullied me into paying" - but we don't know for what they paid. (was it public domain images? otherwise, copyright infringement threat, at least civil, doesn't seem to qualify). To build on your question, my question is, isn't it clear anyway that people are being mislead, whether we find them or not?

37
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 13, 2016, 11:11:07 AM »
I dealt here with only the first half of what I called part 3) of Getty's answer: the state law claims, from the perspective of whether they're restating the same claim as a copyright claim or not. There's more to Getty's answer, when they say that the exact elements of these laws wouldn't be fulfilled for Getty's behavior. Here's an interesting one:
(citations sources omitted)

Quote
As the Second Circuit has explained, “the gravamen of” a claim under Section 349 “must be consumer injury or harm to the public interest.” Indeed, the statute is “modelled after the Federal Trade Commission Act,” and “federal courts have interpreted the statute’s scope as limited to the types of offenses to the public interest that would trigger Federal Trade Commission intervention under 15 U.S.C. § 45

Quote
Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege any direct harm to the public interest. See FAC 256-260 (alleging that Getty Images’ acts have “cause[d] economic damages and irreparable injury to Ms. Highsmith and the Foundation,” without alleging any direct harm to the public).

There is harm to the public, and a significant one at that. It is the public who is affected most by the deceptive practices (as Rothman firm put it in their older case against Getty), because they will believe Getty's purported "rights" over the photos, and buy licenses or settle extortion letters for worry that Getty's lawyers might be entitled to pretend what they do.

On this site, and in recent years many others as well, Getty's practices have been called "legalized extortion". But if Getty insists that it's "licensing" what it knew too well that it's public domain imagery, those practices become something else: namely, I'm not so sure I'd call them legalized anymore, when people are being chased with letters claiming "infringement" to pay up or else. At least, if Getty was honestly convinced they own them, lets say we'd be still in the "legalized extortion" grey area; but since Getty itself insists, in their own memorandum, that it was distributing "public domain" photos because it knew they were public domain, then Getty's behavior appears to be: we know we were wrong, but we'd just yell infringement to individuals or small business owners anyway, just to make them pay up 'cause it's not worth fighting, and hey, nothing will happen to us anyhow since they're public domain.

I'm not sure this paragraph was clear; it is most disturbing to me, to see how Getty tells the court in no uncertain terms, that it thought the images were public domain, and that's why it "licenses" them - it "licenses" "rights" in them, then claims that no one can do anything about it, if they're free to use by anyone. Anyone but the thousands of users who receive automated letters, that is, anyone but those scared into paying up, when nothing was due.

38
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 13, 2016, 10:55:05 AM »
I reviewed Getty's current license agreement, which they use for all photos apparently, including the public domain photos. In the post where I copied this agreement (and next post), I made bold the words which obviously explicitly claim or imply IP rights.

Those are statements from Getty that may be useful to debunk Getty's strange claim to the court that their purported license "doesn't say copyright". It does say copyright even, once, it does say intellectual property rights (and for several reasons it's clear that's copyright), it does enumerate the exact rights under copyright (copy, reproduce, display, perform, modify), and it does make claims that cannot - IMO - be understood or stand unless they're backed by copyright.

To be sure, this is now the new license, from August 2016, but I'm sure a lot of it is identical with the past license, which Highsmith and Zuma lawyers have by now.

39
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 12, 2016, 10:36:32 PM »
Getty isn't limiting itself to "licensing" public domain and some photographers' images without permission to do so. It "licenses" and threatens users over "infringements" of Microsoft's imagery included in Windows.

Interestingly, a thread on this forum discussed that back in 2009, but oddly the old discussion seems to assume that those images were licensed by Microsoft from Getty. I don't know why. (Maybe back then one couldn't yet believe that Getty might very well be talking bs?)

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/windows-vista-sample-images/

In 2015, here's the answer to Getty from someone who discovered the image his company was extorted for, in Vista:

"I spoke with the designer that created the video and all became very clear and I am afraid makes your company look very silly indeed.

The image used in the site and in the demo is a standard Windows Vista sample image. Simply type in “windows vista sample pictures” into Google and you’ll see it.[...]

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but if I read the following paragraph (from http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-live/microsoft-services-agreement)

'images, clip art, animations, sounds, music, video clips, templates, and other forms of content (“media elements”) provided with the software available on Office.com or as part of services associated with the software. You may copy and use the media elements in projects and documents.'

[...]Our use of this image did NOT infringe on your copyright and in any event it is NOT your copyright anyway and the image came from a Microsoft freely available source.

Furthermore, and despite my in depth knowledge of the web, I count myself as naive in this regard, imagine my surprise when I typed “Getty Images Copyright Letter” and I see thousands of results regarding “scams” and “harassment”. This really clarifies a great deal about your approach to us.

I want to thank you for your assistance in helping me determine where these images came from and I hereby retract my offer to buy a license for this image from you.

I further want to make this very clear:

Getty will cease and desist from harassing my company immediately. What you are doing is outright extortion and the next correspondence you will send me, if you can be bothered, is an apology and confirmation that you are idiots who cannot even figure out that an image is taken from a sample images folder and not used in any way that contravenes a Microsoft EULA."


Source:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/image-copyright-infringement-getty-images-scam-letter-franco-de-bonis

40
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 12, 2016, 09:39:15 PM »
lol love this: internet commentator talked to LCS at Picscout's phone number:

"Dana 2016-01-05 23:00:26

Hi Soloma,

Thanks for sharing your story. It sounds just like mine. I was just sent a letter from LCS back in December demanding $825 for one photo that I, too, found on the Internet. I replied back demanding all kinds of proof, so Samantha Clemens sent bogus attachments that were suppose to prove ownership. Anyone could have written them and there were no dates, etc. Neither document looked professional.

So, I called Gallery Stock who LCS is "representing". I spoke to a girl in the sales department. I said I was writing a paper on copyright infringement. She said they only work with PicScout. She said they don’t work with any other affiliated companies (i.e. License Compliance Services, Gettys, etc.). I asked if they were able to collect on their behalf and she said no. They bring it to their legal departments attention first. She didn’t know all aspects of it, but felt she gave me the correct information.

Then I reviewed PicScout's website and I noticed it had the same phone number as all of the other collectors out there. So, I called PicScout’s number and the lady answered License Compliance. I told her I was writing a paper for school and I was looking for information on the topic of copyright infringement. I said, I thought I was calling PicScout and asked if PicScout was affiliated with them. She said that was confidential information and she was not at liberty to say. Then I said they had the same number. She repeated the number back to me and I said yes, that’s on PicScout’s website. She then said License Compliance is taking over PicScout. I asked if they were going to change their website and she said that was again confidential. I said ok, thank you for your time.

Really? Why is that confidential? The whole thing was so shady. To cover my bases, I then decided to go to the artist’s website and try contacting him about the photo I was interested in using. I didn’t say anything about the current situation of copyright infringement, but that I was interested in using the photo. I asked if he would give me permission, since I am on a tight budget. I told him I would keep his name on the photo and even provide a link to his website. I am not sure if he or anyone else will respond, but I thought it was worth a shot and to try covering all of my bases.

After looking up extensive information on LCS, Getty, PicScout, etc., I decided that I would not respond again. Most people seem to respond once and then ignore the rest of the letters. It seems they will stop after a while. I am hoping that will be the case for me too or that I will get permission from photographer to use the photo so they will leave me alone. We will see what happens next."


Also, she talked to Gallery Stock who LCS claimed to "represent", and was told that they only work with Picscout, didn't know of a *different* company called LCS.
IOW, either LCS was misleading people claiming to be licensing agent, either LCS is part/subsidiary of the same corporation with Picscout.

http://salomafurlong.com/aboutamish/2015/06/bloggers-beware/

The OP's extortion letter is like many others: signed by LCS, Picscout, with payment demanded to Picscout, and Getty corporate address.

http://salomafurlong.com/files/alamy_letter.pdf

41
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 12, 2016, 08:14:53 PM »
PS: there are actually many of these, showing a link between who signs as "LCS" (with their logo or Getty's address(es), so no false positive) and Picscout: demanding payment in Picscout account and/or common signature. They seem to start in 2014 (when did Getty buy Picscout?) but most seem to be, from what I see, in 2015 and 2016.

Like this:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/extortion-letter-received-from-lcs-picscout/

About LCS and Picscout:

from picscout:

The PicScout Platform is the industry leader in commercial image identification technology. Our registry houses 200 million premium images from more than 200 content providers. Content providers can upload premium images to the PicScout Platform to ensure they are accessible and protected by the PicScout-powered tools.

PicScout Licensing, Metadata and Compliance services are all integrated with the PicScout API.

Note: once content has been submitted to the PicScout Platform, content providers will have the ability to opt-in to activating their content within the PicScout Licensing, Metadata and Compliance services.

and this from : http://www.picscout.com/solutions/ete/

Now this technology has been combined with global License Compliance specialists in the PicScout EtE Service. When you subscribe to this service, PicScout not only will identify where your images are being used, but also enlist the skills of its global License Compliance team to ensure any unlicensed images are removed and your lost revenue recovered.

42
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 12, 2016, 08:05:20 PM »
LCS = Picscout:

Payment has to be remitted to:
License Compliance Services, Picscout Inc.
605 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98104, United States"


Source: http://www.ndcenterfornursing.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Cartoon-Stock-License-Compliance-Services.docx

43
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 12, 2016, 07:50:49 PM »
[this one is interesting b/c according to more than a few, GoDaddy has/had a license to some stock photos, for unlimited use of their customers, included in their site builder. LCS still goes after those customers with terrible first letter; some users may remember where did the pic come from and ask GoDaddy, some may not]

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/the-clubhouse/766520-be-careful-who-you-try-to-scam-2.html#post9388257

My recent scam attack is regarding my website. I have a website with go daddy. I used a background picture that was an option when I created the site. Now I have a scammer telling me I have used an unauthorized copyrighted picture. I called Go Daddy and they said yes this is a scam and ignore it. I received a letter in the mail from this company so I decided to research them. There are sites dedicated to this scamming company and they are looking for people who are easily intimidated. They come up with a random dollar figure to settle and if you don't pay, they intimidate with a potentially higher expense.

NEVER, NEVER trust anyone who calls or emails you....

Who can we trust .... Feel free to call or email me with solutions and I will happily contribute funds



Quote:
License Compliance Services, Inc. on behalf of SuperStock
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98104, United States
Email: LCS@LCS.global, Telephone: +1 855 387 8725, [scammer URL]


February 8, 2016

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION - Case Number: 384837328
_________________________________________________


1. Our represented imagery is/was used on your website.

2. Our records do not show a valid license for this use of our imagery.

Your action is required within 10 business days to resolve this matter:


Send us your valid license / authorization (LCS@LCS.global)

Or settle online: [scammer URL]
For inquiries, call: +1 855 387 8725
More details can be found below.


Attn: xxxxxxxxxxx


SuperStock, a global provider of digital imagery, has become aware of an instance(s) of its represented imagery being used on your company's website. Our records do not indicate that valid licensing has been issued to your company for the use of the image(s). If your company does in fact hold a valid license(s) for the image(s) in question, please email any relevant documentation (valid license, purchase records, documentation of authorization). We will review your documentation and update our records if appropriate.

This letter has been sent to you by License Compliance Services, Inc. ("LCS"), a company that specializes in assisting copyright holders with the management and protection of their content. With regards to this case, SuperStock has mandated LCS to resolve the matter of your online use of SuperStock's imagery.

Use of imagery represented by SuperStock without proper licensing is considered copyright infringement and entitles SuperStock to pursue compensation for infringing uses (Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code).


To view the image(s) in question together with proof evidencing your use of these images on your website, go to: [scammer URL]


As an example, see below SuperStock's image "1042R-8425" as used on your website:

Original image
Proof of use





TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER - (Case Number: 384837328)

You are required to take action within 10 business days of the date of this email, as follows:

If your company possesses a valid license(s) or other authorization for the use of the imagery, please email license purchase and/or authorization documentation to LCS@LCS.global and we will close this case (upon verification of the documentation by SuperStock).


If your company does not hold a valid license(s) or other authorization for the use of the imagery, you must:


Submit a settlement payment in the amount of $740.00 (payment options are provided below).


Immediately cease use of the image(s) in question.
PAYMENT OPTIONS

Online payment: You may submit payment online at:
[scammer URL]


Check payment: You may send payment by check to:
License Compliance Services, Inc.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200, Seattle, WA 98104, United States
Please include Reference 7554-0924-3616 with check payment.
IMPORTANT NOTES

Discontinuance of use of the imagery does not release your company of its obligation to pay compensation for the imagery previously used. Past usage must still be paid for.


You may have been unaware that this imagery was subject to license. However, copyright infringement can occur regardless of knowledge or intent. While being unaware of license requirements is unfortunate, it does not change liability. As the site owner you are still the responsible party, even if a third party is involved in the unlicensed use.
You may find further information in the FAQ section at [scammer URL]

If you would like to continue to use the imagery in question, or if you have other requests in relation to this letter, please contact us by email at LCS@LCS.global, or call +1 855 387 8725 and we will assist you.

This letter is without prejudice to SuperStock's rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.

Sincerely,

License Compliance Services
LCS@LCS.global

44
It gets even weirder:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160911/06434135486/bogus-defamation-lawsuit-using-fake-plaintiff-defendant-challenged-public-citizen.shtml

Apparently the (different) "pro se plaintiff" had the same awkward phrasing as the plaintiff in Patel v Chan...

45
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty answered to Carol Highsmith
« on: September 12, 2016, 05:25:55 PM »
Source: https://nctritech.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/the-getty-images-extortion-scheme/#comment-581

Bigotes on September 12, 2011 at 11:10 pm
I just received letter number two. Although I had consciously selected a non-copy righted photo, Getty’s letters made me think perhaps I had made a mistake. With letter number two on the desk, my partner checked the source code of the original image copy and lo and behold, we discovered that it was tagged “public domain” as of the date we incorporated the image into the website.

I am curious to know Getty’s response to my request for proof of copyright and comment on the fact that image we used was tagged “public domain”.

Anyone encounter that slimy twist?"


I wish we knew what image was this one: commentator says it "was tagged public domain"!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
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.