Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anonymous Blog Wants Copyright-Trolls.Com Shut Down

« on: January 17, 2017, 12:01:25 PM »

Robert is definitely shady af.

What is this, middle school? It's obvious that Joel has nothing better to do with his time or maybe he just enjoys being a drama queen.  Either way, super lame.

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Happy New Year!

« on: December 31, 2016, 10:14:34 PM »

Hope you all have a happy and litigious new year!

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A New Getty Problem - Cease & Desist Letter from France

« on: December 29, 2016, 03:40:09 PM »

I remember reading your articles as well Ryan, and I will be damned if something like this could prevent you from freely expressing exactly what happened. It's not libel if you're are posting the truth. However, maybe that will change once Trump "opens up the Libel laws" or whatever that means.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bogus/Nonsense Smear-Shame blog against ELI's Robert Krausankas

« on: December 27, 2016, 07:26:59 PM »

I hope they didn't break too many brain cells coming up with the idea and executing it. I mean, wow, such originality, doxing with generic writing? That's a first for the internet! Good job, whoever they may be? Haha, right.

Keep up of the good work Robert! Better watch out though, they may create some backlinks or put some bad reviews on yelp. I just came up with that btw, hopefully they don't read this and steal my idea.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Agence France Presse

« on: December 07, 2016, 01:56:55 PM »

Oh, don't worry. Your case is still alive. If you want to call and settle with them, they will definitely speak with you! :-)

I think it's funny. People are upset when they get harassed with letters but you feel neglected and WANT to get letters to let you know if the case is active?  Trust me, it's active!

Maybe because my whole life I have been ignored. I have yet to meet a girl, and my only two friends moved away and don't give a damn about me anymore. My family hates me. And finally, out of the blue, I get someone who is interested in my story. Someone who took interest in a blog that was way underappreciated.

They saw the clever photo I used to highlight an incredible story about medicare supplements. I am not going to lie, I was excited and really wanted to chat with them about it. I read up on their company, their parent company, current and former law firms, addresses of operation, law suits, and even their favorite food. Instead of getting the attention that everyone else got, I get the silent treatment. What does it take, two photos? Three photos? It's all about numbers anymore.

Maybe I was hoping to score a date with one of their young lawyers? I don't know, but things were looking up again for me. Sigh. Sorry for the rant, I will remain cautiously optimistic for now since you guys seem to know your stuff.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Agence France Presse

« on: December 06, 2016, 12:04:44 PM »

As promised, here is an update on this. I sent them a single email almost three months ago, and it has been deafening silence since. Is this normal? Kind of annoying, I would prefer they at least let me know if the case is still active or not. I will update the thread again if the contact me or when SOL passes.

BTW, you have all been great! Love the scrappiness of you folks.

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: response to LCS

« on: October 11, 2016, 08:29:10 PM »

I would be interested in taking a look at it and providing any feedback. Just make sure to redact all the personal info.

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Adlife Marketing & Communications ASKING $8,000 for an image

« on: October 04, 2016, 07:49:11 PM »

i was reading online that they are supposed to send you a notice and warning to remove the image. how come they just send me a bill?

They usually do, but that is just the first letter. Later they send the bill. It makes no difference really, as you're still liable for the use of the image, unless you're a registered DMCA agent.

my question is this: what do you suggest i do please? should i ignore it like some are saying? should i contact them and try to settle? should i hire a lawyer?

Ignoring them would not be my choice. I would probably schedule a chat with Mr. Chan, he is a wealth of knowledge and in your case, it might be useful while deciding a course of action. There are so many nuances in cases like these, experience makes a big difference.

I have not read anything about Ad Life, other than the recent cases mentioned in this forum. Without knowing how they usually behave, it's hard to say what a good option is. You can't really compare them with the usual suspects, not until there is more history. From my understanding, there are very few infringement cases brought on by a single image. If they did decide to take legal action, I would hope this community would offer you it's support. Most likely, it would result in a settlement less than what they are asking for currently.

I think a letter asking for proof of copyright ownership would be a good plan for the time being. I would not admit anything, no sense giving them more evidence to build a case on. They do have active cases, but most of them appear to be large companies like Charbroil.

Definitely review your website and make sure you have licenses for all it's images, or use your own imagery.

9

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Adlife Marketing & Communications ASKING $8,000 for an image

« on: October 04, 2016, 04:00:05 PM »

Thanks for sharing the letters. Did they send any others prior to this? The wording makes it sound like you had a conversation with them or they are just making a lot of assumptions.

1- how can they prove its their own image in the first place....? i tineeyed it and it seems the links to original stock images are being removed so im guessing this scam agency is now buying rights to some images and making everyone who use them a target.

Demand proof of copyright, copyright registration number, transfer history, etc. I can see where the photo was listed on istock and getty, but they probably removed it at some point. If you licensed the image through them or others, I would login and find out if the download is still there and any receipts of purchase, license info, etc. Someone else mentioned they licensed the photo at some point. This leads me to think it's a setup, which is why I now refuse to use stock images. 

2- how likely is it for them to file suit in another state?

From my research, I don't think that has much bearing if they actually want to take you to court. I imagine a lot of IP cases take place outside the copyright holder's state. I find it interesting that their current suits are in Massachusetts, yet the defendants were from Texas, South Carolina, etc. Maybe someone can shed light on that, which I would be interested in hearing.

3- they are saying if you dont pay in 10 days we will press charges, should i just ignore it? i have received scam notices before but this seems a little scary to be honest.

All these extortion letters work on fear, so I would try not to let it get to you. The current business model is to cast a wide net, send threatening letters and wait for a payday. That works very well when done in volume. Ad life appears to be running a similar operation, you're definitely not alone. The wording of their letter is textbook extortion letter style. One thing worth noting, it's possible Ad Life took the photo in question. If that's the case, they know the copyright status, have proof of ownership, etc and that makes for a much tidier situation if they do decided to file. Being that they are not as volume oriented as the typical copyright trolls, they might be more aggressive, but that is just speculation.

Here is a couple things worth noting:
1. The $150,000 infringement penalty is only in cases where the image is registered and the defendant was clearly in the wrong (sorry, forgot the proper legal term for this). If accidental or minor infringement, the statute suggests an alternative penalty of $200. That might be one reason to correspond with them, it might look favorable to a judge in the event they do take this case to court.

2. If they didn't register the image, they can only collect actual damages. I am betting the actual damages are a lot less than 8k, but I am also betting the image is registered. In my opinion, the targeted nature of the cases suggests they would have done their due diligence.

3. Taking anyone to court is expensive. They currently have 8 active suits, one with them as a defendant.  I don't see how an outfit like this could possible handle this many lawsuits. With yours being most likely a de minimis case, it seems like bad business to pursue you. This is a huge assumption, just an observation based on the size of the company.

4. They have three years from the date of that letter to make a move, unless you can prove they discovered it sooner.

10

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anyone hear of Adlife from RI?

« on: October 03, 2016, 07:06:07 PM »

The "obvious" pattern being that they are suing larger, more traditional businesses, not smaller parties. Of course, that can always change but that is what I see in that list.

You make a good point, it will be interesting to see if they go after smaller parties, if any exist.

11

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anyone hear of Adlife from RI?

« on: September 26, 2016, 08:51:22 PM »

It sounds like you have done your homework! You probably know the answer to your question.

High settlement offer, lots of recent filed cases, etc. I would talk to a lawyer, someone specialized in IP law like Oscar. That is just my opinion, but I am sure others might have better insight as I am still educating myself about the subject.

The case search shows an obvious pattern.

https://dockets.justia.com/search?parties=Adlife+Marketing+%26+Communications&cases=mostrecent

12

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anyone hear of Adlife from RI?

« on: September 26, 2016, 02:36:59 PM »

8k huh, they must be pretty proud of that image. Appears to be a company that specializes in the supermarket industry branding space.

Was it sent from them directly or a firm working on their behalf? Getty sometimes uses the names of their mutual photo agencies instead of their own (Gee, I wonder why?).

With that said, anyone can get a subscription of the picscout software (owned by our hero), and look for their "licensed" work. I am thinking about doing this, I sure as hell own many famous works, including several shades of purple, Joseph Rosenthal's photograph "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima", and the famous photo of Albert Einstein sticking his tongue out.

Sorry the for snark, but it seems entirely appropriate when discussing some of these license trolls.

Look for a catalog number or do a reverse image search i.e. tineye if you have not already, might yield more information.

13

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Agence France Presse

« on: September 19, 2016, 12:13:19 PM »

sholtz, if you decide to write to them, the first thing ever to clarify is if they have copyright over the image. Make them prove it. Some word their letter like: please prove registration of the image; if not, don't bother me anymore. (in essence)

That's only the first thing, but it might be the essential. Can also make an offer if you like. It seems it might matter if it ever gets to a court, a good faith attempt to negotiate, just make sure it's a fair market value for the image (which isn't necessarily how much they ask for)

Good idea, I think I will wait for the letter with the extortion and have our lawyer send it. I agree though, if some random company sends a request for indemnification, but no proof, it would be unwise to settle. The fact of the matter is, we receive scamming correspondences daily, everything from unpaid taxes to office supplies, all fraudulent of course. Supplying no proof but asking for a hefty fee is in the same vein, and quite frankly, it should be addressed.

With that said, as much as I want to hate on Getty over this, it has taught me a lot about copyright law. I will make sure to update this thread with the outcome. 

14

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Agence France Presse

« on: September 16, 2016, 05:13:17 PM »

Ah, LCS is Getty - in my opinion, though they apparently sort of deny it. It seems (to me) that it was Getty's licensing department, a couple years ago, and it started to sign letters under the name "License Compliance", then "License Compliance Services", dropping Getty's name from the letters and sending letters on behalf of other stock agencies too. In time they may have been meant to become a different company than Getty - but apparently they were incorporated only a few months ago, and personally I don't believe they're yet "different" at all.
See for example: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/license-compliance-services-inc-corporate-naming-hanky-panky/

Yeah, that seems to be the case.

15

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Agence France Presse

« on: September 16, 2016, 04:50:18 PM »

Did they send the letter themselves, or was it an agent for them, or they as agent for the photographer?

It was done through LCS.global out of Seattle, the same people that handle a lot of these letters for getty and just happen to be located very close to their main office. Even though it says AFP, I have a feeling it's still getty as they have the image on their licensing system under an AFP collection. I could be wrong, but it seems likely since AFP is mostly a news organization and probably wouldn't be actively scanning small websites for fraud (but who knows). I have seen a bunch of names under these LCS letters, mostly companies I have never heard of. I ran a docket search and didn't see a whole lot of cases under AFP's name, interesting I saw some where they were suing getty (a circle jerk of sorts).