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 - SoylentGreen

Pages: 1 ... 80 81 [82] 83 84
1216
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Corporation
« on: November 01, 2010, 07:24:04 PM »
WolfWolf, sorry to hear about this predicament.  I'm not an attorney or anything like that.  But here's my thoughts.

Usually, you'll receive some threatening emails at first.  Later on, they may choose to escalate it; more emails, papers sent by mail, and phone calls.  You know... they'll try to pester you so that you'll settle out of court.  Suing for money is not their true goal; it's only part of a strategy.  Often, copyright trolls like masterfile don't really get a lot of money if they win a lawsuit; the attorneys often get most of the settlement money (if they are able to collect their legal fees).  But, filing lawsuits scares a multitude of people into settling out of court, and that's where the real money is.

If they decide to litigate, I think that they'd have to sue the corporation; they can't sue individual officers in most jurisdictions.  If your corporation is in fact non-profit, you should be aware that what monies masterfile could collect may be severely limited in some countries/areas.  You should check about this.

Even if they eventually sue you, it wouldn't be too late to negotiate and settle out of court if you choose to do so.

If they did sue the corporation, they couldn't get more than the assets of the corporation, in this case $1300.  After that it's 'bankrupt', and it's over.  They'd get a measly $1300 if they're lucky, and have to eat their legal fees.

If things get dirty, you might consider closing down the corporation.  Then, masterfile couldn't sue some defunct entity.  Then you could open under another name later on.  This may or may not be practical for you.

If you chat with your attorney, bring up a few of these points if you feel comfortable doing so.  It wouldn't hurt.

Masterfile has laid off many employees in recent years, even a bunch when the economy was 'good'.  If you're in marketing, you know that paying huge prices for your images from a place like masterfile might get you fired; I have no doubt that their sales are slowing in this economy.  So, it should be no surprise that we're hearing about so many of these threatening letters and outrageous claims; it's just another revenue stream for them.


Good luck,

S.

1217
Like you Matt, I checked that particular blog, and I was also dismayed to find that much of an interesting conversation was removed.  For a short period of time, Mr Knopf had a notice on that page of his blog explaining that he had removed some posts because he felt that an American lawyer was seeking to gain business in Canada.  Of course, I'm paraphrasing here, as this info has been removed also.  Personally, I really feel that Oscar's participation on the blog was of value.

S.

1218
In answer to Flignar's question above, people who retain a lawyer are usually advised not to discuss their issue publicly on a forum such as this.  In addition, a lawyer wouldn't comment on their client's case, unless told to do so by the client.  Furthermore, companies like Getty and their ilk make it a provision of a settlement that any details remain confidential (should that apply here).  Any one of these factors may be why we haven't heard any further details.

S.

1219
Oscar, thanks for your comments!!  It sounds like 'cdragin' hasn't changed or used the photo out of the context of the original licensed use.  His client (or employer) paid to use the image in the brochure, and now he has the brochure displayed on his site.  So, he hasn't made a "derivative work", I think.

Imagine that I have a company that makes cars, and I use a stock image on my brochure.  Does every car dealer in the nation that displays that brochure on their site now owe Getty money?  I think not.

S.

1220
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: interesting read
« on: October 01, 2010, 01:02:17 PM »
Thanks for posting this.  Wow!!  This is not good.

Hopefully, most hard working freelance photographers have (or will demand) clear agreements from those that they work with.  If these photographers don't enforce their rights, this will surely happen again to others.

A question, though... was it Getty's responsibility (the buyer) to investigate the origin of those photos?  Or was it the fault of the seller in this case?

I guess that if we went by Getty's "rules", it would be Getty that's responsible... you know, it's the "end user" that should pay up.

S.

1221
Getty's doing this?  Sounds like fraud to me.

S.

1222
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Muench Case Under Attack!
« on: September 26, 2010, 12:38:14 AM »
Yes, thanks for the update Oscar, and a good point made by 'Lettered'.  This is a huge issue for these companies.
I think that better, more detailed registration procedures are necessary given the litigious nature of image companies in recent years.
I just don't see enough done to back up all the threats in those letters sent by such companies.

S.

1223
This is a very interesting discussion, indeed.  There's definitely a 'bigger picture' to all of this.

I have to ponder however, how long it will be before Riddick turns on his 'friends'?

S.

1224
Some image editing applications remove digital watermarks from images.  So, if the image in question has been edited, there's no guarantee that an original watermark remains, or that it remains unmodified.  Furthermore, stock image/art companies do not necessarily bother to include watermarks in their images, or in all of their images.  It's not required to do so in order to show copyright ownership.  You may be better off to have the web site owner sign a release stating that you are not responsible for pre-existing content.  Then, print out each web page and have the person in charge initial each one.

I'm not an attorney, but those are my thoughts.

S.

1225
Oscar,

What's Riddick's connection to SIIA; why would they feel the need to pay for his defence in this matter?

Thanks,

S.

1226
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: He strikes again...
« on: September 10, 2010, 01:03:25 PM »
Riddick's probably using "Image Rights" because his reputation is in shambles.  He needs to hire another company as a front-end for his copyright trolling.  A lot of letters from his phony "attorney" are going into the shredder these days, to be sure.

In addition, he may be using their services to find alleged "infringements".  It also looks like he's back to going after end-users once again; I guess that's safer than harrassing larger companies and getting sued for it.

S.

1227
YetAnotherRiddickVictim,
Thanks a lot for the links; that's great research.  I know that others appreciate them as well!!
It's interesting to compare what monies he sometimes seeks versus that of other civil cases.
Often, more monies than civil cases involving murder.

riddickvictim2,
Yeah, unsettling..!  I've seen some other business ideas that he's just kind of "thrown out there", but not pursued to any extent that I can see.
I sometimes wonder if he's waiting for someone else to use his "ideas", and seek damages in court for that.

S.

1228
Mr. Michelen,
Thanks for the info; I had a little chuckle over that.  His mom was likely up in age when he borrowed money from her.  I guess that she figured that it was either him or Enron.

YetAnotherRiddickVictim,
Did IMSI settle "out of court"?

riddickvictim2,
That's pretty odd stuff.  So, Riddick buys some domain names and squats on them.  His business plan is to sell those domains to people at a price that he decides, and then provide a "domain squatting service" with the intent to receive 50% of the profits when the domain is later sold to someone else?  The numbers or dates as part of the domain names would make them practically worthless.

Here's one of my favorites from the list "war on terror":  hangthebastard08.com
http://www.islandview2.com/Elections08/pages/WarOnTerror01.htm

S.

1229
Yeah, it's all quite compelling.  A question, though.  Is Mr. Riddick presently selling any of his graphic wares?  A check of his site(s) doesn't indicate an effort to sell anything.  I mean, is he just pursuing "license/copyright infringements" as his primary business activity at this point?

S.

1230
Hi Oscar,

Thanks for the clarification; it's an important point.

S.

Pages: 1 ... 80 81 [82] 83 84
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.