Messages

1231

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images

« on: September 02, 2010, 11:15:05 AM »

Hi All,

The second letter is intentionally misleading.

While copyright exists at the moment of creation, this is not normally enough to collect damages in court.  In any case, this form of "copyright" would exist only for the creator of the image, and not Getty.

Getty must own the copyright to the image in order to sue for damages; it cannot sue for damages on behalf of a third party.

Watermarking an image does not copyright it in any manner.

It's interesting that Getty is unwilling to actually explain the cost breakdown.  The number seems to be purely arbitrary.

S.

1232

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: September 01, 2010, 11:13:52 PM »

Matthew,

This is pretty amazing.
What a great way to present documents; thanks for this!!

S.

1233

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile and Template Monster

« on: September 01, 2010, 06:28:00 PM »

TM had some very serious troubles in the recent past in regard to unlicensed images - 2006 -2007.  They (and allegedly related sites/companies) had a huge run-in with Corbis.  The whole thing seemed rather shady.  I won't repeat it here, but interested parties can Google it.  Hopefully, things have changed and TM will support these people above.  Given past history, and these recent incidents, TM might be something to avoid.

S.

1234

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: September 01, 2010, 04:39:12 PM »

Of course, you are 100 percent correct!!  I appreciate that kind of professionalism.

I shouldn't have used your site in my example.  I only meant to highlight that we don't see Imageline at the top of the search listings saying "Provider of Fine Quality Images Since XXXX".

The court documents will carry a lot of weight, since there will be a lot of facts in them, not just opinion...

S.

1235

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: September 01, 2010, 12:40:41 PM »

Yes!!  Thanks very much to those who have submitted these documents regarding Bernina vs Riddick, and for extortionletterinfo.com for kindly posting them.  These documents are indeed educational for anyone who may be caught up in copyright/licensing issues now or in the future.  They really shine a light on the motivations, tactics and attitudes of the major players, and especially the workings of law/courts as it relates to these issues.  

I also like that many of the documents are in actual "text", and not just a snapshot of the pages; search engines can index the text.  Will extortionletterinfo.com become the foremost authority on George P. Riddick?  I hope so.  I just checked Google.  Type in "George Riddick".  "George Riddick, III is an Ass!" comes up at the top of the list; Riddick's "Imageline" is listed at number seven.

I'm sure that many are curious about the man (Riddick), who is regarded by most to be the poster boy for over-the-top extortion tactics.  To me, it seems that it was his intention to "control" and "lead" the proceedings.  The judge is really in control, however; he's seen it all before.  This is a situation that illustrates why lawyers are a valuable asset.  In court proceedings, the average person usually cannot effectively make a sound argument as to how a law or court precedent supports their case.  It is especially so when one is under pressure.

S.

1236

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images

« on: September 01, 2010, 12:13:45 PM »

I like this letter.

Next, it's very likely that you'll get the form letter that states something to the effect of "We'll reveal our documentation in the court session".  Which actually means that Getty has nothing, as usual.  Just don't reply back to them.  

Any company really intent on going to court wouldn't be so negligent in its duty to protect their content.  Assuming that they even own said content.  In fact, what's to stop you (or anyone else) from paying 50 bucks and copyrighting that image right now?

They're after the "low-hanging fruit".  People who just send money out of fear.

S.

1237

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photo Databases Duplicates?

« on: August 27, 2010, 12:05:17 PM »

Hi Oscar,

This is just to clarify.

The court is normally most concerned as to whether an image is registered as "copyrighted" or not at the time of "infraction".  Is this correct?  For example, if Getty notifies a person of an "infraction" for using an unregistered image today on Aug 27, 2010, it wouldn't help their case at all to register the image as copyrighted the next day on Aug 28, 2010.  In this example, they cannot prove that they owned the image on the date of the alleged "infraction".  Registering an image shouldn't give them any "retroactive" ownership rights in terms of litigation.

I guess that a person or organization can file a lawsuit for any reason at any time (even if they have a weak case, or will even surely lose)?  For example, Getty could sue over the unauthorized use of an unregistered image.  They'd probably lose the case, however.

Very sorry to mince words in the above.  However, it's such an important issue; thanks for your patience.

Masterfile has been registering bulk catalogs of images, so their position appear to be stronger than Getty's in my opinion.  They've copyrighted some books such as "The Best of Master xx", etc; I still think that copyrighting in bulk is weak when seeking thousands in damages.  Getty has been encouraging the original artists to register the images themselves.  Picture a situation wherein the original artist registered an image, but not Getty.  Getty would have no right to sue and collect damages on behalf of someone else's work.  

Yes, Copyright Trolls such as Masterfile and Getty seek insanely large settlements.  Masterfile is second only to Imageline/Riddick.  It'll knock your socks off.  I'd like to see the courts ensure that the settlements are within the normal purchase price.  The music industry also seeks huge settlements, using the argument that the "downloader/uploader" has distributed the files widely to other "pirates", thereby causing economic losses.  But, I cannot see the same damages occurring for stock image companies.

To me, it's just a big money-grab before new foreign companies produce content of similar quality as Materfile/ Getty, but at vastly lower prices.

S.

1238

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Photo Databases Duplicates?

« on: August 25, 2010, 04:48:35 PM »

Hi Spartan91,

I can't speak for Oscar, but I can offer some help.

Google's use of online images in its "Image Search" falls under "fair use" technically.  That is because Google doesn't serve up the images to you directly; it simply links to the location of the actual images.  There are those who challenge this thinking, because Google must temporarily store or "cache" the images on its systems at least temporarily in order to provide you with such a search function that includes those little thumbnail pictures (but this is beyond the scope of this post). However, that doesn't give anyone the right to use an image just because Google lists it in a search.  In fact, it doesn't matter where an image came from... a web site, a Google search, or even scanned from a book... if you use it without license, you might be held liable, or at the very least, harassed for a long time (you'd think that you've stolen a Ferrari, for God's sake).  Furthermore, if a person or organization uses an image without license and then someone else gets it from them, that wouldn't offer the latter any indemnity.  There's also no provision in most places that state that an image must be protected by watermarks, copyright warnings or metadata in order for it to be protected by copyright.  Of course, for an entity to sue you and actually receive payment, it should have properly registered the images for copyright beforehand.  Unfortunately, it's often difficult to determine what's formally copyrighted and what isn't on the web.  Technically, everything that anyone creates is copyright "the author", but it's difficult to get damages in court with that, unless somebody used an unauthorized picture of your likeness in an advertisement or something... you could sue and get damages in that case I'm sure.

I'm not a big fan of the stock image/art companies. However the above would be considered standard in many circles these days. To play it completely safe, you should make images yourself (if you are so talented), pay someone to do it for you, or buy images from a company that you feel offers good value and conducts itself in the most ethical manner.

In the case of separate companies selling identical images, I would guess that it would come down to which one has actually applied for and received copyright on the particular image.  That would be the company that would "own" the image and could best protect its use legally.  The other companies would be dead in the water in such a case.  It's also my opinion that if none of the companies have formally copyrighted the image in question, then none of the companies would be a a strong legal position to protect it.  

S.

1239

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: New Videos in the works!

« on: August 23, 2010, 01:22:27 PM »

Matthew, I'm looking forward to this.  Thanks very much for your efforts!!

S.

1240

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: August 23, 2010, 01:20:47 PM »

Thanks for the link!!  It seems that Riddick/Imageline were quite busy in 2009.  It'll be interesting to see if he will come out ahead monetarily after all is said and done with Bernina.  If he loses money in the end, then his efforts would seem to be pointless.  Time to get a real job, maybe?

S.

1241

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: August 21, 2010, 05:25:51 PM »

YetAnotherRiddickVictim, Thanks for the info about the Riddick lawsuits.  However, I'm having difficulty finding any references on the Web about the lawsuits mentioned.  I'd like to know how many lawsuits he has actually brought forth and how many lawsuits he has won. Can anyone point me in the right direction?  Oscar mentioned in a separate post that in reality, Riddick wasn't suing hardly anyone:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?3,429

Obviously, people (lawyers included) cannot live on bankrupting companies and "collecting pennies and promises", as you say; so what's the point of suing?  If he's never won any lawsuits, but people are paying him anyway, I'd personally consider them to be suckers; but that's just my opinion.  By that yardstick, what's to stop me from suing people for treading on my lawn, and making them pay just because it costs a lot to fight my allegations in court?  

From his recent court behavior, he certainly doesn't sound to be legally savvy.  I mean, here's a litigious guy who's allegedly sued people ten times this year.  But, he arrives in federal court without an attorney?  It just doesn't add up up for me.  It doesn't sound like he's been to court before.

I totally agree with Matthew.  It's time to fight.  I can't say too much about my fight either; but I can tell you that making it incredibly painful and labor intensive for your adversaries to deal with you is essential.  Stay quiet at first, but if they come after you, study everything that you can and make it clear that you're the most educated person on the planet on the subject.  Never, ever show fear.  They want money?  Fine... show them that it'll cost them ten times what's allegedly owed just to get it.  Every minute that they spend harassing or chasing you costs them money.  Every piece of paper, fax and phone call costs them money.  You owe 10,000 dollars they say?  Surely they'll come after you relentlessly?  Maybe for a while.  But, not as long as they can make 11,000 by chasing other people who don't fight back.  People who pay without much of a fight are like "low-hanging fruit" in the jungle... guess which gets eaten first?

S.

1242

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: August 20, 2010, 07:01:15 PM »

The courtroom scene described above reminds me of a scene in the Wizard of OZ movie.  You know, the part wherein The Wizard is projected as a scary, powerful, malevolent monster of a man.  But then, from behind a curtain, the real wizard is revealed.  In reality, he's a weak, powerless pathetic little douchebag.  In the courtroom, the "curtain" has been pulled aside to reveal... Riddick.  Without an attorney.  By the way, he's so 'correct' that he doesn't need an attorney.  Anyone who received a threatening letter from him or "his team" and paid him money was a sucker.

S.

1243

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: settlement demand letter from Getty Image. What to do?

« on: August 18, 2010, 11:51:06 AM »

Hi Tsyle,

Sorry to hear that Getty's giving you some trouble...

I'm assuming that you're in the United States.

The United States Copyright Records Website is here:
http://www.copyright.gov/

To perform a search on the site, click on the red "Search Records" button to the upper right.
Now, under "Online Records", click on the text that says "Search the Catalog".
Next, you'll see text that says, "Search for" and a box wherein you can type in what to search for.
Type in "Getty Images" in the box, and click the "Begin Search" button.

At this time, you'll see only six entries.  Not much registered by Getty thus far.  That's bad for Getty.

You can check Masterfile for fun, too.  Much more is registered; however note how many collections are registered in bulk.  That's not so good for them.

Note that when an image or collection of images is/are registered; the registration numbers are 12 characters long. Usually it's 2 letters followed by 10 digits, or 3 letters followed by 9 digits; add zeroes before the number, for example:
VAu-598-764 is typed VAU000598764,
SR-320-918 is typed SR0000320918

If you happen to be in Canada, visit the Canadian Intellectual Property office online:

http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/home

Click on the "Copyrights Database" button to the left.
Now, under the "Quick Search" section, type in "Getty Images".
Next, click the "Search" button.

You'll note that nothing comes up for Getty Images at this time.
Masterfile has a few compilations listed there, however.

I'm not a lawyer.  But, (in my opinion), if one of these stock image companies is coming after you, and the images in question aren't registered in your country of residence, that puts them in a very weak position legally (in my opinion).  In addition, the registration must be done properly by the company in question.  Mr Michelen might choose to comment here if I'm mistaken.

I hope that this is helpful.  I'm sure that others were wondering about this too.

Best Regards,

S.

1244

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: August 12, 2010, 04:38:49 PM »

Here's a question for Oscar:  Imagine that a company or person(s) sent letters, made calls, etc in the spirit of these "extortion letter" schemes, and the recipient simply disagreed with their claims.  How far can the company or person(s) sending such letters escalate the issue before it becomes "harassment"?  If the recipient of the letters says, "I've made note of your claims, please don't harass me further" does the sender of the letters have to stop their actions?

Isn't there a point wherein the company or person(s) have to either give up, or seek a solution through litigation?

Thank you!!

S.

1245

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: August 12, 2010, 12:10:11 AM »

Matthew,

I think that you're probably right about Riddick.  He should have sought legal advice before he did anything, too.

The type of product that Riddick's Imageline sells appears to be of the type that was more popular about 12 -15 years ago.  I don't mean this as any kind of insult.  When people had much less bandwidth and things took a long time to download, "vector" type clipart could be made into GIFs that were of extremely small file size.  These days bandwidth is much less of an issue, with photographic or sophisticated graphic art taking precedence.  He's probably seen the value and market of whatever collection that he has shrink greatly.  That is no excuse for his actions, of course.  Perhaps, he should have changed with the times?

I think that Riddick's actions may already have damaged the reputation of the stock image industry as a whole.  Many companies and individuals are getting wind of the "extortion letter" schemes.  People that are well-read on the subject may recognize that some companies are much worse than others in their tactics.  But, the average person who hears about what's going on would likely think to themselves, "look at what these scamming stock image companies are doing!"  They're just thinking of the "industry" as a whole, unless they dig further (and how many people actually take the time to research it?).  In such cases, some damage has been done.  How many of these people were potential customers is anyone's guess.  

I'm surprised that some of the news media hasn't picked up on the "extortion letter" schemes yet.  I'm tempted to approach a few news-magazine style shows, and I'd love to see some cameras and a reporter stop by the offices of Getty, Masterfile, or whatever dank swamp Riddick lives in.

I'm a lot like you, I think.  I can tell you that when a situation like yours arose, I fought them every step of the way like an immovable object.  Of course, there's always a possibly that they could have won, but they would have had to go through every single step of a very annoying and torturous route, and I made that clear.  I'd never just "give" them anything just because I got few letters and calls.  They should "prove their case", and if they can't actually go to court, then they can't be very confident in their position.

You and Oscar have definitely set up a great resource!!  There's nobody else to turn to; nobody else took the time to do it.  How many people have stopped having so many sleepless nights after coming to the site - we may never really know.  But, it's probably a significant number of people. No wonder the site's so popular.  Thank you!!

S.