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 - Lettered

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17
31

According to this article, Getty claims it will compensate the artists.  Whether that is true, and whether the compensation will be a significant percentage of the revenue that Pinterest pays Getty ... I don't know.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/pinterest-inks-deal-with-getty-images-will-pay-a-fee-for-the-photo-agencys-metadata/

Quote
And of course it has photographers and illustrators that want to be compensated for their images getting used. Getty says that it will be sharing the fee with its contributors (that is, those photographers and illustrators) — which means that this deal closes up another awkward copyright hole for Pinterest.



32
My guess is that Pinterest had to do this to stay in business, otherwise Getty would have gone after their users (or flooded them with takedown requests) which would have caused them to shut down. This (or something similar) is just my hunch.
I really, really doubt that Getty will go after a Pinterest user for pinning now.  In my view, they are now explicitly licensing their entire catalog for this specific use with this agreement.
I'd be surprised if a Pinterest user got a demand letter for pinning a Getty Image now. Not shocked, but surprised for sure.

Quote
And of course it has photographers and illustrators that want to be compensated for their images getting used. Getty says that it will be sharing the fee with its contributors (that is, those photographers and illustrators) — which means that this deal closes up another awkward copyright hole for Pinterest.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/pinterest-inks-deal-with-getty-images-will-pay-a-fee-for-the-photo-agencys-metadata/

33
I really doubt you'd have much to go on if it ever got to court, which I am sure you aren't interested in anyway.  Have you considered sending them a takedown notice?

http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html

Edit to add: Even if the resume isn't considered "copyrightable" I would certainly think the photo would be.  I would be inclined to send them a takedown notice if it were me, I think.  If you go that route, I don't think it really matters what the California statutes say since copyright law is federal.  My feeling is that they would probably comply with the takedown request,  and it would be over. My assumption is that they are in the US since they quote California statutes.

34
Interesting read and I think I learned something.  After reading that, am I correct in concluding that two different standards are applied regarding the definition of "willfully" depending on whether the civil part or criminal part of the statute is being interpreted?

Quote
When faced with a criminal statute containing an
ambiguous “willfulness” element, courts normally resolve
any doubt in favor of the defendant. Ratzlaf, 510 U.S. at 148
(citing Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 422 (1990)).

Quote
If we were to read 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)’s
willfulness requirement to mean only an intent to copy, there
would be no meaningful distinction between civil and
criminal liability in the vast majority of cases. That cannot be
the result that Congress sought.

Quote
By defining “willfully infringed” without any requirement
that the defendant knew he was committing copyright
infringement, the district court instructed the jury to apply a
civil liability standard.

35
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I've never seen this picture before??
« on: October 21, 2013, 02:47:25 PM »
I think that picscout can find images that you cant navigate to with the normal links.  Maybe whoever designed your website left something behind?  Did Getty mention the URL?

36
I think Getty monitors this forum, right?  If so they may have already seen your letter. ;)

Not that I think any of this really matters at all in the grand scheme of things . . .

Thanks Lucia, Robert & Greg for your responses.

Good that I did not send the letter yet  :)

Where can I find wording for a letter that does not admit to usage ?

Thats what I am seeking  8)

I await your replies.

Thanks,
Leslie

37
Stinger,

I can definitely see the similarities.  What they have in their favor, that I haven't seen against Getty is:

Quote
O’Connor pledged $1 million of his own money to fight this battle in court.

“Business isn’t always about making money,” O’Connor said. “It’s also about doing what’s right, which is why I am using my own money.

Read more at http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/17/findthebest-sues-patent-trolls-under-anti-mafia-rico-act/#mqGbueX30mQKlGk2.99

38
I hope Getty takes a big hit over this.
Anyway, how is THIS:

"We empathize with and understand the sensitivity of Avril Nolan’s situation. Getty Images had a model release and relied upon the photographer’s documentation when we made the image available for license."

different than THIS (which would be a large percentage of the situations complained about here):

We empathize with and understand the sensitivity of Getty's situation. We had a work for hire agreement and relied upon the third party developer's documentation when we used the image on our website.

39
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: GI, Florida sinkhole, and pink planet
« on: August 28, 2013, 02:08:33 PM »
are the images altered?  I suppose someone could claim that they started with a public domain photo and altered it into a derivative work that they own.  Not sure how the legalities of something like that would work out.

But what's to keep whoever from putting whatever up for sale on the GI website?  Is there any control?  What if someone created tens or hundreds of accounts with batches of stolen images and public domain images for sale on each account?  Would GI ever catch that? or would the "machine" keep grinding out letters based on picscout hits?

40
Congrats on passing the SOL.  Your story is very similar to mine.  The one difference is a point I am going to respectfully disagree on.

I think it is worth it to respond one time with a fair offer to settle and a request for proof of ownership.  It only costs a little education time and a stamp (or a nominal legal fee if you want to get Oscar to make sure it is done right).  Of course it will likely be rejected.  But in the [probably unlikely in most cases] event that you land in court it might go a long way in showing you took this seriously and tried to resolve it in good faith.

And this is where our opinions begin to merge again.  Any further back and forth and arguing is probably just a waste of time and energy in my opinion.

Congrats again.

41
lol.  your right.  maybe you should write them and tell them they officially reversed their rights under copyright law thus giving you an implied license. :)

too funny!!

42
looks like this has been an issue before with this software:

http://forums.netobjects.com/showthread.php?6333-Netobjects-Fusion-Copyright-Infringement-warning-!!

Quote
Web.com Group, Inc. has strict standards when it comes to image usage and we
 understand the importance of copyright enforcement. During the past few
 years, several purchasers of our NetObjects Fusion software have received
 demand letters from Getty Images related to images contained within the
 software. The letter basically states that the customer is using an
 exclusive image of Getty without the appropriate license from Getty. All of
 the images were obtained by Web.com with licenses from the image holders.
 Web.com has worked with Getty (and continues to work with Getty) to verify
 that any image in question is appropriately licensed or to remove offending
 material. Anyone that receives a demand letter from Getty should forward a
 copy to gettyclaim@web.com.

43
Good points Jerry.  I would just add that many times the EULA can be found electronically in the program application folders with a link from menu options in the software itself.
That said, the EULA doesn't necessarily contain good news.  Maybe the included photos are for "layout" and design use, or something more or something less ... won't really know till you read it.
I would strongly recommend taking all the site images down till the issue is sorted out.
1) to avoid any appearance of "willfull" infringement in case the images turn out to be registered by Getty.
2) in case there are more Getty images somewhere on your site that they haven't found yet.
3) to start the statute of limitations clock in case it turns out that the images are indeed infringing

44
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got A Getty Letter Today
« on: May 28, 2013, 05:36:22 PM »
I'm not sure he "blamed it on a minor".  He only said it was used on a website his daughter "keeps".  No mention of who actually owns the website, nor how old the daughter is.

In any event, applause for Getty.  Hopefully this is a new trend.

45
. . .
Lettered

Quote
simple unremarkable picture of a common item like a baseball is important enough to protect with life crushing fines of tens of thousands of dollars
. . .
 Few 'flickr' type photographers who take even very nice photos of the shrubs in their back yard or pairs of tennis shoes lined up by the door, or photos of their sweaters, upload to flickr, and then auto-licence to Getty are going to bother to register because they know the photos are not distinctive. They may welcome the potential for a few bucks should someone want to use the thing. But for most those photographers, the filing fees would exceed the probably anticipated licensing feeds. 
. . .


This is was pretty much what I was thinking of when referring to "simple unremarkable picture of a common item "

I'm still against bulk registrations.  I see too much use (abuse?) as a key component in generating infringement income.

I'm all for protecting the value of artistic creations.  I just don't agree with creating an environment that allows people to make gobs of money off silly photos that are for the most part unsellable for more than a few bucks, and in the process causing so much anguish among folks who unknowingly run afoul of the copyright law. 

Someone accidentally infringes on Joe Bloe's tennis shoe shot ... mail him the $3 he MIGHT have made with one sale.  Catch someone knowingly and blatantly reselling Andy Warhol's soupcan shots ... throw the book at him, and send a message that it wont be tolerated..  I agree with all that.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17
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.