61
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar Michelen Defends Chaga Against $6 Million Masterfile Lawsuit
« on: May 22, 2013, 02:49:02 PM »
Thanks for the 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.
62
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: CANIPRE - Copyright violators (and hypocrites)
« on: May 16, 2013, 10:37:41 AM »
If memory servers, according to a post written not too long ago by Oscar, Getty Images' legal team has used the same arguments that many ELI readers offer as defenses when Getty has been caught infringing a photographer's copyright.
What?
Getty Images -- the grand defender of its photographers is itself a copyright infringer?
Getty Images -- just another scum of the earth image thief who put a thumbnail on a secondary page of a website getting a total of 132 monthly views from 17 unique visitors?
Well, no. Actually a French agency, The Washington Post, and Getty Images have been sued for $120,000,000 for what was a major copyright infringement. Story with most recent update info I could find is at...
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2236638/agence-francepresse-infringed-on-photographers-copyright-in-landmark-twitter-case
Of particular interest from the above story:
Getty Images' Direct Liability
The facts and arguments: "Getty claims that it cannot be liable because it is entitled to the benefit of a safe-harbor under the DMCA, one that covers infringement claims that arise 'by reason of the storage at the direction of a user material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for a service provider'." In effect, since Getty Images has an automated system to stock and sell AFP's images, it cannot be held liable for copyright infringement, the company says.
The judge's ruling: "In order to qualify for the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act safe harbors, a party must meet a set of threshold criteria. Most importantly for purposes of the present motions, the party seeking the benefit of the safe harbor must be a 'service provider', defined in pertinent part as 'a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor'." In this case, however, the Court has encountered an issue of fact regarding whether Getty qualifies as a service provider. While Getty's argument is that it "merely provides a file hosting service for AFP's images", the record before the Court "contains evidence from which a jury could infer that Getty does not, in fact, simply host AFP's images", especially since Morel has presented evidence that Getty's employees were actively involved in the licensing of the photos.
Getty of course rejects all arguments, explanations, and defenses when they're demanding $780 and up from Mom and Pop website owners but hypocritically uses many of the same arguments, explanations, and defenses when trying to defend lawsuits against their own alleged egregious violations.
This kind of arrogance and utter hypocrisy of copyright trolls and speculative invoicers is a big reason I despise thepeople cruel reptilian-brained money suckers who earn their livings extorting money over thumbnail images most likely used innocently while pretending all the time to be lilly white defenders of holy copyright.
What?
Getty Images -- the grand defender of its photographers is itself a copyright infringer?
Getty Images -- just another scum of the earth image thief who put a thumbnail on a secondary page of a website getting a total of 132 monthly views from 17 unique visitors?
Well, no. Actually a French agency, The Washington Post, and Getty Images have been sued for $120,000,000 for what was a major copyright infringement. Story with most recent update info I could find is at...
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2236638/agence-francepresse-infringed-on-photographers-copyright-in-landmark-twitter-case
Of particular interest from the above story:
Getty Images' Direct Liability
The facts and arguments: "Getty claims that it cannot be liable because it is entitled to the benefit of a safe-harbor under the DMCA, one that covers infringement claims that arise 'by reason of the storage at the direction of a user material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for a service provider'." In effect, since Getty Images has an automated system to stock and sell AFP's images, it cannot be held liable for copyright infringement, the company says.
The judge's ruling: "In order to qualify for the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act safe harbors, a party must meet a set of threshold criteria. Most importantly for purposes of the present motions, the party seeking the benefit of the safe harbor must be a 'service provider', defined in pertinent part as 'a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor'." In this case, however, the Court has encountered an issue of fact regarding whether Getty qualifies as a service provider. While Getty's argument is that it "merely provides a file hosting service for AFP's images", the record before the Court "contains evidence from which a jury could infer that Getty does not, in fact, simply host AFP's images", especially since Morel has presented evidence that Getty's employees were actively involved in the licensing of the photos.
Getty of course rejects all arguments, explanations, and defenses when they're demanding $780 and up from Mom and Pop website owners but hypocritically uses many of the same arguments, explanations, and defenses when trying to defend lawsuits against their own alleged egregious violations.
This kind of arrogance and utter hypocrisy of copyright trolls and speculative invoicers is a big reason I despise the
63
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"
« on: May 14, 2013, 12:26:19 PM »
DvsG...
Reading between the lines in an attempt to find the reality of your position, I think I'm safe in my assumption that you are making a significant part of your income with settlements and that you're spending a significant amount of time negotiating those settlements.
You may well be very good at photography, but it's also quite clear that you're equally competent with settlement demands and negotiations.
Philosophically, I abhor the idea that "Everything boils down to money. Period." From my little spot on this planet, it's this entrenched attitude about the almighty dollar that makes the world a shittier place.
For what it's worth, earning my living as a professional writer on the web the past fifteen years, I've raised a family, met my financial obligations, and have had a good life without having to conclude that "Everything boils down to money. Period." And I've managed to do these things without ever once sending a settlement demand email or registered letter to somebody who put one of my articles, commentaries, novels, white papers, or stories on their website or on a file sharing system without permission.
So what?
Well, I guess it boils down to this: my approach works for me; your approach works for you. And so the world turns.
In closing, I appreciate your responses to my questions and now feel I have a clear understanding of your position. Thank you.
Reading between the lines in an attempt to find the reality of your position, I think I'm safe in my assumption that you are making a significant part of your income with settlements and that you're spending a significant amount of time negotiating those settlements.
You may well be very good at photography, but it's also quite clear that you're equally competent with settlement demands and negotiations.
Philosophically, I abhor the idea that "Everything boils down to money. Period." From my little spot on this planet, it's this entrenched attitude about the almighty dollar that makes the world a shittier place.
For what it's worth, earning my living as a professional writer on the web the past fifteen years, I've raised a family, met my financial obligations, and have had a good life without having to conclude that "Everything boils down to money. Period." And I've managed to do these things without ever once sending a settlement demand email or registered letter to somebody who put one of my articles, commentaries, novels, white papers, or stories on their website or on a file sharing system without permission.
So what?
Well, I guess it boils down to this: my approach works for me; your approach works for you. And so the world turns.
In closing, I appreciate your responses to my questions and now feel I have a clear understanding of your position. Thank you.
64
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"
« on: May 14, 2013, 10:32:47 AM »
DvsG, may I suggest you read this forum more thoroughly before making blanket statements about the precision of PicScout because you'll find examples on ELI where PicScout screwed up and Getty even then had the audacity in some instances to send multiple settlement demand letters even after the recipient had pointed out that the image being contested was not the same as Getty's.
As for making my own images and then registering each image with the copyright office for $40 a pop or whatever it costs these days, that's something I wouldn't do for any image less valuable than a picture of the Pope having sex with the Queen of England on a unicycle.
If you're a photographer with sole access to shooting celebs like Brad and Angelina on red carpets, as you imply in a message above, you're making major bucks with national and world-wide publications. And if that's the case, why on earth are you spending valuable time scolding and negotiating with mom and pop website owners who have most likely used an image of yours without even thinking about copyright?
I can understand stomping on websites or publications that arrogantly steal images for profit, but I just don't get spending time tracking down and trying to negotiate settlements on the small infringements in a digital age with an internet that hosted more than 40,000,000,000 clear back in 2008. The only way that makes any sense is if the effort from doing that earns more money than the actual work of making images and licensing them.
Continuing that line of thought, I'd still like to know what percentage of your time you spend hounding copyright violators and negotiating settlements. Ditto for what percentage of your income comes from these settlements? You've lamented in several threads and messages about not having as much time as you'd like to create images -- that suggests to me that you're making good money in the settlement demand game and prefer the rewards of winning that game to the rewards of creative work itself.
To save you some typing, please spare me any self-serving remarks about it being a sacred duty of photographers to educate mom and pop copyright illiterates by making them pay money for what are in most instances most likely innocent and de minimis infringements.
DvsG, I hate to be a cynic but a long life has taught me that most everything these days boils down to money for far too many people in this world.
That's certainly the case with Getty Images, and the more you post the more I think that's the case with you, too.
As for making my own images and then registering each image with the copyright office for $40 a pop or whatever it costs these days, that's something I wouldn't do for any image less valuable than a picture of the Pope having sex with the Queen of England on a unicycle.
If you're a photographer with sole access to shooting celebs like Brad and Angelina on red carpets, as you imply in a message above, you're making major bucks with national and world-wide publications. And if that's the case, why on earth are you spending valuable time scolding and negotiating with mom and pop website owners who have most likely used an image of yours without even thinking about copyright?
I can understand stomping on websites or publications that arrogantly steal images for profit, but I just don't get spending time tracking down and trying to negotiate settlements on the small infringements in a digital age with an internet that hosted more than 40,000,000,000 clear back in 2008. The only way that makes any sense is if the effort from doing that earns more money than the actual work of making images and licensing them.
Continuing that line of thought, I'd still like to know what percentage of your time you spend hounding copyright violators and negotiating settlements. Ditto for what percentage of your income comes from these settlements? You've lamented in several threads and messages about not having as much time as you'd like to create images -- that suggests to me that you're making good money in the settlement demand game and prefer the rewards of winning that game to the rewards of creative work itself.
To save you some typing, please spare me any self-serving remarks about it being a sacred duty of photographers to educate mom and pop copyright illiterates by making them pay money for what are in most instances most likely innocent and de minimis infringements.
DvsG, I hate to be a cynic but a long life has taught me that most everything these days boils down to money for far too many people in this world.
That's certainly the case with Getty Images, and the more you post the more I think that's the case with you, too.
65
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"
« on: May 13, 2013, 02:59:34 PM »
Good link, Jerry. Still chuckling here over that one.
66
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"
« on: May 13, 2013, 10:52:45 AM »
After all the nonsense I've been through with Getty Images and its collection agent and copyright troll Timothy B. McCormack, I've stopped using images altogether.
With that said, I'm expecting any day now to receive a letter from some lawyer who thinks he's clever with a new speculative invoicing scheme.
The letter will inform me that he represents "Stay Fresh Garments, Inc," which holds the trademark to "I shit my pants" and since I've used that phrase multiple times on ELI, his client now wants $1200 by the end of the month for each time I've used their trademark or else litigation proceedings will commence.
Oscar, please start thinking about a new letter program for this eventuality.
With that said, I'm expecting any day now to receive a letter from some lawyer who thinks he's clever with a new speculative invoicing scheme.
The letter will inform me that he represents "Stay Fresh Garments, Inc," which holds the trademark to "I shit my pants" and since I've used that phrase multiple times on ELI, his client now wants $1200 by the end of the month for each time I've used their trademark or else litigation proceedings will commence.
Oscar, please start thinking about a new letter program for this eventuality.
67
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"
« on: May 10, 2013, 11:41:57 AM »
As for hiring a photographer, it's sad to say, but there are also photographers licensing and selling images that they didn't shoot and don't own the rights to.
During these times of digital confusion and fraud it seems the only safe way left is to shoot all your own images... and even then you may get a letter from Getty or a copyright troll or collection agent like Timothy B. McCormack if PicScout IDs your image as being too similar to some generic image in their catalog of millions of images.
During these times of digital confusion and fraud it seems the only safe way left is to shoot all your own images... and even then you may get a letter from Getty or a copyright troll or collection agent like Timothy B. McCormack if PicScout IDs your image as being too similar to some generic image in their catalog of millions of images.
68
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
« on: May 08, 2013, 02:58:51 PM »
For me, this entire matter has more holes than the plastic colender Mrs. Mulligan uses to wash chicken necks in.
For one suspicious hole, a Copyright search reveals that the work was taken in 2002 but never registered until March of 2013. Additionally, near as I can tell, it is the ONLY work by this particular photographer that's been registered. Ever.
Here's the complete listing from the copyright office's search function:
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VA0001850730 / 2013-03-08
Application Title: Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)
Title: Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)
Description: Electronic file (eService)
Copyright Claimant: Robert Daly Ltd. Address: 135 Elborough Street, London, SW18 5DS, United Kingdom.
Date of Creation: 2002
Date of Publication: 2002-08-11
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: Daly & Newton, pseud. of Robert Daly Ltd. (author of pseudonymous work), employer for hire; Domicile: United Kingdom; Citizenship: United Kingdom. Authorship: photograph(s)
Rights and Permissions: Getty Images, 605 - 5th Ave. S., Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98104, United States
Names: Daly & Newton, pseud.
Robert Daly Ltd.
For one suspicious hole, a Copyright search reveals that the work was taken in 2002 but never registered until March of 2013. Additionally, near as I can tell, it is the ONLY work by this particular photographer that's been registered. Ever.
Here's the complete listing from the copyright office's search function:
Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VA0001850730 / 2013-03-08
Application Title: Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)
Title: Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)
Description: Electronic file (eService)
Copyright Claimant: Robert Daly Ltd. Address: 135 Elborough Street, London, SW18 5DS, United Kingdom.
Date of Creation: 2002
Date of Publication: 2002-08-11
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: Daly & Newton, pseud. of Robert Daly Ltd. (author of pseudonymous work), employer for hire; Domicile: United Kingdom; Citizenship: United Kingdom. Authorship: photograph(s)
Rights and Permissions: Getty Images, 605 - 5th Ave. S., Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98104, United States
Names: Daly & Newton, pseud.
Robert Daly Ltd.
69
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
« on: May 08, 2013, 11:25:33 AM »
LOL.
70
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: failed to load page: Some regulars blocked
« on: April 29, 2013, 11:35:11 AM »
Pages are loading super slow for me this morning.
71
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
« on: April 17, 2013, 04:24:58 PM »
A generous choice of options for this RM image (which is very lame in my estimation) is $450 for a three month license to use on an inner page of a website. Now, I know law firms pull in HUGE amounts of money when they're charging clients, but I suspect like the rest of us they may well be penny pinchers when they're shelling the green out to someone else.
Frankly, I can't even imagine a law firm with partners billing $958.72 an hour spending four Ben Franklins and a Ulysses S. Grant for a lousy three month license of a stupid image of a "Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion)."
I suppose there may be a federal judge out there somewhere who would award Getty a few bucks for this alleged infringement, but I don't see him/her awarding Getty with a Woodrow Wilson*...
*http://www.marshu.com/articles/images-website/articles/presidents-on-us-paper-money/one-hundred-thousand-100000-dollar-bill-img.jpg
Well, one never knows what rabbit hole one will stumble into when following Getty's speculative invoicing and settlement demand schemes!
Frankly, I can't even imagine a law firm with partners billing $958.72 an hour spending four Ben Franklins and a Ulysses S. Grant for a lousy three month license of a stupid image of a "Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion)."
I suppose there may be a federal judge out there somewhere who would award Getty a few bucks for this alleged infringement, but I don't see him/her awarding Getty with a Woodrow Wilson*...
*http://www.marshu.com/articles/images-website/articles/presidents-on-us-paper-money/one-hundred-thousand-100000-dollar-bill-img.jpg
Well, one never knows what rabbit hole one will stumble into when following Getty's speculative invoicing and settlement demand schemes!
72
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: A message from the little guy
« on: April 16, 2013, 10:38:31 AM »
DVG, as a professional writer whose copyrighted work is being used without permission on literally hundreds (if not thousands) of websites, I have two questions for you:
1) What percentage of your working time each day do you spend tracking down copyright offenders?
2) What percentage of your overall income materializes from these contacts?
Reading what you've posted so far gives me the impression that I should be following your model and spending a good part of my time each day contacting offenders and then negotiating fair settlements.
Lord knows, negotiating settlements would be a lot easier than creating new copy.
1) What percentage of your working time each day do you spend tracking down copyright offenders?
2) What percentage of your overall income materializes from these contacts?
Reading what you've posted so far gives me the impression that I should be following your model and spending a good part of my time each day contacting offenders and then negotiating fair settlements.
Lord knows, negotiating settlements would be a lot easier than creating new copy.
73
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My 3 year experience fighting back in playing Getty's dirty game
« on: April 13, 2013, 09:57:09 AM »
For what it's worth, McCormack sent me the same "final letter" form letter he sent you, including what appears to be the whited out third irrelevant case on the second page.
Given what McCormack's speculative invoicing "law firm" demands for settlements, you'd think they could afford to type up a new second page without the whited out section... but then that sort of professionalism requires a modicum of pride in what one does, doesn't it? Besides, it's far easier to just keep sending out the goofy looking letter to the rubes.
Plus, you save the cost of a new sheet of expensive letterhead paper and five minutes salary typing time you'd otherwise have to pay a paralegal!
Given what McCormack's speculative invoicing "law firm" demands for settlements, you'd think they could afford to type up a new second page without the whited out section... but then that sort of professionalism requires a modicum of pride in what one does, doesn't it? Besides, it's far easier to just keep sending out the goofy looking letter to the rubes.
Plus, you save the cost of a new sheet of expensive letterhead paper and five minutes salary typing time you'd otherwise have to pay a paralegal!
74
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new image bot/spider/scraper
« on: April 11, 2013, 06:20:44 PM »
That's pretty reasonable pricing. I wonder if this company's using Google's image search as the backbone? Is it possible to do that? With an API or something? See https://developers.google.com/image-search/
75
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: April 10, 2013, 12:28:00 PM »
Good link, Jerry. Thanks.
On the same site, the info on the link below is also worth reading and relevant to the current discussion:
http://www.stopgettyimages.com/attorney_scott_t_wilsdon.htm
On the same site, the info on the link below is also worth reading and relevant to the current discussion:
http://www.stopgettyimages.com/attorney_scott_t_wilsdon.htm
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. |