Getty Images and scented trees update.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Someone inquired about this case, so here's a quick update, looks like they are still making their way thru discovery.. I have not downloaded any of the documents, as there are many, and I'd rather spend my money on more relevant items..but if something juicy comes along I will certainly grab it..

Minute Entry for digitally recorded proceedings held by telephone before Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles: Telephone Conference held on 4/27/2012. The court has received and reviewed plaintiff's  status report and defendant's  response. Magistrate Judge Peebles believes the issues raised are not yet ripe for court determination. Parties are directed to negotiate further regarding the outstanding discovery disputes. Judge gives plaintiff's counsel permission to file a motion after good faith efforts are made to challenge the confidentiality designation. Next telephone conference is set for 8/21/12 at 3:00 PM. Defendant's counsel is directed to initiate the call to Chambers. APP: Ashley Hayes, Esq., Jonathan Hudis, Esq., Roberta Bren, Esq., Ed Colbert, Esq., Michelle Marsh, Esq., Douglas Nash, Esq., Christopher Robinson, Esq., and James Rosenfeld, Esq.. (FTR Recorded). (sal, ) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Thanks for the update!  Hope they give them a good taste of their own medicine.

[Oscar Michelen]

Just updated about this on another forum topic

[Oscar Michelen]

Here's an update on the Car Freshener v. Getty lawsuit. Getty's initial motion to dismiss was denied in 2011. Car Freshener's lawyers have written the court complaining that Getty has refuse to provide initial discovery that would let them know if they have the right entities or if others have to be brought in. They also allege that Getty has been difficult in revealing the exact relationship they have with their photographers. They are also objecting to certain documents they want that Getty wants to label confidential. The court has authorized them to file a motion if they cannot work these issues out with Getty. Getty responded to that filing by of course denying they were being difficult and stating that CF's lawyers are asking for  burdensome information which they cannot retrieve (like they want every image that has the tree, a portion of the tree, an obscured view of the tree, etc etc) They said they are willing to continue to try and resolve these issues with CF's lawyers. They are also fighting over where to take the deposition of Getty personnel.  Getty wants it done in Seattle and the plaintiffs want it done in  NY.  Both sides agreed that having a settlement conference in front of a federal magistrate would be helpful.  One of the sticking points it appears in the settlement talks is that Getty wants to be able to continue to sell the images. The terms of this proposed on-going business agreement appear to be what's holding up the settlement. The court set August 21, 2012 at 3PM as the time for the next court conference. The documents can be viewed on PACER. The case is pending in the Northern District of NY under Index No. 09 cv 01252.

[Matthew Chan]

Well, dang Oscar.  Just come in here out of the blue and show everyone up with your bang up summary, why don't you?   

[SoylentGreen]

Great, concise explanation by Oscar!!
It's like one is (legally) sparring expertly in a dojo, then the master arrives, and an awed silence befalls everything...

Here's some analysis that I also enjoyed reading regarding the case.
It explains possible rationales for dismissal in terms of copyright/trademark infringement cases.
http://jiplp.blogspot.ca/2012/02/difficulty-of-early-dismissal-of-trade.html

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

Oscar moved his excellent comment about the scented trees from the Tejas Research thread to this topic, so I'll move my question over too...

Does this mean any image Getty sells that may have a copyrighted item in it anywhere could be trolled by the copyright owners? For example, a picture of a Barbie® or a picture of a man playing with a Frisbee®?

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-doll-dressed-as-beauty-queen-high-res-stock-photography/BA16947

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/hand-of-free-style-frisbee-player-royalty-free-image/124360264

I believe Wham-O owns the registered trademark for the brand name "Frisbee®", which Getty uses with a lowercase F in the description, as well as the mechanical patent for the ridges on the edge of the their flying disc design, which cause the air disturbance known as the "Bernoulli effect" which is exactly why a real Frisbee® flies so righteously while all the wannabee flying discs totally suck.

[SoylentGreen]

The scary thing is that technically, it may apply to everyone, not just Getty.

From the article that I posted above:

"...the decision seems troubling because of the chilling effect it could have on future copyright holders. Such a precedent would gum up the creation of these photographs and their sale. The worry would be unintentionally capturing trade marks in such common photographs as streetscapes and being subject to litigation by some of the most litigious participants in the market."

Additionally, here's a case wherein Chrysler got sued because a street mural accidentally appeared in one of its commercials:

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/03/chrysler-settles-with-graffiti-artists-over-j-los-fiat-500-ad/

S.G.

 

[SoylentGreen]

I suspect that "Car Freshener" wants the contracts as part of the discovery so that they can go after the photographers also.
Now, the war also turns on the artists.  It was bound to happen sooner or later.

S.G.

[lucia]

... as well as the mechanical patent for the ridges on the edge of the their flying disc design, which cause the air disturbance known as the "Bernoulli effect" ...

No. No! The ridges don't cause the Bernoulli effect. Like dimples on a golf ball they trip transition to turbulence and delays prevents flow separation. (Flow separation is often bad.  See http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0215.shtml for golf balls. Separation also causes stalling of airfoils and a number of other things.)

Ok... You may now go back to legal issues.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Phew, Now  I'll be able to sleep tonight! 

... as well as the mechanical patent for the ridges on the edge of the their flying disc design, which cause the air disturbance known as the "Bernoulli effect" ...

No. No! The ridges don't cause the Bernoulli effect. Like dimples on a golf ball they trip transition to turbulence and delays prevents flow separation. (Flow separation is often bad.  See http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0215.shtml for golf balls. Separation also causes stalling of airfoils and a number of other things.)

Ok... You may now go back to legal issues.

[Moe Hacken]

... as well as the mechanical patent for the ridges on the edge of the their flying disc design, which cause the air disturbance known as the "Bernoulli effect" ...

No. No! The ridges don't cause the Bernoulli effect. Like dimples on a golf ball they trip transition to turbulence and delays prevents flow separation. (Flow separation is often bad.  See http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0215.shtml for golf balls. Separation also causes stalling of airfoils and a number of other things.)

Ok... You may now go back to legal issues.

Lucia, you must be a player! Freestyler? Ultimate? I love anything that has to do with chasing the bee. I can make a frisbee fly much more accurately than a golf ball, that's for sure! In fact, I should sell my clubs and switch to Frisbee golf.

Thanks for the physics lesson, what do I know anyway? I got the wrong impression from reading stuff like this: http://web.mit.edu/womens-ult/www/smite/frisbee_physics.pdf

Anyway, Lucia, getting back to our core topic, I'd like to personally thank you for all the knowledge you've shared with the forum about protecting our server from bad bots. I've set up the trap and have been snagging one every couple of days, at least. The other day I realized I had blocked Copyscape when I tried to use their service to see if a client's site had duplicate content issues. I guess their crawler doesn't have good manners, so they're red-carded unless I need to use the service, at which time I can take down the IP block.

The one thing I'm still doing that's a little primitive is handling the IP blocking manually. I want to check each bot before I block it to make sure I'm not excluding a bot I need. For example, some SEO services like Alexa use crawlers to keep statistics on a server, but usually the ethical vendors warn you about the visits and ask you to whitelist them so they can do their work. That's pretty much asking for permission and I'm good with that.

I'm building up a fairly extensive list of IP numbers. I've been ignoring the user agents because they lie about those all the time anyway. The other day I caught a very rude comment spammer pretending to be a generic IE browser. So rude.

To all new members, search on that Google bar up there for IP blocking or simply for Lucia's posts. There's a great wealth of knowledge. You don't have to let the bandwidth hogs crash into your server — there's a lot you can do to mitigate that problem and in my humble opinion it's worth the time and effort.

P.S. Buddhapi, you're funny. Respect the mighty Frisbee®, it's the ONLY ONE that works!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Have no fear, I respect the "Bee" and was quite an avid player in my youth, most people don't even realize they come n different weights / sizes for different uses..
Lucias post are well worth the read for those technically inclined, and if they have access to their servers, but I have a feeling most aren't and don't.. I've been pretty much successful with blocking bad bots as well..What I'd really like to do is not just block these bandwidth hogs, but send them back to their own servers in some sort of loop...that would be nice..

[Moe Hacken]

I've thought about that too, Buddhapi. In theory, if you point a link right back at their server the bot should follow that and go crash THEIR server. Or maybe a link to the Getty images or HAN homepage. However, I'm sure the crawler knows not to go bang into those servers. Maybe a link to the DHS cybercrime website? I bet they'll find some stock images there.

Should I post the IP numbers I've gathered so far? I know most people don't maintain their own servers, but maybe they can ask their webmasters to look into these prophylactic tactics. I'm amazed how often these things bang into my root directories!

[lucia]

Lucia, you must be a player! Freestyler? Ultimate?

No. I'm a mechanical engineer with ph.d. My area was fluid mechanics. I know what the Bernoulli effect is and I know why ridges and dimples are put on things.  I knew that was just wrong.  (Bernoulli's principle is involved in Frisbees. It just not why the ridges are there.  If you go to this page:
http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5

Look at the images of Level flight , climb and Stall. Notice the frizbee image on page 4 of the MIT article you sent looks like "climb". At this angle, the air flowing over the top of the airfoil is faster than the air below and so the pressure is low. That permits lift.  On a wing, if you incline more, the boundary layer will separate.  Boundary layer separation results in that big recirculating region that looks like a "bubble" on the image called "stall". This screws up lift and interferes with the Bernoulli effect you want to occur.   The ridges on the frizbee inhibit boundary layer separation. Bernoullis is involved, but it's not caused by the ridges. )

Thanks for the physics lesson, what do I know anyway? I got the wrong impression from reading stuff like this: http://web.mit.edu/womens-ult/www/smite/frisbee_physics.pdf

What they say is right. But... you just went a bit too far.

Anyway, Lucia, getting back to our core topic, I'd like to personally thank you for all the knowledge you've shared with the forum about protecting our server from bad bots.

YW. I have to get my plugin out. I had a few people testing because I want installation to be easy. The plugin will be for WP, but when it's available others can use it too. (It's only useful if you use Cloudflare for content delivery. But that's free.)

I block Copyscape-- absolutely. I block any and all crawlers that have bad manners and I even block some with good manners who don't do anything useful for me.  I have nothing against SEO services, but they just suck my bandwidth to sell info to other people. I block them.

I do try to not block useful bots, but when in doubt, and it's new, I block.  If I permit a bot, I try to first look up it's true IP range.  So for example, if it claims it's from google but it's not, I block it.  Huge numbers of googlebot spoofers come out of brazil! They aren't google.

If you are using php scripts, I strongly recommend ZBblock to catch lots of stuff. You can easily add all bots, IPs useragents etc you don't like to the customsigs.  But the fact is, Zaphod who write ZBblock keeps track of a lot of this.
http://www.spambotsecurity.com/forum/

It's not especially useful for static sites though. (You can organize to use it on static sites-- but by making the site dynamic. If your on very cheap hosting you might not want to do that.)

But you could organize things to better identify bad bots who visit by adding ZBblock to your bot trap. I have a dynamic robots.txt. Heck, I even ban bad bots who visit robots.txt!