Messages

16

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court

« on: June 08, 2013, 12:09:03 PM »

"law enforcement agencies"?
What the hell are you on about now?

So, they sent over the "bobbies" with their little helmets and billy clubs to your "flat" in Croydon ?
Next, they ran around like keystone cops to find out who "stole" your snapshot?

Holy shit.  Get a life.  Also, post the correspondence here so that we can verify your story.

S.G.

17

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Thoughts on my Response to Getty Images. Next step.

« on: June 07, 2013, 05:06:47 PM »

With regard to DvG's posting; it's fairly detailed, but pretty flawed.

In fact, DvG sounds a LOT like that Helpi/Photographer person that used to troll on here with that "strict liability tort" horseshit.
While it IS a "strict liability tort", the plaintiff MUST PROVE that he/she owns and has registered in the content in question in the US.
Next, there'd have to be a foray in court.  The plaintiff would have to "win" to have any hope of getting a settlement.
THEN, and only then comes "liability".  Please DO NOT put "liability" before "Proof", lest you look like a filthy troll.

Without a valid, correct registration with the US Copyright office, neither the owner of the content, nor Getty stands to gain much at all.  Period. 
Additionally, keep in mind that even if "exclusive rights" are conveyed to Getty, SOMEBODY has to properly register the content in question, otherwise there's nothing to be gained in court, or otherwise.
Keep in mind that Getty has lost in the past because of non-existent registrations, and faulty transfer of rights.
If they can't prove that they own the content outright, or have the actual content owner enjoin the suit, they lose every time.

If you intend to sue in a US court, US Copyright Law supersedes Berne.
It's my understanding that US infringement claims are decided by a judge, and not a "jury".

IF Getty or anybody else refuses to provide proof of registration to a US resident accused of infringement, then it's simply "copyright trolling".
End of story.

S.G.

18

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Re: Canadian firm monitoring illegal downloading for court cases

« on: May 13, 2013, 05:06:55 PM »

Very sorry... forgot the link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/05/12/downloading-anti-9iracy-canada.html

S.G.

19

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A note on photos that are "public domain"

« on: May 12, 2013, 07:35:16 PM »

Some great points have been made here... one often doesn't know where these "free" images come from.
At least if the images were purchased, you have some "proof".
However, there are even stories of past "royalty-free" collections sold by Getty Images that have been moved to their "rights managed" system.
So, word on the street is that people that paid in good conscience are being called "infringers", and are being pestered into paying settlements.

S.G.

20

P2P/BitTorrent Lawsuits Forum / Canadian firm monitoring illegal downloading for court cases

« on: May 12, 2013, 07:27:08 PM »

Canadian firm monitoring illegal downloading for court cases

"Massive lawsuits targeting people who illegally download copyrighted content are common in the U.S., where people have been stuck with hefty fines and out-of-court settlement and now, there's an attempt to bring that to Canada."

"Bill C-11 imposed a limit of $5,000 on damages awarded for non-commercial copyright infringement, which applies to the average consumer who downloads films."

S.G.

21

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 02, 2013, 05:58:51 PM »

aaaarg!!
 

S.G.

22

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 02, 2013, 04:57:25 PM »

I quite agree that Getty would be unlikely to prevail on the basis of a "hotlinked" image.
Additionally, I agree that it would be foolish to pay Getty for such an alleged infringement.

Couch_Potato asked, "When does Getty's behaviour bridge the grey area between legal and illegal?"
I don't think Getty has done something "illegal" in situations like this.
It would probably be a "losing case" for Getty, but it's not a crime for Getty to imply that they "might have a case".
Especially given that one can literally sue over anything.

S.G.

23

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 02, 2013, 03:26:09 PM »

Of course, I agree with Lucia.

My assertion is simply that Getty may legally accuse somebody of copyright infringement.
That's not a "crime" or "extortion".

In fact companies and people accuse each other of legal transgressions every day.
Somebody's always right, and somebody's always wrong.  But, the accusation itself isn't a "crime", or "fraud".

Now, if some actual material facts were misrepresented, somebody paid, that person could prove such, AND they didn't sign a confidentiality agreement, they MIGHT have a case against Getty.

...and yes, I know where this is going... and it's a waste of everybody's time.

S.G.

24

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Settlement demand for images from an RSS feed (gettyimages)

« on: May 02, 2013, 11:18:34 AM »

The fact that "hotlinking" is not infringement lies in "case law", and not actual "copyright law".
Therefore, I think that Getty is entitled their "opinion", even if we disagree with it.

But, yes... Getty is misleading people into paying money they don't owe.
It would be difficult to make a strong legal case against Getty on this basis, though.

S.G.

25

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images in Canada

« on: May 01, 2013, 04:44:14 PM »

Canadian non-lawyer with an opinion reporting in...

We're sort of dancing around the actual facts a bit.

If it's a Canadian corporation, then Getty would have to pursue legal remedies under Canadian law.
If the business is not incorporated they could go after the actual owner on a personal basis.
If this is the case, and you're a Canadian national in Canada, then Canadian laws would apply.

I do not think that it makes much difference which Getty office contacts you, or what bank they use for that matter.

S.G.

26

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files suit over single image

« on: April 17, 2013, 11:48:01 PM »

Suing for "actual damages" against a law firm?
Actual damages wouldn't amount to much money.

We've been beating Getty over the head with the fact that they've never sued sued over a single infringement.
I guess that Getty's strategy is to be able to say that they actually "sued over one image AND won".
Interesting...

S.G.

27

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile price dropped but still high - seeking advice

« on: April 10, 2013, 07:51:14 PM »

I feel that designers should be aware of the pitfalls of copyright infringement by now.
It puts their clients through a lot of trouble oftentimes.  Images are cheap to license these days... why risk allegedly "free" content?
Even if somebody says that something's "free", there's no way for the end user to really know who owns it.

Its common practice for MF and others to give very short time limits in order to trigger the "panic button".
But there's tons of time.  Oscar's program is great for these kinds of infringements.

As for settlements, $1940 is still really high.
If necessary, people should endeavor to settle for between 20% of the demand (low), and 10% of the demand (high)... that's $194 to $388 dollars.
But, only if necessary.

S.G.

28

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Letter: Is this a Scam?

« on: April 10, 2013, 07:42:47 PM »

MF's filed a few Canadian lawsuits in recent months.
It looks as if two of them recently settled out of court.

Enter the word "masterfile in the from:

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_queries_e.php

S.G.

29

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: April 10, 2013, 07:40:20 PM »

Getty's registering the copyrights retroactively?  That's the lamest tactic that I've seen in ages.
Also, many thanks to Jerry for pointing out the recent changes in law in relation to this.
Even before these changes, there was only a narrow window of time wherein something could be "registered retroactively".
Some of you may recall how Getty in particular used to try to play the "registration game" on a regular basis in earlier days.
Oscar in particular made note of the practice.  He was a bit steamed about it.

Before we "side with Getty" on this one, let's be sure that we have all of the facts.
That way, we won't have egg on our face if it turns out that Getty's just as scummy as the alleged infringer(s).
Making copyright registrations after the fact makes me a bit less sympathetic to Getty.

S.G.

30

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got 3rd Getty Letter Now I'm Not Sure

« on: April 10, 2013, 07:28:13 PM »

CowgirlCaz, it's illegal for collection agencies such as NCS to make non-debts in Canada.
I would complain to the Office of Consumer Affairs:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/h_ca02149.html

Also, I would complain to the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, also:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpajump.shtm

Again, it's an illegal practice in Canada, even if the demand comes from the US.

S.G.