Messages

46

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got a letter from a "Photo Attorney" who is on Caroline Wrights team

« on: March 04, 2013, 02:49:11 PM »

I wouldn't tell them anything.  Unless it's absolutely necessary.
Keep your financial info to yourself.  They have no right to request that.

S.G.

47

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hawaiian Photographer / Copyright Troll Vincent K. Tylor

« on: February 20, 2013, 12:38:28 AM »

Moe's right.  I smell scamola too.

There were constant denials of "seeding".
But I think that the fact that both father and son both have their content spread far and wide so prolifically is more than coincidence.

Perhaps, Glen Carner saw the danger in this?

S.G.

48

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

« on: February 17, 2013, 06:32:21 PM »

It's not really a scam.
But, it's scam-like in that they attempt to extort a large sum of money from minor copyright infringements.

Masterfile doesn't have to place any copyright or watermark on its images, strictly speaking.
Additionally, they normally charge for a 1-year license+, even if its been on your site for a single day.

Many people offer a small settlement, maybe 200 dollars.
If it's not accepted, then many people simply wait it out.  They keep bugging you for a long time, however.
They're unlikely to escalate this over a single image, and they seem to be busy with bigger things right now.

Be sure to read through prior posts on the forums, MF is well-known on here!

S.G.

49

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Case

« on: February 15, 2013, 04:51:54 PM »

Sounds like HAN/Tylor.

S.G.

50

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Hawaiian Photographer / Copyright Troll Vincent K. Tylor

« on: February 14, 2013, 07:09:31 PM »

If Tylor was successful in his past trolling endeavors, I think that we would have seen his activities ramp up.
We haven't really seen much of that... therefore I feel that his seeding/trolling scheme is/was unprofitable.
It was just too weak and obvious.

Also, it seems to have caused a rift between Tylor and Carner.

S.G.

51

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Getty Demand Letter, part 2

« on: February 14, 2013, 07:04:49 PM »

Even if Timmy was the best attorney on the planet, it wouldn't mean much in this situation.

S.G.

52

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: found on another site

« on: February 12, 2013, 06:48:21 PM »

Personally, I'd take advice from somebody that actaully speaks English. lol

S.G.

53

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

« on: February 09, 2013, 12:12:52 AM »

This is a "win" in my book.
It's likely the end of Marot's bogus copyright enforcement efforts.

From this, one can see that it's difficult to challenge or essentially "undo" settlement agreements.
This should be a lesson for those that are considering settling with Getty, or others.
If you find out that you paid too much, or even that you shouldn't have paid a settlement at all, it's difficult to rectify that after the fact.

S.G.

54

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Remember Righthaven? On appeal, copyright troll looks just as bad

« on: February 09, 2013, 12:08:25 AM »

Thanks for the update..!
I was checking on this periodically, also...

It's rather odd that a bankrupt company that owes thousands to defendants in court judgements can still hire lawyers and litigate.
It begs the question as to whether Gibson should be held responsible for any losses instead of the insolvent Righthaven.
"Righthaven" continues to litigate, but is essentially judgement-proof.  This sort of thing has to stop.

Too bad that the judges in the original cases didn't deem their decisions "with prejudice", so that Righthaven couldn't give it another go.
After all, the material facts of Righthaven's "legal standing" wouldn't change after the fact.

I wish that Hoehn and DiBiase would have bought the rights to the news articles that they were being sued over.
Sure, Righthaven/Gibson could make the argument that they didn't own the copyrighted materials at the time of the alleged infringement.
But, Hoehn and DiBiase could say the same about Righthaven.  That would have been funny.

S.G.

55

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Attempts to Squelch Settlement Agreement & Release

« on: February 07, 2013, 01:46:40 PM »

I want to hear more about Randy Taylor's/CSI's homebrew "copyright office".
You know, the one wherein you can "guess" which images are "orphaned" on the Internet and claim them.



S.G.

56

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Defense League Attempts to Squelch Settlement Agreement & Release

« on: February 07, 2013, 12:25:53 AM »

It's very rare for these conflicts to be an actual matter of law.
So, the battle is over the dissemination of facts via the social media platform.
We win every time by using the true facts and with persistence.

S.G.

57

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Topic: "ELI After Dark"

« on: February 04, 2013, 07:02:32 PM »

I doubt that copyright's an issue.
Rumor has it that it's from the Great White North.
Bill-C11 allows "mash-ups" of copyrighted materials.

S.G.

58

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Topic: "ELI After Dark"

« on: February 04, 2013, 04:55:13 PM »

Linda Ellis educates us about copyright and "The Dash":



S.G.

59

Legal Controversies Forum / 'Dead Drops’ : an anonymous, offline, peer to peer file-sharing network

« on: February 01, 2013, 08:05:32 PM »

'Dead Drops’ : an anonymous, offline, peer to peer file-sharing network

http://deaddrops.com/

"‘Dead Drops’ is an anonymous, offline, peer to peer file-sharing network in public space. USB flash drives are embedded into walls, buildings and curbs accessible to anybody in public space. Everyone is invited to drop or find files on a dead drop. Plug your laptop to a wall, house or pole to share your favorite files and data..."




S.G.

60

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: "Copyright law is in place to protect artistic expression, not individual ideas"

« on: January 30, 2013, 06:38:17 PM »

Thanks for the response, Greg, and also for referring to the very relevant Gentieu case.
Yeah, I'm familiar with that one.  Brutal.  It really shows the risks that go with litigation.
Sometimes, the decisions and concepts seem counter-intuitive.  But they protect freedom of expression.
But, what a balancing act.

S.G.