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 - newzshooter

Pages: [1] 2
1
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anybody mind?
« on: September 21, 2011, 12:45:57 AM »
Mike,
This isn't just a professional issue for me, my daughter is a registered member of a tribe so it's personal, as well. Unfortunately, I've had run ins with these types before.

2
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anybody mind?
« on: September 20, 2011, 09:04:22 PM »
According to a human rights group, they are the real thing. I refuse to be scared of idiots like this.

3
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anybody mind?
« on: September 20, 2011, 06:55:43 PM »
Non-profit doesn't necessarily equal fair use.
All four factors of the fair use balancing test must be weighed.
It could easily be claimed that it hurts my "brand" by being on a racist site.

4
Getty Images Letter Forum / Anybody mind?
« on: September 20, 2011, 02:58:51 PM »
Found a photo of mine on a "patriot"/white supremacist website. It's kind of ironic considering how much this site touts their knowledge of the Constitution.
Anybody mind if I go after them or should I just send a cease and desist letter followed by a "reasonable" demand of $50-$200?

5
Bekka,
The cameras used on Apollo 11 were far from simple "box cameras" they were Hasselblads, which were the cameras of choice for NASA for years.
In fact the "moon cameras" were specially made to operate on the moon. The lenses were made by Carl Zeiss and were also specially designed for the lunar expedition. Neither Hasselblads, nor Zeiss lenses are inexpensive, even today. I own some Zeiss designed lenses, they are among the best ever made and I paid a pretty penny for them.

You are missing the point. A unique image that no one else has is more valuable than an image that appears on 9,000 websites.

My guess is that you are an engineering type person. For you everything is a linear process, and there is no deviating from the process. If all a picture does is "sit there", then why have it at all? It should be eyecatching and draw the viewer's interest. There's a reason companies often have an art department, it's because bean counters and engineers can't see beyond there own boxes.

6
So, who decides what an image is worth? You?
If you want a generic, Walmartesque image, I suppose a $30 will work for you.

On the other hand, if you want a unique image that very few companies have, you'll need to pay more. A lot more. If you want an image that no other company has, you'll pay more still. Exclusivity is pricey, along the lines of $10K or more.

For the most part, a photo from the stock agencies isn't going to help set your company apart from your competition.

If you want the best wedding photos, you'll pay for them. The same holds true for every other type of photography and these aren't people with a $200 point and shoot or dslr picked up at a local Best Buy. Top notch equipment costs money, and that equipment wears out, meaning . Training costs money. Advertising costs money. Insurance costs money.

The people making money on $30 images probably aren't making a living at it, unless they've got thousands of images for sale and rely on bulk sales.

Like anything else, you generally get what you pay for. If prints made at Walmart do the trick for you, there you go.
If you need custom work, or something unique, expect to pay for it. $30 isn't goning to do anything to set you apart from your competition.

7
I actually do fact finding before I take any action. I want to make sure my ducks are in a row and I have bulletproof arguement before I notify an infringer.
In fact, I mentioned in another post, I believe, that I have one where there is one intitial infringement and 14 vicarious ones. I spent several hours last night rechecking. The total now stands at 26 vicarious infringements.
So, using a rights managed price calculator, I should have been paid $905 for a two year license, based on the number of impressions, size and distribution of the image. In a twist of irony, every image has the original infringer's file name listed in the file info.
Now multiply $905 times 27. The total is $24,435. That's for actual damages, not statutory damages.
Now, mind you, I offered to settle with the orginal infringer for just $3,000. The CEO of the company told me to take a flying f--k.
I wonder what his attorney is going to say about his refusal and statement when the complaint is served on him. I'd love to be a fly on that wall.
Suddenly, $3,000 looks like a much more reasonable offer. I tried being a firm "nice guy" with this company, but now it's time for some hardball.

8
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is this plausable??
« on: August 24, 2011, 02:13:47 AM »
You could have a problem with this clause:

504 (3) (A) In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.


9
Actually, Righthaven is a completely different breed of duck.
While Getty, Corbis and others have been representing photographers for years, Righthaven represents no one but itself. It makes no effort to create its own content, which Getty and Corbis both do, it merely purchases rights for the sole purpose of suing for infringement.

10
Nemen,
You really seemed focused on equipment, but I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with you over it. If you've actually got what you say you've got, good for you. But, if it's the wrong type of equipment for the type of work you claim to do, then why buy it?
It just doesn't make sense. It's like buying a set of SAE wrenches when your working on something with metric bolts.
As I've stated at least twice before, you seem to have a real problem with reading, I never judged you on your equipment. I merely asked why you would use a stock image if you were a professional. Your answer appears to be "because my camera is too big".
Alrighty then.
As for being angry at you, nope, not in the least. I find you rather amusing with your rabid rantings throughout the forum.
As for me naming my website, or giving my real name, not a chance. I'm not foolish enough to open myself up to a spam attack or hate mail from people like you.
Nor am I foolish enough to operate without insurance, including liabilty and IP insurance. If my site is infringing on a patent (highly unlikely) then my IP insurance will cover my butt. If someone trips over one of my light stands and breaks an arm, I'm covered there, too. As a matter of fact, I even carry libel insurance in case someone sues over something I write.
Since you only work for profit, doesn't that make you greedy? After all, it's all about the money. Maybe that's why you are so angry, you like making money, but you hate spending it. Reminds me of a certain Charles Dickens character.

11
@ Soylent

I think we will see the number of images registered as a collection (bulk) drop a bit. I registered about 500 images in one shot not too long ago, and got a notice from the copyright office requesting that in future registrations I supply a list of image titles with the registration. Right now, they are only making it a request, but I have a feeling it will be a requirement before too long.
It will add another step to the registration process, along with adding more time to complete the form. On the positive side, it should clear up any questions about ownership of an image, strengthening a copyright holder's claim while reducing false claims and BS litigation.
For me, it will probably force me to cut down the number of images I register at once, I'm figuring on about 200 or so in a collection from now on.
I don't know how it will affect Getty or the other stock sites, I suppose they'll have the money to pay people even though it will drive their labor cost up.

Righthaven has singlehandedly f-upped the legitimacy of actual copyright holders in this country. Because of them, anyone who pursues a claim is automatically assumed to be a troll.

12
@Nemen-

Oooo, name calling! Hit a nerve did I? You know, in a judged debate the person who loses emotional control loses the debate.
Anyway, since you are such the expert in farming, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the difference between a disc, a spring tooth, a harrow, a roller and a moldboard plow. My guess is you don't know the difference between a swather and a combine, either.
I find odd that you'd call yourself a pro based on the equipment you claim to own. Last I checked a professional is one who earns a living with his/her gear.
But another question begs to be answered, if you are so good with your 5DMkII, what the hell were you doing with a stock image on your site? That’s really not adding up. You should be able to get the image you needed yourself, after all you’ve got many “tele and wide angle lenses”.
My average settlement rate? Better than 90% Why? Because in almost every case I've had a registered copyright.
Considering you have no obvious basis in which to judge my intelligence versus the intelligence of any given CEO, I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that they are 100 times smarter than I.
I'll give you a little background, though. I am an award winning journalist. I've received local, state, national and international awards for both my photography and my writing. I've received recognition for editorial writing, crime reporting and religion reporting and breaking news, among others. On the photography side, I've won for breaking news, sports photography and feature photography. In addition to newspapers around the country, my work has been featured in magazines, scholarly journals and advertising, as well as on sites such as NPR and CNN.
On the more artistic side of things, my work has appeared in galleries and artists have used some of my work as the basis for their paintings, most recently in Australia. I shoot a very limited number of weddings per year, about four on average, and get paid well for them. My signed limited edition prints sell just fine, thank you. I also donate limited edition prints to groups and charities I support, they often bring in over $1,000 at their auctions.
In addition donate my time by mentoring high school journalism and photography students and giving talks to grade school kids, along with shooting portraits of 4-H and FFA kids and their animals at our local fair each year for a nominal feel. Basically I charge the fair enough to cover costs.
So, when was the last time you did anything charitable?
As I stated before, you seem to have a problem reading, I never stated my photography business failed, another business I purchased failed. Not because of my lack of photography skills, but because of the economy taking a dive and a dishonest employee making of with thousands of dollars. That ex-employee is now behind bars.
I think your reading problem might have had something to do with your little infringement issue. I think you might have missed some text stating “Image may be subject or copyright” or “All rights reserved”.
Up until about four months ago, I dealt with an average of two infringements per year, hardly conducive as a business model. In the past five months alone, I’ve had to deal with four, including one that involves 14 vicarious infringements of the same image. A company took it, and then allowed it to be used on 14 other sites. Excuse me if I think that’s a bit over the top. $20,000 doesn’t even come close to actual damages.
In your world, people wouldn’t even be able to brag a bit about their successes.
As for stumbling across this site, I was researching infringements, when I found it. Being curious, I wanted to see why demand letters were being called extortion letters.
To an extent, I think the stock photo companies may be going over the top a bit, but I understand why they are heavy handed. People do not respond to “nicey nice” letters. Let’s face it, fear motivates people.
From the sound of your anger and hatred for anyone defending their work, I’d venture a guess that you aren’t in the least bit apologetic about infringing, but are angry that you got caught.
You wanted to use something that belonged to someone else that you didn’t pay to use in order to make a profit for yourself.
And you call me greedy?

13
Katerina, I tried sending "nice" letters at first, but they were often ignored. Now I send out a DMCA notice, which includes a cease and desist phrase, along with a demand for payment/offer to settle letter that is much more blunt.
The letter points out the facts of where the infringing image is and, if possible, when it was placed on the site. It also lists when the image was originally uploaded to my site, the date it was copyrighted and the copyright registration number.
My letters also mention the statutory damage maximums for both willful and innocent infringement. Since most of my infringements have been by for profit entities, I make it understood in no uncertain terms that I will argue that the infringement was willful.
Unfortunately, coming off as a jerk and using threats works better than being a nice guy. I know, I tried.
As you and everyone else here knows, large corporations can be a pain in the a-- to deal with, their attorneys even more so. So I really do understand your pain on that point.

14
See also: Vexatious litigant.

Glad I'm not one. I only deal in facts that I can back up with proof when it comes to infringerments.

Katerina, like it or not, there is no requirement to place watermarks or copyright notices on images. As a matter of fact, if someone wanted to put full resolution images on a webpage with no protection, they are perfectly free to do so, they would be stupid, but it's the copyright owner's choice.
As a matter of fact, I don't put watermarks or notices on most of my images (I do on one site only). I think they are ugly and detract from my images. I want people to see the photo, not some ugly blob in the middle of it. I do put lower resolution images online, I disable right click downloading (a popup opens with a copyright warning if someone tries right clicking), I have a copyright notice on each image page and I began loading copyright/contact info into the exif data of each image about a year ago. All are reasonable and prudent measures.
Yet, people continue to infringe. I've come to the conclusion that, no matter what, there always be people who don't care about copyright.
It's a catch-22, I need to have people see my photos in order to make a living, but at the same time by having those images viewable, they are also vulnerable. There is no foolproof way to display photos and have them fully protected.
What would you have me do?

15
Yes, SG, the correct term is piracy, but my candy bar/Ferrari analogy is quite true. Perceived value/perceived risk. People are more inclined to take part in illegal behaviour if the item in question appears to be inexpensive and the risk is perceived to be low. "Oh, it's just a little item, it won't hurt anyone if I don't pay for it."

I realize I come off as though I think every infringement is willful, but I do think there are some innocent infringers. Most are kids and other individuals who don't think things through. But, I know that my daughter had to read and sign an internet policy form in junior high, high school and the three colleges she attended. All included an explanation of copyright, so I think a lot of kids "know" but don't think and I think that, at some point there won't be any excuse for anyone over the the age of 16 to say "I didn't know." (Which is normal, if I recall my teen/young adult years correctly. A bit fuzzy there.)

On the other hand there are others who have no excuse for infringement.
Website designers are at the top of the list. They want the lowest cost/highest margin possible and some will infringe to keep profits up.
Anyone in the media or publishing. (Except maybe the janitor.)
Artists, writers, musicians.
Lawyers.
Anyone or any entity doing business on the web. I find it ironic how many infringers have a copyright notice on their sites. Yeeesh!

Pages: [1] 2
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.