SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 27 of 33 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 675 of 808
  1. #651
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Papipaulforrest I also think that the Wayback machine is a tremendous asset but I have removed all of my sites from it since this happened to me. I do not knowingly infringe copyright but Corbis (not Getty) have sent me a bill for almost £2.5K (GBP) for using a shopping cart graphic which they claim is theirs. As far as I remember I got the image from a third party site whose software I once featured, but I cannot honestly remember.

    I have done an audit of all of my sites and my clients' sites and as far as I am aware all of the remaining images are legally accounted for, however I have removed all of them from the Wayback machine because I cannot afford to take the chance of this happening again. You are right to be concerned. This could have very serious consequences for the Wayback machine.

  2. #652
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I will reiterate that I would be open to people contacting me/Internet Archive about this kind of use. My email is paul@archive.org and you can call our main number and probably get me. We would like to try to deal with this, but we do need a bit more information from people who have had this happen to them using the Wayback Machine. I keep information confidential.

  3. #653
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Paul, it may be hard to determine if the Wayback machine was actually used in any action.

  4. #654
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hi paul and booler,
    Getty have yet to indicate whether they have gleaned any info or data from the wayback machine however i am using it against Getty because some of their old pages refer to different license terms and different prices. So the archives are to me like a double-edged sword.
    Getty have still to send me some essential detail to prove their case i.e the date the image was created.
    Although you can win and lose cases based on e-mail evidence it is only in circumstance were the recipient of the e-mail does not dispute the contents of the e-mail. As getty are denying the contents of an e-mail i sent them i cannot prove those were the contents they received - all i can prove is that they had an e-mail from me.
    in my submission getty have deliberatly flooded the net with their images for the sole purpose of trapping the unwary. It is a scam which i hope the courts recognise. So far 127 downloads of my public domain/free images have taken place which i intend to show to the courts is the essence of gettys scam.
    Getty have said they will dispute any s.97 defence because to allow it would mean anyone can copy their images and try to rely on it. My answer to that is yes because they have deliberately set up an enviroment where this is possible. Sites selling licensed software require user log-ins, payment up front etc before a user can download the software (or alternaively have restricted for 28 day trial use etc) getty do not adopt this industry standard procedure because by doing so it would ruin their scam i.e anyone can right click or unwittingly cache their iamges.

  5. #655
    SitePoint Member Yika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Go Danny

  6. #656
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the thread has gone quiet, anyone got any updates?

    I have no further information to give at this moment.

  7. #657
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't have any news either. My second deadline to pay was Monday, 15th of January. I faxed B&M telling them I had written to Corbis Images asking for title of ownership and then wrote to Corbis again. So far no reply from either.

    B&M didn't send me an invoice. All I have is a licence agreement, with no address, no VAT number, no registered office, nothing that makes it a legal document. It only says: "payment is voluntary", ha ha ... what a joke!

  8. #658
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Paulie_A - My last correspondence from Getty was by email on Oct. 2 where they offered a 15% discount. I have not heard anything from them since.

    I check on this thread once in a while but really don't have anything to say.

  9. #659
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello all, I've been quiet for some time; however, here is a status on my case. I received my first letter from Getty in September 06. I received my second letter in October 06 followed by a telephone call attempt. Getty left a voice message and I have simply ignored all contact attempts. To date I have not received any additional correspondence from Getty.

  10. #660
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good feedback JaredS!

  11. #661
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1 st letter in June, 1 Phone call in July, 2nd letter in Sept. 1st letter from collection agency in Oct. In Nov i sent a verification letter with a 30 day expiry, to date have not heard anything else.

  12. #662
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,495
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cool. If the collection agency tries to contact you again regarding the debt, you'll have them in one heck of an uncomfortable position.

  13. #663
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    verification letter?
    Can you explain what you mean by this?

  14. #664
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, I've just came back from seeing another solicitor (this is the 3rd I consult) and he's said the same thing as the others. Settling at this stage will be cheaper. My bill is just under 1,300.

    If they take me to the High Court, they will be seeking legal costs plus court costs, etc. - bill will be somewhere in the region of 30,000 if found guilty of copyright infringement (my image is the same as the image Corbis claim as theirs, I have no hope of a "not guilty" outcome). On the positive side, I will not get a criminal record.

    Disputing matters is a bit of a gamble. He said I can question the ownership of the image but Corbis do not have to provide me with any kind of proof before I get the court notice. I can also question the outrageous fee and write to them marking "Without prejudice - save as to costs" offering to settle the matter for the license fee. The drawback with taking this approach is that, if my offer is not accepted and B&M carry on working on this matter, their legal costs will increase.

    Whether the copyright or the exclusive licensee of the copyright of the image belongs to Corbis Corp or Corbis Images is irrelevant. He said all they need to do is sign a piece of paper and backdate it. Apparently, this is perfectly legal and normal practice. Again, the more I make B&M work, the more I will end up paying.

    He mentioned that it would not be cost effective to take my company to court because there are no funds to settle the bill but Corbis may just do it to prove their point.

    So, here I am. Feeling low and disgusted with the system.

  15. #665
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tristana you should perhaps have placed this on the Corbis thread.

    However, I have been in touch with a legal company in Manchester who sent B and M a letter on my behalf. They say that they are representing more than 20 companies/people who are in the same boat. I understand that they are considering a joint action in defence.

  16. #666
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Booler, can you post the name of these solicitors?

  17. #667
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  18. #668
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Booler, thanks very much for that! I will email them today.

    So far, the three solicitors I have spoken to only seem to agree in one thing: the 30k for the High Court. One said I will get a criminal record, two said I won't. One says Corbis has to prove the image is theirs, another doesn't know and the third says they don't have to show anything until they take me to court.

    My accountant says the license agreement isn't a legal document but the solicitor I saw this morning says it is and can be used to enforce payment. Yet, the other solicitor I spoke to two weeks ago advised me not to sign it and ask for proof of ownership.

    Fed up with hearing contradictory things everytime I ask the same questions.

  19. #669
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Booler View Post
    Can you explain what you mean by this?
    see post like 217 or such on page 9. If you are in the UK you will have to see if UK has a similar law. I am in the states.

  20. #670
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fed up with hearing contradictory things everytime I ask the same questions.
    The problem is that it does not yet seem to have been tested at our level. I don't think anyone will really know where we stand until it has and that includes most lawyers.

  21. #671
    SitePoint Guru Webinsane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montenegro
    Posts
    897
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    Good Luck guys!


    Getty is getting down on business. luckily I never had any experience with it.
    CUBE SCRIPTS MEDIA
    REAL ESTATE SCRIPT 1.4 | Software for Real Estate Agencies
    INSTANT UPDATE CMS 4.2 | NO template system! NEW VERSION!

  22. #672
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tristina your legal advice totally contradicts the legal opnions i have had. Bascially so long as you ask for some form of proof before action and the plaintiffs fail to provide it then they cannot claim legal costs if you subsqeuntly say well i would have settled it had i known for certain those images belonged to corbis particulary were it is possible that simply paying them without proof would not prevent someone else subsqeuntly turning up asking for damages for the same images.

    I too have sent an e-mail to the manchester solicitors asking to be part of the joint defence.

    i am convinced that the majority of UK solicitors are only intrested in the routine money-spinning cases which are clear-cut from the start. (or at least only involve an issue of fact) In an area as legally complex as copyright infringement they know they will have to spend more unbillable time researching areas of law they are not normally accustomed to dealing with. I fear the legal research may have to be left to either ourselves or solicitors acting for a group defence.

  23. #673
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Danny, I totally agree with you. One of the solicitors I spoke to said the same thing: ask for proof of ownership and query the amount they are claiming. That's exactly what I have done. It's two weeks now since I wrote to them and haven't heard anything since.

    The guy I saw last Wednesday said something completely different and quoted me 450 for replying to B&M. That's what's getting to me right now: different lawyers, different opinions and outrageous fees.

  24. #674
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,495
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And that's how you weed out the good attorneys from the vultures, I mean sharks, I mean the bad ones.

    The bad ones just want your money. The good ones will try to help you with the intent of securing your business down the line by establishing a trusting relationship beforehand. The fact that you can take the free knowledge they give you and use it elsewhere is not only a byproduct, but can also be an advantage.

  25. #675
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If nothing else this thread has shown that consulting a lawyer is not always the best option. It's a bit sad really because we laymen put our trust in these people, who are supposed to be professionals. How can so many professionals hold different opinions on this problem.

    (This may also be why it has not yet been tested in court at this level. It seems that no one can tell what would happen.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •