SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2127282930313233 LastLast
Results 751 to 775 of 808
  1. #751
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This should probably have been posted on the Corbis thread. Let's keep the comments on the right track.

  2. #752
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i am sorry but all three previous post by me related to this was posted on this thread. thank you for pointing me to corbis thread. for your kind info i am not a regular sitepoint visitor i came to know about this forum from web search.

    thank you.

  3. #753
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You should contact Ultravertex and claim the money from them as they supplied you with a stolen image under false pretenses.

    [edit]Ah, you can't, they've gone. Did you get it direct from them or via Template Monster?
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  4. #754
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The UK Copyright, Patents and Designs Act 1988 states the following

    Section 98.—(1) If in proceedings for infringement of copyright in respect of which a licence is available as of right under section 144 (powers exercisable in consequence of report of Monopolies and Mergers Commission) the defendant undertakes to take a licence on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, settled by the Copyright Tribunal under that section—
    (a) no injunction shall be granted against him,
    (b) no order for delivery up shall be made under section 99, and
    (c) the amount recoverable against him by way of damages or on an account of profits shall not exceed double the amount which would have been payable by him as licensee if such a licence on those terms had been granted before the earliest infringement.

  5. #755
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Tristana. Booler's pointing to correct thread helped me and the client used services of limeone.

    StuckRUs, yes they are ghost company. The image downloaded was under direct subscription of ultravertex.com, template monster refered as they were providing ultravertex free subscriptions as a bundle with their templates.

  6. #756
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Advice to all...

    If you live in the UK and have received a letter/email/telephone call from Getty asking for payment for copyright infringement:

    DO:

    1. Complain to Trading Standards immediately stating that you have received a very threatening demand for money and believe it to be an illegal scam. If you are any doubt that this is a scam, then take my word, IT IS!
    2. If the invoice is charging VAT and has a) A US address and/or b) No VAT number, then report them to UK Customs and Excise. This is highly illegal.
    3. Remove your site from the Waybackmachine. Both Getty and Picsout use this to get information. Inform the Waybackmachine that you have removed your site and tell them why - they frown on companies like Getty abusing their free resource.
    4. Ignore all posts from photographers on this forum. They have no advice to offer you.


    DONT:
    1. Contact Getty in any way. Ignore all correspondence. If you have already spoken to them, and have not done so already, dispute the invoice and deny all responsibility.
    2. Under no circumstances pay them any money. If you have already paid them, report them to the trading standards and write to them stating that if they don't refund your money you will report them to the police.
    3. Speak to a solicitor. In my experience (like most others on this forum) is that advice is bad, conflicting and generally designed to maximise their own income rather than resolve your issue.


    In the [very] unlikely event that Getty do take you to court - fight them! Legally, they do not have a leg to stand on!

  7. #757
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good post!

    I am not a lawyer but this looks like good advice to me.

  8. #758
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you are any doubt that this is a scam, then take my word, IT IS!
    Would you care to explain why anyone should take your word for it? As a new poster you could be the guy who works down the chip shop and swears he's Elvis for all we know.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  9. #759
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    StuckRUs wrote:

    "Quote:
    If you are any doubt that this is a scam, then take my word, IT IS!

    Would you care to explain why anyone should take your word for it? As a new poster you could be the guy who works down the chip shop and swears he's Elvis for all we know."

    StuckRUs,

    I think you hit the nail on the head! Everlast is Elvis!

    He didn't really die of an overdose, just went into hiding, took an anonymous identity and new career (in my specialty): Latrine Law.

    Elvis, from your speed read of all 758 posts, and exalted expertise, pray tell:

    If I were to publish some actionable libel against a large corporation on a list such as this one, and were invited to leave that list by the owners, what should I do?

    A) Crawl back in my hole and replenish my legal fund against future need?

    B) Get back to work on that Primary School Diploma thing?

    C) Set up a new anonymous ID and refresh the list's supply of misinformation and malicious speech?

    Should I worry that the owners could be subpoenaed and compelled to disclose the actual identity of 'anonymous' members?

    How much money should I reasonably expect the site owners to spend in defense of my anonymity?

    Why are you so down on photographers? Without their profession, you'd have to create your own photos, and this site wouldn't even exist!

    Just a thought, but if you were to go public with your true ID, you'd have a hell of an infringement case against the Elvis Impersonation industry!

  10. #760
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Please everyone, do not respond to him. If you ignore him he will go away, which is the best thing that can happen because he has nothing to contribute to this thread.

    666 why don't you go and take a few pictures and leave us to it?

  11. #761
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Everlast, 100% agree with your post No 756. Booler, 100 agree with your post No 760.
    I have been following this since Sept 06 when I had the first Getty demand letter and was worried till I found this tread and looked further in to the legitimate aspects of their letters and claims.

    I infirmed Getty that I had proof of obtaining the image from another source, they ignored my letter and still sent more letters and an email. It is now 4.5 months since last contact from them. (cos I have not wasted any further time replying to their scam)

    Having already lodge complaints/information with the following, PLEASE anyone who get these letters in the UK contact:-
    Trading Standards, the DTI, HM Revenue & Customs both in the UK (there is a live case open on this issue) and Eire and even the Police if Getty and Co keep harassing you.
    The demand letters and NOT legitimate/legal. Information on this is clearly listed in this thread.

    There are have been articles in The Guardian and a podcast from .Net magazine http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/podcast that is worth listening too and then PLEASE email .Net with your story/comments.

    Lime One also look like they are doing a good job.

    To any new people that get these letters, DON'T PAY, DON'T PANIC, read this thread and follow/act on the information in it. (of course if you did steal the image from Getty, then tough, but it seems to me that 95% of the people here did not)

  12. #762
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  13. #763
    Just Blow It bronze trophy
    DaveMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Posts
    7,251
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Warning to everyone - this thread is starting to get out of control. Please keep the discussion civil. If that cannot occur, this thread WILL be closed immediately.
    Dave Maxwell - Manage Your Site Team Leader
    My favorite YouTube Video! | Star Wars, Dr Suess Style

  14. #764
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,478
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, please. Keep it civil.

    Remember what our parents taught us. If we have nothing nice to say about someone (persons, not companies), don't say anything at all.

    Man, I miss the innocence of youth.

  15. #765
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Closed

    Just an update - My UK client has not heard anything further from Getty after they sent them a recorded letter stating:


    Dear Sirs

    Ref: Case No. XXXXXXX - Date

    We have received an invoice for £XXXXXX for image
    reproduction - after taking professional advice we strongly dispute
    this invoice for the following reasons:

    1. The images mentioned are not being displayed on our current website

    2. We have not received any communication from you regarding this
    matter other than your invoice, which is against the DMCA (DMCA 1998
    Section 512).

    3. We have no idea where they came from (a website designer many
    years ago) and were unaware they were not free to use

    4. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) states:
    "97.—(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown
    that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and
    had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to
    which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages
    against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy."

    5. Finally:

    "It is an offence under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice
    Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to
    harass of debtors with a view to obtaining payment including the
    issue of letters which convey a threat or false information with
    intent to cause distress or anxiety."

    We therefore fail to acknowledge your letter or the invoice as legal
    or lawful.

    If necessary we will contact the Dept of Trade and Industry, Office
    of Fair Trading, Camden Trading Standards, Watchdog and anyone else
    who will listen if we hear from you again.

    Yours faithfully

    etc



    strangely a month after they got their letter I also got one - I had used an image (and purchased license) for a clients website - once launched I featured a screenshot of the homepage which had the image (fairly large) within it plus a detail of the screenshot with the image in it on my portfolio page.
    I pointed out same points above as my client and I have had an email stating my reason has been accepted and no further action will be taken.


    Also guys - when posting to this thread copy the below at the end of your post and remove the asterisks - this will help others searching for this info.

    [*URL="http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902"]Unauthorised Use of Getty Images[*/URL]
    [*URL="http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390902"]Getty Images[*/URL]

    it will display as my signature does below:

  16. #766
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Update

    and again!
    Last edited by danners25; Feb 23, 2007 at 04:31. Reason: more links!

  17. #767
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SallyM View Post
    I'll bet you any money that this is a journalist 'flowering' a story on the basis of a Corbis letter or a web site owner being a bit alarmist. This article does not support the claim that Corbis is taking anyone to court nor does it provide any evidence of such.

    Sal
    As I suggested, Corbis aren't taking anyone the court. The journailist has now changed his story to read "Now Corbis is threatening a web site for using one of its photos without paying .... "

    Sal.

  18. #768
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's his amended story from http://www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/comme...tray-copyright

    Now Corbis is threatening a web site for using one of its photos without paying, having detected its watermark. There’s nothing wrong with the picture technically, but it’s hard to imagine anybody actually using it if they knew they’d have to pay for the privilege. Corbis says the picture is worth over £1,000 and has sent lawyers’ letters to that effect.

    Legally, Corbis is in the right. In reality, it is painting itself into a corner, because no web designer will ever pay that sort of money for a stock shot. But once they realise how Corbis polices the internet, they will start making darned sure they use free clipart.

    And in the public mind, I suspect, Corbis will start to be seen as a rapacious parasite, giving nothing to the creative artist, and ambushing unsuspecting home page designers. We’ve seen what that sort of tactic does for the RIAA, which has been suing teenagers for thousands of “lost” dollars on CD downloads; a PR disaster.

  19. #769
    SEO/SEM Unkn0wnPlayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    240
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt. Baboon View Post
    They don't cost that much. Sounds like they are only charging that much to the ones they bust. But I wonder how exactly they are "scanning" the Internet for the images? Doesn't seem like a feasable task to me.
    This is my line of thought as well.

  20. #770
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've read a lot, but not all of this thread, and i have many questions (maybe just comments) regarding this whole fiasco.

    First, and foremost, as permission must be explicitly obtained from the owner of the photo or copywritten material, i find Getty's use of the waybackmachine or archive.org incredibly ironic. Simply by mirroring a site that contains a copywritted photo, a website would be liable (under getty's view of law). This in fact, is no different than the client assuming the webdev took care of all the Copywritten stuff when he designed the site. Could the waybackmachine be sued because it mirrored my site, which had a getty photo on it? They essentially downloaded it off my site and put it on their site, just as I downloaded off Gettys site and put it on mine. (hypothetical question - i didn't steal an image)

    Furthermore, is a non-local link illegal? I realize that this is a hot topic currently, but is a web company that writes a story and then instead of downloading the getty image to their server simply links to getty itself or someone else's server, violating the law?

    Either way, Google images could be in for a massive class action suit by every person with a camera and a brain. One of getty's licenses states that you cannot alter the photo in any way: simply cropping, or even rotating! is illegal under the license. Google images almost certainly profits more than any e-commerce site that any webdev here runs simply by resizing/scaling (altering) and providing them for anyone.

    Basically, this boils down to Google Cache, The way back machine, and any ad based organization using, although not explicitly stated, copywritten images to make money. I've never had a problem with a 16 year old having a picture of coldplay on her myspace page. No problem with a blogger, who is paying for his own hosting and not making a dime, throwing up a picture of Kobe Bryant. I do have a problem with someone taking an imagine, and making money but this is ridiculous.

  21. #771
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello,

    I have received a message on my answerphone form Moreton Smith International yeaterday, and also a letter today saying that I owe them £13.000 which includes a £1000 interest. I have never received a letter form Getty images, which they claim they sent to me in June 2006. I only use images on my site I have taken myself. When I did my web design course 5 years ago, I may have used images form Getty, as we had to create a website as a part of our course. I have used this website as my portfolio of work, but have taken it down last year. I have never made any money from it. Basically at the course we were told we can use any image as it has an educational purpose. In any case I do not know which images Getty is talking about, as I have never received any letters or screenshots from them. I am really distressed right now, I simply do not have the amount of money they are asking for. Not sure what shall I do next?

    Please help

  22. #772
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know this will be a bit daunting but the first thing you should do is to go through this whole thread. There is enough informaiton here to allow you to make a decision about what to do.

    I am actually involved in the Corbis thread but from memory I understand that if you tell Moreton Smith that you are contesting the invoice then they can do no more about it. Having said that you better confirm this first.

  23. #773
    SitePoint Addict StuckRUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Basically at the course we were told we can use any image as it has an educational purpose.
    Yes you can but only if the place you learned was signed up to a copyright agreement and even then it depends on what is in the agreement. It also usually means that the particular item in question should be trashed when your course is complete.

    Is your copying legal?
    Colleges are very much in the business of copying for the
    purposes of preparing and producing teaching and learning
    materials for learners. Is this copying legal?

    Yes -

    If written permission has been obtained from the owner of the right to copy the materials.

    If copying falls within the regulations of a licensing agency to which the College subscribes.

    If you have a legal defence, for example “fair dealing”.

    No -
    If you don’t have permission, don’t have a licence from an agency or don’t have a legal defence.
    The problem is few College staff have any idea that this is the case unless one of the Faculty heads pushes this info out to them. When I did it at the College I used to work for I had a queue at the door for a week as staff came in to register and clear stuff.
    SMILE! everyone will wonder what you're up to.
    Site - under construction - again

  24. #774
    Theoretical Physics Student bronze trophy Jake Arkinstall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lancaster University, UK
    Posts
    7,062
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think that if it's used for educational (therefore not advertisement or business) purposes, then it should be stripped from copyright, as long as it's only on printed/slideshow media, not online.
    Jake Arkinstall
    "Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel;
    Sometimes its enough to make that wheel more rounded"-Molona

  25. #775
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, the problem is my portfolio was online, as it was a website, and the school was encouraging us to keep it online, they even had it on their website for a while.

    The other problem is I don't even know which images caused this problem, as I haven't received any communication from Getty. It was all passed on to Moreton Smith, without me realising this was all going on.

    I have emailed www.limeone.com yesterday, and will call Moreton Smith tomorrow to tell them I haven't received anything from Getty so far. Will also call the Trading Standards to report the situation. I hope this is the right thing to do. I simply don't have the almost £14.000 they are asking me to pay in full. It is all very worrying, and I feel I will lose out, as my portfoli was online.


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
  •