Holly, She is also on Facebook. She write another great article. This woman knows her stuff. Lynnette PS...thanks again for posting that link. Was a GREAT read.
Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide ----- Reply message ----- From: "holly cliffe" <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 11:21 pm Subject: NailTech:: Re: oh no To: <[email protected]> interesting that you are both getting this at the same time. Ya'know, the woman who wrote the article I posted regardng Pinterest copyright issues, is a copyright/intellectual property lawyer.....maybe you should both email her and see if she will help out. Holly Holly Cliffe Nail Design Vancouver, BC On 2012-03-16, at 8:15 PM, Anna Z James wrote: > Well today I too received a letter and apparently a photo I was using on my > site for over 3 yrs now on my site was one of many getty photos....I took > this photo from google. I have a right click protention on ALL of my photos > and not one of them is on google so why may I ask was this one on google? > They are asking for the sum of $ 925 for 1 photo....they can kiss it where > the sun don't shine!!! > > Anna > > T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> One thing no one had mentioned......Getty is a LARGE " company" with the >> rights to millions of photos. >> Why would they not have all these photos where NO ONE can grab them? >> Seems that this is what they want. There are many photos I cannot download. >> That option is not available on many sites. Getty surely can do this. >> In the one article it said that it is unlikely Getty will go after someone >> who only took one. They want bigger thieves. It would cost them more to go >> after you. >> Pinterest is a whole other story. Read the article Holly sent last week. >> Buenos dias, >> Lynnette >> >> >> Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Debbie Diblasi" <[email protected]> >> Date: Wed, Mar 14, 2012 8:43 pm >> Subject: NailTech:: Re: oh no >> To: <[email protected]> >> >> Ladies: >> >> Maggie is exactly right. >> >> Whether or not this case involves the real Getty Images or a scam using >> Getty's name, it's a good caution for everyone to recheck your own websites >> and social media for potential violations. >> >> Copyright violation in regard to online images is a large and quickly >> growing area of prosecution, especially in regard to social media, >> especially Pinterest, etc. Whether completely innocently or blatantly on >> purpose, many people have been "stealing" others' images and articles for >> years and using them on their websites, to promote their businesses on >> Facebook or in ads and in many other ways. I personally know of many cases >> where people and companies cut and pasted others' articles and resold them >> under their own bylines. Word for word. While the small freelance writers >> and photographers don't have much recourse, the larger agencies are getting >> tough. >> >> Here's how some of it happens: >> http://webtechlaw.com/posts/pinterests-hidden-threat-to-its-users.html >> >> >> I also completely agree with Maggie's recommendation. >> >> Best, >> >> Jayne Morehouse >> Jayne & company >> >> >> On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:30 PM, Maggie in Visalia wrote: >> >>> Lauren: >>> >>> First of all: Where did you obtain the photo? Did you know it was a Getty >>> image when you used it? Did it come from a source that lead you to believe >>> it was royalty free and available for your use? If so, then you should >>> write that all up in a fancy letter of dispute and send it back to them >>> asking, essentially, for them to fogive the infraction and call it good, or >>> at least point them at a bigger fish to go after. >>> >>> Even though it is customary to send a cease and desist order, it is not >>> necessary. For any of us who have had our photos stolen, you know how >>> crappy it is. They CAN just go after you. But if you can prove that you did >>> not know it was a copyrighted image, then you have a leg to stand on. >>> >>> There's a number of software options out there now that search the Internet >>> for photos. Several of them are out there for free and available to >>> consumers, I can only imagine what Getty Images has in its arsenal. >>> >>> Taking the photo down does not "un-do" copyright infringment, all they have >>> to do is take a screen shot of the site while it was up and they can take >>> it to court. I'm not sure how far it will go with a judge that sees that >>> the image was removed upon notice, but it's a possibility. >>> >>> Try communicating with the people who sent the letter (once you ascertain >>> that it is legit) and see if they are reasonable before you panic. >>> >>> Maggie Franklin: >>> Owner & Artist, The Art of Nailz, Visalia CA >>> "Visionary rebel dreamer; obviously way ahead of my time." >>> Maggie Rants [and Raves]@Nails Magazine >>> Facebook >>> >>> >>> From: Jill in Ky <[email protected]> >>> To: NailTech <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:24 AM >>> Subject: NailTech:: Re: oh no >>> >>> Now that you've taken it down, that should suffice. It sounds very >>> fishy, too, cause normally from what I understand they first send you >>> a letter explainin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NailTech" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nailtech?hl=en.
