Carreon's Butthurt proves to be too much as he drops suit.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Well it appears that all of the pressure, Internet coverage, bad publicity, his wife's mental meltdown rant and the fact that the EFF joined in the fight proved to be too much for Carreon. It was announced yesterday in this article on the EFF website that Carreon has dropped his lawsuit against the oatmeal creator Matthew Inman. Here is the link to the article

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/charles-carreon-drops-bogus-lawsuit-against-oatmeal-creator

[lucia]

Rule #eleventy-zeventy about intimidating lawsuits: If the plaintiff can raise $20,000 for charity in 1 hour,  he will not be intimidated by your lawsuit and some big law firm will volunteer to defend him pro-bono.

[Moe Hacken]

Great news, Greg, thanks for posting the link!

I propose that "the Streisand Effect" be renamed "the Carreon Butthurt Syndrome."

[stinger]

Not just a win for Oatmeal, but a big win for charity.

I keep trying to wrap my brain around how we can use charity fundraising to put a big Butthurt on Copyright Trolls everywhere, but alas my feeble brain can't seem to get me there.

Anyone have some ideas?

[Moe Hacken]

Awesome thought, stinger. Allow me to throw a few bolts into the brainstorm.

We could start a Victims Defense Fund Against Copyright Trolls to piece together a class action on behalf of people who are receiving ridiculous, extortionate letters demanding money and refusing to provide proof of ownership.

We could start with one vendor as a way to "send a message" to the other copyright trolls. Getty and HAN come to mind because they are the most egregious offenders we've seen, although it's hard to measure without applying a consistent standard. I'm sure each of us thinks the worst offender is the one that's attempting to mess with us. No one needs this crap in their lives.

We could use part of the fund to advertise on the social networks for people to sign up for the class action, pretty much like the ads you see now seeking people to join a class action against any product that has caused reckless harm to the general population.

Such a class action could be lengthy and expensive, but the best part would be the fact that the trolls themselves would add people to the list (and possibly donations to the fund) by continuing to send letters attempting to "scare" people into compliance.

I will again state that I am perfectly sympathetic to the plight of the copyright owners who are earnestly defending their intellectual property, but ardently opposed to "scare" tactics and trolling for profit with disproportionate and fatuous claims.

Having said that, the campaign could also involve an "image buyer's education guide" component to let people know their rights and their responsibilities as "copyright users". That way innocent infringement should be mitigated so that people don't commit unforced errors, and the trolls can have open season on people who refuse to comply knowingly and engage in real, bad-faith image theft. We have to make it clear that we don't care about those kind of people and we're not defending them from the trolls.

[stinger]

I like it Moe.  Victims Defense Fund has emotional appeal and using it to fund a class action suit to put a serious hurt on Trolls should strongly motivate the followers of this forum.

One key question is, Do we have the critical mass to get this off the ground?  Oatmeal had a large following and he engaged them by using the very reason they follow him.  He made fun of the situation and demonstrated that the situation could be a threat to him (and the reason his followers read him).  That meant that a high percentage of his readers got interested in helping and making a donation.

In my case, my readers are techies who usually are not in business for themselves.  Getty, HAN, et al are not necessarily a threat to them, but might be a threat to their companies.  But these firms usually don't go after good sized businesses.  And, if they did, it's not a "going out of business" threat.  How do we get them to feel as emotionally about this as those of us who have had our livelihoods threatened by the Trolls?

April's readers are people putting on auctions.  Will they feel strongly about Trolls?  Besides ELI readers, where can we find ways to emotionally connect outsiders to our cause.  We don't want this to steer money that might have gone to ELI to our class action fund.  I think we want a larger source of funds.

What Oatmeal did really well was to use the David/Goliath story to endear people to a philanthropic cause anyway - the money was eventually going to charity.  He was only going to borrow it to take a picture.  That made it almost a no lose situation for his readers.  They get the tax break of a charitable contribution and they  get to have a little fun by helping David slay Goliath.

I feel like we are on to something good here, but are missing an element or two that might make it truly successful and status quo changing.  Anyone have other ideas to contribute?

[Moe Hacken]

stinger, thanks for pointing out something I grievously left out of my brainstorm.

The education component of the Victims Defense Fund would be ELI. A portion of those proceeds SHOULD go to fund the expenses and efforts of Matthew and Oscar in keeping this forum alive and well. We can make that very clear. I don't see how that would be a conflict of interest in any way.

Matthew has raised the issue of financial support several times in the short time that I've been reading this forum. I can understand how it frustrates him and Oscar that they put so much of their time into helping others and some of the beneficiaries turn out to be cowardly, ungrateful whiners who want to shirk off their responsibilities on someone else and won't even pony up fifty bucks for a coaching session. Those people deserve to pay the extortionate amount, get dragged into court, or have to run and hide. You know the old saying about taking a horse to the water.

The audience problem is a real one. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. We need the money to put together the social network campaign, but it's hard to get the money without the social network campaign. Some of us may have blogs with audiences that will be sympathetic to the appeal, but many of us (myself included) are self-employed businesspeople who do not usually engage a wide media audience. I generally tell all of my friends and contacts about this problem, hoping enough of them will listen for their own protection. I still see many of them committing unforced errors daily on Facebook and other social networks, and even on their own blogs.

So I'm with stinger, I'd like to hear some ideas from other members of the community. This will work best if we can pull it off as a group.

[stinger]

I do like the ELI component Moe.

I am interested in Matthew and Oscar's opinion of this.

I also am wondering if there would be some way to tie this activity to the Israeli class action suit.  In other words, hit them on two fronts at once.

[SoylentGreen]

Here's some discussion from May 2012 wherein Matt weighs in:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/eli-currently-exists-based-on-annual-agreement-between-matthew-oscar/

S.G.

[stinger]

S.G. I remember that post. 

Somehow I thought the financial component that Moe brings up might have changed the picture a bit.  If we can figure out how to make this important enough to raise real money, and some of that money is sent to ELI because it handles the "education component", I thought that might change Matt's mind some.

However, Moe and I have not solved the issue of how to make this important enough to enough people that they donate money to be used only in this fight against Copyright Trolling.  We still have work to do, but it would be helpful to know how Matt would feel if we had Oatmeal type donations.

[SoylentGreen]

Matthew Inman's fundraising success seems to be a result of an issue that went viral.
He's a bit of a "folk hero", and the donations went to nonprofit philanthropic organizations.

What's being suggested here as it stands now is something quite different.
I don't think that anyone actually intended to litigate in the case of Inman/Carreon et al.
In our situation, we do not have a "folk hero" or "victim" that could be the sympathetic "face".  Most of us are fighters.  That could change, though.
Furthermore, I don't feel that fundraising in order to litigate would be seen as "philanthropic".  I don't know whether such an effort could be legally registered as a nonprofit.

The regulars here would like to see a class-action against the major trolls.  We agree on that.
The real crux of this right now as I see it, is the question of whether such an action should come about organically, or if a formal business should be set up that will fund-raise and then litigate (if I correctly understand the ideas presented here).
A valid argument can be made that when some victim becomes angry enough, he/she will file for a class-action and seek out others that are similarly angry enough to join, much as Ian did in Israel.  That's an organic process.
Conversely, setting up what's essentially a business that would market, pr, fundraise, administrate and litigate might work, but it would be much more time-consuming, costly and risky.

Just some thoughts.  Perhaps, Matt will comment again... we'll see...

S.G.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I think that it is a great idea while I tend to agree with S.G. that this is not the same issue but if you are serious about trying to raise funds for a suit against Getty or a major trolling player you might see if April has some ideas or input.  I have no idea on how you would go about setting up the account(s), getting the word out etc but she might be a wealth of information.

@Matthew
Perhaps this might a topic to throw out ideas for an ELI Factor Show.  If we could get you, April and Oscar along with the regulars we could bounce out some ideas and could find out how feasible they are along with what would stand the best chance of going after Getty for.  Just a thought.

Not just a win for Oatmeal, but a big win for charity.

I keep trying to wrap my brain around how we can use charity fundraising to put a big Butthurt on Copyright Trolls everywhere, but alas my feeble brain can't seem to get me there.

Anyone have some ideas?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

@ Regulars

I have made a suggestion for this to be possibly covered on one of the new ELI Factor shows Matthew will be doing but if you all are serious about this I would be willing to help in anyway I can.  What would you think about trying to arrange a conference call where we can throw out ideas and discuss it in real time.  It will be an issue to find a time where all who want to attend are able and I would suggest final and actual  "Call-In" arrangements/information be handled via PM.  We would not want to post the call in number and time so Getty could sit in and listen in claiming to be a user name on the forum.

Let me know what you think and if enough are interested I will try to arrange it.

S.G. I remember that post. 

Somehow I thought the financial component that Moe brings up might have changed the picture a bit.  If we can figure out how to make this important enough to raise real money, and some of that money is sent to ELI because it handles the "education component", I thought that might change Matt's mind some.

However, Moe and I have not solved the issue of how to make this important enough to enough people that they donate money to be used only in this fight against Copyright Trolling.  We still have work to do, but it would be helpful to know how Matt would feel if we had Oatmeal type donations.

[SoylentGreen]

I think that one should be careful not to put the cart before the horse, so to speak.

While money could be raised, important questions need to be answered first, including what people really hope to accomplish.
A lawsuit is a methodology, but it shouldn't be the "goal" in and of itself.
Other things need to be addressed first including; what actual laws have been broken, what the proof is, what are the actual damages, who the plaintiffs will be, and so forth.
In the event of a "win", does it change law, or the industry?  Or, do the winners simply get a piece of paper, and the likes of Getty carry on the next business day as usual?
Additionally, a major "loss" for our side would hurt our cause. 

Oscar is quoted as saying that there may not be a practical basis for a Getty class action:

"(4) Every so often (certainly two months don't go by) a class action lawyer or firm contacts me expressing interest in taking this on.  I provide them with all the info, another hour discussion on the phone, redacted copies of the letters, etc. And then hear nothing.  This happened as recently as a few weeks ago.  No response yet from the  last lawyer.  I am not allergic to making money or handling controversial cases or taking on the big guys. My track record proves that I have done all of those in the past and currently continue to do so. If there was valid way to bring a class action for this conduct, I would have done so years ago or one of these firms, who do nothing but bring consumer class actions. Barratry requires the litigant to have no claim - these companies do have a right to protect these images. It is not harassment to try and collect for an infringement; it is their methods and demand amounts that are just overbearing and  disturbing.  But as always I am open to suggestions so please tell me what would the basis be for a class action; what is the illegal conduct they are engaging in that gives rise to a claim?  I will be the first to sign on to bring the case myself!"   

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/oscar-to-ask-attorney-gen-of-ny-to-investigate-masterfile-evidence-available!/

There's much to consider before making efforts to raise funds for a lawsuit.

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

Maybe Getty isn't the optimal target. Maybe HAN or PicScout are better targets. The former for abuse of process by intentionally leveraging abandoned copyrights to extort money under the color of right, the latter for violating Fourth Amendment rights by collecting evidence that will be used in the extortion to threaten criminal charges without having a warrant or court order to do so.

Please revisit this thread and read the commentary by the law professors regarding the asymmetrical state of copyright law and why the professors believe the situation is disconcerting because the trends have shown that the party with the money is able to bully the smaller party due to their advantage in legal know-how and financial resources:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-for-sale/msg9609/#msg9609

This is the opinion by the law experts from Berkeley; it has some very relevant points about copyright and trademark trolling. The juicy stuff starts on page 29, under the subheadline "Intellectual Property":

https://bspace.berkeley.edu/access/content/group/e675b947-6067-425e-adbf-10e8922547b9/03.%20Jan%2030_Alex%20Stein%20-%20The%20Relational%20Contingency%20of%20Rights/RCR_1_18_12.pdf

Thanks for posting the legal opinion, scraggy. I think it's a great read and provides some nutritious food for thought.

To address S.G.'s very good question about setting goals, the idea would be to make deep and permanent policy change in copyright law to achieve a more level playing field. This comment in the legal opinion explains exactly what I think needs to change:

Enforcement organizations are repeat players in the copyright arena. As such, they can produce “cease and desist” letters and court briefs at a much lower cost than their adversaries, and then leverage this advantage into a favorable settlement. These settlements economize on litigation costs, but they also stunt the development of fair-use, misuse and other copyright defenses, as courts are increasingly denied the opportunity to consider these defenses. A corollary cost of this dynamic is that it sweeps problems under the rug and thereby prevents policymakers from adopting corrective measures. After all, disputes that have been settled privately between the parties rarely make policymakers to do list.

Once there is an opening to change policy by creating case law in the U.S., and supported by the class action in Israel, the respective authorities such as the US Copyright Office could be approached to help change the policy which will force the industry's "enforcement organizations" to chill their bully tactics and engage in protecting copyright in a civilized manner — if they're still interested after the profit motive and the automatic trolling technologies are taken away.