ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on July 26, 2011, 10:41:13 PM
-
Oscar brought this brand-new "player " to my attention. It appears attorney Carolyn Wright has started her own law firm and joined "Team Copyright Troll" representing photographer Ryan McGinnis.
This sort of reminds me of how young attorney Brandon Sand from San Diego, made his debut here on ELI with his 5-figure settlement figure.
PhotoAttorney.com's Carolyn Wright has hung herself a new shingle representing photographers trolling the web. I have to admit, she produces a good-looking extortion letter.
http://extortionletterinfo.com/photo-attorney-extortion-letter.pdf
Getty Images seems like a great deal when you compare to Carolyn Wright's generous offer to settle for $9,000.
-
I guess that it shouldn't surprise anyone that the copyright troll phenomenon is expanding.
That law firm should copyright the letter that you posted. That way they can charge royalties if Brandon Sand uses it.
I don't think that any professional should post their work on Flickr, as it's like an invitation for people to just grab photos as clip-art.
Although we all all know that's not a defense.
The photo looks like shite, and it's hardly worth $9000. Love that 'historic concrete' with it's lovely grey patina.
The one thing in common with most other demand letters, it doesn't list anything (that I could see) about copyright registration.
So, it's basically a joke.
S.G.
-
Nice joke for $9000!!!! They are insane!
The more I read things like this, the more I believe that the copyright law MUST be revised! If it will be left in the way as it is now, more and more emand letters will be produced! The government should limit the activity of these firms by requiring sending cease and desist letters first!
Please correct me if I am wrong.
-
At least I've heard of King & Spalding. I would not underrate her.
-
"Nice joke for $9000!!!! They are insane!"
I doubt Wright took the case unless the image was registered. The Court can go up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement. Do you know the facts alleged ?
Anyone have access to the letter mind posting it ?
-
She is indeed very well known with Professional Photographers, I would not take her lightly either, I also believe the image in question is registered with the US Copyright Office, or they wouldn't be asking for so much. My thinking is the price goes up on any registered images, cause they have much more leeway.
-
At least I've heard of King & Spalding. I would not underrate her.
funny that is the firm that represents me
-
Hi All,
I respectfully diagree with the statement that, "I also believe the image in question is registered with the US Copyright Office, or they wouldn't be asking for so much. My thinking is the price goes up on any registered images, cause they have much more leeway."
People ask for as much money as they can, regardless of copyright standing. I's dangerous to equate greed with standing, as every copyright troll would raise their demands in order to look "legitimate".
I always get a laugh when I see the strongly-worded legal demands that quote broad sections of the Copyright Act. All the legal standing that CTRL-C and CTRL-P can muster. After all the threatening legal boilerplate? Nothing. No proof of copyright.
No proof means that you don't pay.
S.G.
-
Greetings S.G,
You certainly make some valid points, and my thinking could certainly be flawed! ( and probably is) My assumption that the image in question is most likely registered stems from the fact that it is stated in the letter, and yes you are correct that this really means nothing and is certainly not proof, I also took the time to search the US copyright site for the artist in question and he has loads of registered images, furthering my belief that this one would be included, why would he go thru the hassle of registering over 1500 images, but not this one??.. I do agree with you 100% that the trolls will seek as much money $ as possible, regardless of the facts or burden of proof..
Hi All,
I respectfully diagree with the statement that, "I also believe the image in question is registered with the US Copyright Office, or they wouldn't be asking for so much. My thinking is the price goes up on any registered images, cause they have much more leeway."
People ask for as much money as they can, regardless of copyright standing. I's dangerous to equate greed with standing, as every copyright troll would raise their demands in order to look "legitimate".
I always get a laugh when I see the strongly-worded legal demands that quote broad sections of the Copyright Act. All the legal standing that CTRL-C and CTRL-P can muster. After all the threatening legal boilerplate? Nothing. No proof of copyright.
No proof means that you don't pay.
S.G.
-
The link to the redacted letter is on the very first post.
I doubt Wright took the case unless the image was registered. The Court can go up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement. Do you know the facts alleged ?
Anyone have access to the letter mind posting it ?
-
Good discussion here.
It may well be that the "$9000 image" is correctly registered.
However, it's prudent to take a few minutes and make a call/email the attorney involved in order to simply get the copyright registration number of the image.
If they cannot provide the info, then you've got your answer... it's a scam.
When one receives a letter from an attorney, it doesn't necessarily mean that the complaint has any merit, even if the attorney has a good reputation.
Attorneys are skilled in their respected areas of litigation, but they are simply paid to represent their client's point of view and interests.
I could pick out any image on the internet, call an attorney and have them send a demand letter to somebody.
I could be making the whole thing up; who knows? Maybe some sucker will get scared into paying?
Now, it's not my intention to make light of the skills or ethics that attorneys must possess, which are indeed higher than that of many other professions. But, it's a 'job'.
We may recall that Riddick of Imageline sent phony correspondence with an attorney's name on it.
The attorney in question didn't even know who Riddick was when inquiries were made.
Now, everything may be perfectly legitimate here. I don't know.
If it's legit, then there's a good chance that a fair out-of-court settlement is the best response.
But, there's a whole industry built around the copyright settlement demand letter scheme and a significant percentage of them have no legal basis.
People need to protect themselves by doing research before making a settlement, or paying large legal fees.
Don't be so naive as to think that there aren't scammers who'll do anything to take your money.
My main concern with this entire situation is that the more that people pay when they do not need to, the more the dark side of this industry grows.
S.G.
(http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/7732/scamalertsm.jpg)
-
Good discussion here.
My main concern with this entire situation is that the more that people pay when they do not need to, the more the dark side of this industry grows.
S.G.
you hit the nail on the head here! Nothing frazzles me more than hearing of people that cave in, and open their wallets..without first getting educated and learning what options are available. the more people pay the more paper and toner they can buy to print their demands!
-
"The link to the redacted letter is on the very first post."
Yes, thank you.
The 1202 claim by the way is independent of the infringement claim. And it requires no registration of the image.
Oscar you might want to educate people on pitfalls of stripping CMI.
-
Matt, you think every case is "trolling" whatever that means. The more I read this board the more I realize online infringement is rampant. Go Carolyn !
-
HELPI,
If you don't understand the colloquialism of "trolling" then go visit EFF's site. They cover it in depth. Online infringement is probably rampant. I find it hard to disagree with that.
But you will never convince me that extorting thousands of dollars per image is the right thing to do. Years back, I found a website that lifted an entire website from me. The only thing they changed was the company name. I sent a strongly worded letter letting them know they were infringing on my material and I asked them to take it down. A few days later, it was gone. Problem solved. I didn't extort any money from them and my problem was solved.
You might even be able to get me to agree to some money from infringement as an inconvenience factor, somewhere in the order of $200-$300 which is Oscar and I have found to be a good balance. But they sucker the dumb and the spineless who actually pay full fare. The smart ones and the fighters pay very little or nothing at all because they refuse to be victimized by this racket.
What the stock photo business is doing is purely a revenue for-profit play that has gone out of control and uses the technicalities of copyright law that were never intended for kind of use that is happening. Hence, Oscar and I call it "legalized extortion" because it is nevertheless legal. And the only way to combat this is through knowledge, education, and a spine.
Just like it is legal for this website to exist to combat and defend against those that take the other side. You want to root for Carolyn, fine. Then maybe you should go join her blog and tell her what a wonderful job she is doing and how you are supportive of it. She will love you for it. In the meantime, she is now being watched and we are expecting more of her letters to show up over time.
This community doesn't just exist so we can just piss and moan about it. There is actually something being built up here. Information exchange is one of those items and sniffing out the truth is the other. Education is also a big component. And make no mistake, there are LOTS of confidentiality agreements employees are made to sign on the "other side" to protect their racket which Oscar and I and my follow ELI cohorts are determine to uncover.
As time goes, more and more info is being leaked out. It gets very difficult to keep everything secret when there are so many players at different levels.
Matthew
Matt, you think every case is "trolling" whatever that means. The more I read this board the more I realize online infringement is rampant. Go Carolyn !
-
Matt, saying of confidentiality agreements. Masterfile blamed my husband that one of their emails to him was posted here on the forum, as they consider this confidential "not a good thing for us". The email doesn't have any secret information, private information, trade secrets, etc. There was no any confidentiality agreement written between my husband and Masterfile. Is this merit? This forum is for education purposes, that's why I used it.
-
what may seem "confidential" to them, may not seem the same to others, just further proof that they are among us and not liking whats said /shown here..
-
yes, it seems like it was the same day when Matt and Oscar got the letter from his attorney. they are reading everything. btw, they revoked their offer to settle down for 1500 because of that :)
SLAPP!!!!!
-
Unless you've signed a confidentiality agreement, then you are not bound to keep the information confidential.
They just don't want people to know what they're doing and how they're doing as it hurts their business in the long run.
S.G.
-
"If you don't understand the colloquialism of "trolling" then go visit EFF's site."
I think I do. But that you are using it so broadly that its meaningless. You seem to use it in any context where you think the amount demanded exceeds the amount you may have paid to license the image if you didn't take it. In other words, for every IP case but seemingly only in the context of a photographers work displayed online. Probably among the economically weakest group of content owners.
"Years back, I found a website that lifted an entire website from me. The only thing they changed was the company name. I sent a strongly worded letter letting them know they were infringing on my material and I asked them to take it down. A few days later, it was gone. Problem solved. I didn't extort any money from them and my problem was solved."
I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know but if you were a photographer, for example, you might define the problem differently. Injunctive relief isn't going to swing it for a lot of people/entities. Incidentally, as you are more educated now then you were then, I'm sure you know that the way to proceed if all you want is the material taken down is to send a DMCA take-down notice to the ISP. That is a remedy that is available in the US to all content owners.
"But you will never convince me that extorting thousands of dollars per image is the right thing to do."
I'm not trying to convince you. You are free to decide it's worth $x and another Jury member $y. Congress has given the Jury all the latitude it needs with a rather broad range between the floor and ceiling. I'm guessing what you actually object to is Congress giving the Jury this latitude. You think you and Oscar are wiser than a Jury, right ? They can't decide a fair award. You and Oscar can.
"You might even be able to get me to agree to some money from infringement as an inconvenience factor, somewhere in the order of $200-$300 which is Oscar and I have found to be a good balance. "
That's very generous of you. Is it only online works that you decide the precise dollar remedy or offline too ? Only photographers works ? Only stock agencies ? What about Disney's IP and the large owners that make the bulk of the money off IP ? Or are you only interested in small content owners ?
But I don't think Oscar is suggesting what you are though he can speak for himself. Again, you lump every case together. Are you suggesting that all cases of infringement should result in an award of $200-$300. If you are I think the Disney IP content will go quickly. Though I wouldn't mind getting my hands on Pixar's work. But of course you're not, right ? I believe Oscar is speaking in the context where "innocent infringement" can be proved. And in that case under existing law the Court can go as low as $200. So again I'll speculate that what you and Oscar want is to remove the discretion from the Court ? You would still have the expense of litigation, proving "innocent infringement" (I assume that's a typical response when caught) and pressure to settle for more. So do you anticipate an Oscar/Matt tribunal where you guys determine (in a cheap and efficient manner, good luck with that) whether infringement is "innocent" and then $200 is awarded ? Or does everyone get the presumption of innocence just by claiming it ? So I can take what I want online and then when I'm caught I send a $200 check with a note that it was innocent ? Or do you get one innocent freebie and the next infringement you don't. How would your scheme actually work.
"But they sucker the dumb and the spineless who actually pay full fare. The smart ones and the fighters pay very little or nothing at all because they refuse to be victimized by this racket."
This is too vague to respond to. You can't lump all cases and talk about them sensibly. On the macro level, I don't understand how your $200 scheme works in practice and to what cases you contemplate it applying to. My best guess is you mean that when "innocent infringement" is proved the Court can only award $200. Not sure where you stand on fees (if they aren't awarded then there is no practical remedy. See, e.g., Oscar at $450/hr). And not sure how, even with a $200 max amount, you avoid the costly litigation process.
"What the stock photo business is doing is purely a revenue for-profit play that has gone out of control and uses the technicalities of copyright law that were never intended for kind of use that is happening. "
But you weren't objecting in this case to a stock agency going after an alleged innocent infringer. You were complaining about a photographer that hired an attorney to go after someone that took their image off flickr (and stripped their CMI). Which struck me as really out there. That's what people do when their IP is infringed. They hire attorneys. Would you prefer a street brawl ? I'm going to make a guess and suggest that you are looking for some compulsory licensing scheme for online usage ? Congress sets the terms and anyone can take what they want so long as the pay the statutory fee ?
The statutory damages scheme was designed to include a punitive element. If the system were you get caught and you pay what you would have paid had you not taken the work then the rampant infringement which you and I seem to think exists would balloon.
"Hence, Oscar and I call it "legalized extortion" because it is nevertheless legal. And the only way to combat this is through knowledge, education, and a spine."
Again, you sort of have me with the following. Someone buys a template in good faith and thinks they have a license. They don't. But when you pull every case into it, you lose me fast.
"Just like it is legal for this website to exist to combat and defend against those that take the other side. You want to root for Carolyn, fine. Then maybe you should go join her blog and tell her what a wonderful job she is doing and how you are supportive of it. "
Matt, I understand this is a mission for you. That it is personal and that it is emotional (a good reason to hire a lawyer by the way) but it isn't for some. Interested in IP issues but zero interest in cheerleading. Nor am I pimping for business.
"She will love you for it. In the meantime, she is now being watched and we are expecting more of her letters to show up over time."
Sounds ominous. Keep in mind certain online loons might misinterpret your words. Do you want to encourage another embarrassing post like the one about the masterfile employee ? I would assume that like most lawyers, she could care less if I cheer her or not.
"Information exchange is one of those items and sniffing out the truth is the other. Education is also a big component."
I would suspect almost all content owners appreciate you informing people that you can't take work simply because it's easy to do despite what someone above suggested about putting it on flickr. And then when the if you put it on flickr I can take it theory bumps up against the reality of a lawsuit they get very angry. If you weren't so attached emotionally you might see some humor in it. And that is yet another reason for readers. It's entertaining.
"As time goes, more and more info is being leaked out. It gets very difficult to keep everything secret when there are so many players at different levels."
Why not just search the federal docket every day and post the thousands of new IP actions. It's all trolling, right ? Why stop with IP though. Search for all plaintiffs in all areas of law.
-
I think that the "copyright trolling" that Matt refers to is simply the act/process that Getty, Masterfile, and others employ to get money that they aren't entitled to.
The "trolling" part is when they make it appear that they actually own the rights to the image(s) when they clearly do not in order to demand large amounts of money that they aren't owed.
That's "trolling": simply finding suckers en-masse who aren't informed and will pay up without much fight. They're "trolling" for suckers... simple as that.
If you pay when you don't have to, then you've been "copyright trolled".
The concept that, "I sell that image, so I have copyright standing" is such a bunch of bullshite.
Here's an analogy that'll help even novices:
Once John McCain used the song, "Pink Houses" by John Mellencamp in his campaign without permission.
So, Mellencamp sued McCain. Mellencamp could do that because he owned the rights to the song.
But, you didn't see Wal-Mart or iTunes suing John McCain, even though they may also sell that song.
They're just retailers; they don't own the copyright and cannot sue for damages.
The same thing applies to Masterfile, Getty and others when they don't own the copyrights to an image.
Or, when they didn't register the image properly.
Helpi, most of your arguments here on this board amount to "they might have copyright standing, so better pay up without a challenge", and "somebody somewhere when to court and lost an IP fight".
But, those positions don't address the trolling methods that Getty and Masterfile employ.
S.G.
(http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4765/maxtrollingsm.jpg)
-
Well said SG, the "trolling" doesn't apply to everybody or every scenario, in the case mentioned in this post the image is most likely registered properly, and they most likely have all of thier ducks in a row. Carolyn is well respected and I still doubt she would use this tactic without having a strong conviction that she could win in a court of law..is the amount over the top?? perhaps, but who knows what this photographer sells his work for?? I'm sure there is enough built into that number to cover atty fees, aggravation fees and some pocket change too.. We know GI sells most of their images for less than 100.00 per license, yet they demand sometimes more than 10x that amount...hence the troll moniker..I also think this is where Matt came up with the 200-300 figure, as it would be much more reasonable, as opposed to " a grab as much we can" scenario..
On another note I've actually had a run in with the NFL with a company I used to work for, they certainly could have filed suit, but instead did the "right" thing and sent a cease and desist..end of story
-
"..is the amount over the top?? perhaps, but who knows what this photographer sells his work for??"
If what she wrote holds up, the floor on what a Jury can return in that case is $750 on the infringement plus $2500 on removing CMI. Her legal fees will dwarf that amount if it ever got that far and legal fees are routinely awarded to prevailing plaintiffs. Also, Matt doesn't like it but it's the law that the Jury has a very broad range on what they can return on damages and they are certainly not tied to what the photographer sells his work for. There is a punitive element to statutory damages. It is intended to deter infringers. Of course, it won't get to a trial. It almost never does. By the time motion practice is over and/or discovery ended there is pressure on both sides to settle.
If you are interested in what Juries are instructed to consider before awarding damages you can check out the 7th Circuits model jury instructions in copyright actions:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/Pattern_Jury_Instr/7th_civ_instruc_2009.pdf&embedded=true&chrome=true&pli=1
Note the last one "deterrence of future infringement" which is unrelated to what was saved or what the image may have been licensed for.
PS, never met Carolyn and have no interest in the case whatsoever. It's not about her or this case (at least to me), it's the mindless lumping of every IP case into the same basket.
-
"they don't own the copyright and cannot sue for damages.
The same thing applies to Masterfile, Getty and others when they don't own the copyrights to an image."
You are correct that it is black letter law that only beneficial and legal owners of the copyright can sue. However, I suspect your idea of what "own the copyrights to an image" means is not consistent with how the copyright act works. Because it is not intuitive that a licensee would be considered an owner.
The bottom line is a transfer of copyright ownership includes not only a straight out transfer of the rights but also an exclusive license. Getty gets exclusive licenses. Righthaven does not.
-
Getty gets exclusive licenses?
Only sometimes. Unless you can prove that all their contracts are exclusive.
Can you prove it, other than some 'boilerplate form' that you found on the back '40 of the 'web?
So, you're saying that people should just pay whatever Getty wants like a sap?
Nice one Helpi.
Getty is just like Righthaven in that it attempts to manufacture standing for content that it doesn't own and cannot successfully litigate over.
While you're at it, tell us more about those new scary "Internet Laws" that are going to get us all.
Don't make me laugh.
Getty should fire your ass, because you aren't getting them much revenue by posting here.
But, nice try copyright troll.
S.G.
p.s. here's your official "Copyright Troll Trophy"; enjoy.
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/912/trolltrophysm.jpg)
-
Well HELPI,
I am flattered you took the time to break down my post and respond in detail. I am going to try to keep this brief for the sake of time. At the risk of duplicating my fellow supporters answers, I am guessing they have followed my posts enough to know in which context I spoke. SG and Buddhapi hit many of the salient points and seem to understand the context of my comments.
My comments are not directed to every single IP issue that is going on. It is true that my commentary is slowly growing to other areas but the main thrust of this forum and this site is most directed to the shenanigans that Getty Images, Masterfile, Imageline, and the folks that support and condone that action.
So when I made that $200-$300/photo comment, it is a generalized comment. I don't have time or the inclination to write about every single circumstance that can happen. Most of the letters going out are hitting small-timers that have caused little or no damages. We are not talking about NBC, ABC, CBS, or some newspaper that lifted a photo by mistake and then mass-benefited from it. Yes, yes, I know the next argument is what is the benchmark, who decides what is too much. Well, if I am the defendant, I have a say in that and I have an argument to make.
I think everyone knows I am not condoning being a thug beating up someone in the back alley, so please let's not insult anyone's intelligence to even bring that up. However, make no mistake, there is an attack and defense.
You don't seem to approve of my emotionality. Well, I can tell you there are times being calm, collected, and rational doesn't work. I'd like to think if people read what I write, they can actually discern or integrate my arguments as a combination of emotion and reasoning. Oscar is more trained and articulate than I am legally. He is certainly classier in writing. I have adopted some "street" attributes intentionally because they are impactful. I am here to deliver a message, not bore someone to tears that they don't listen. You can call it creative languaging or whatever.
I am going to share a story that I think Oscar will be ok with me sharing. He initially did not like my calling this site Extortion Letter Info because the word "extortion" is an emotional trigger word plus we were initially focused on Getty Images. Well, languaging matters if you are trying to make a case and spread the message. Also, my instincts told me that if Getty Images was doing this, there were others out there. So, I stand by my emotionality in the context of extortion letters as practiced by most of the stock photo industry.
But please don't bring in Disney, Pixar, etc. I have never mentioned them nor those situations because, for now, they are outside of the scope of this website. If you are here for purely intellectual discussion of IP issues, you probably need to an academic site. They discuss theory all day long.
ELI is a very practical and focused website. Its purpose is to help victims defend against the extortion letters. Yes, there is going to be some fire in the discussions because no one is trying to be an academic here. People feel they are innocent and they don't deserve to be bullied and here they are.
We don't discriminate at the higher level. Visitors self-select how they want to participate. Many are silent readers. Some contribute money out of gratitude. Some email thanks. Some hire Oscar. Some simply pay because it is not worth the time, stress, and grief of it all. Some employees of the "enemy" come in to watch how the other side think and react. And in one case, John MacDougall, got bent out of shape by what was written about him by one person, he had an attorney send us a letter. The list goes on.
HELPI, I find you a very interesting participant. You make statements which compel me to state things I probably wouldn't state. Not because I have anything to hide per se but more on the lines does it have to be said because it is sort of assumed knowledge. I am flattered that SG and buddhapi would jump in and try to clarify my position. And when I read their posts, they get much of it correct. I respect that they don't speak for me but they do qualify their statements as what they believe I think.
It seems that you are trying to take statements I make in one context and you try to generalize it for something broader than I intended.
Overall, I do find your posts to be respectful although somewhat disagreeable to what ELI stands for and what Oscar and I do in "our spare time". But I must confess you do help generate some good on these forums because of your post, we have more good content being created and written by knowledgeable forum participants for other people to read.
SG listed a number of great examples of high-profile instances where they issued a warning which was very effective. Buddhapi added that "trolling" doesn't pertain to every situation or everyone.
I need a rest now after this rebuttal. :-)
Matthew
-
If you need a reminder, the focus of much of this forum is Getty Images, Masterfile, Imageline, and others that engage in big-time extortion letters that present a colored view for the purpose to instill fear so that they can outrageously profit from it. But at all times, I do remember it is currently legal to do so.
No one is lumping very IP case into the same basket but there are many similar patterns and behavior going on. It is up to each letter recipient to decide how to deal with the minutia of their own case. They can handle it on their own or they can recruit help from others.
PS, never met Carolyn and have no interest in the case whatsoever. It's not about her or this case (at least to me), it's the mindless lumping of every IP case into the same basket.
-
Matt, that was completely non-responsive. One day if you figure out what you actually want and how it would work, you know, practicality, post it.
-
Helpi,
Fortunately, I am not accountable to you. I get it. We (ELI) get an "F" on your report card. But I am not trying to save the world here. I do what I can when I can. That is it. As shitty, ugly, and ineffective as this website might be, it is probably more impactful than what most people are doing. It might actually be more than what YOU are doing but I cannot say for sure as you have not ever revealed your true identity.
If you feel you can do more or are doing more, by all means, share what you have done or launch your own site and show us the way.
I don't claim have to have answers or help to every single situation and scenario. This site has served its initial purpose which was the help defend against my own extortion letter situation. In that regard, that was mission accomplished quite a while ago.
For people who needed insights and information on how to defend themselves pro se, Oscar and I produced numerous videos and wrote many articles and commentary. We get "thank yous" for that frequently. So mission accomplished.
For people who needed formal legal assistance from a high-powered attorney, I found Oscar and he stepped up and we co-designed the letter program he implements today. He has 500+ clients who are happy he broke legal professional protocol of the $300+/hour charge. Mission accomplished.
Awareness and education of the stock photo extortion letter issue continues to expand and our online presence as the leading source for stock photo extortion letters appears to be firmly established as long as we "keep the lights on". Mission accomplished.
This is yet another non-responsive post but it makes me feel good that I can toot my own horn where I took a negative event and created something positive from it earning lots of goodwill and friends along the way. As I always tell Oscar in our phone calls, we owe it to Getty Images for our friendship today.
So, you can continue cracking, criticizing, or be confused about ELI, this community, what we do, and what we stand for. In the meantime, I will continue to muddle forward like Mr. Magoo.
Who knows? When I get tired or bored enough of ELI, I will turn the lights out. I've talked about it both behind the scenes and in public. When I consistently get more shit than sunshine from the ELI project, the lights will go out. My friends will still be my friends and everyone else can go fend for themselves. I promise this website will not last forever. It could be next month or it could be years from now, but ELI will end at some point.
Non-responsively,
Matthew
-
When I get bored I'll leave too. Until then I'll respond to some of the more outlandish posts, including yours (I refer to the Wright post).
-
@Helpi
Can you just answer one question for me directly? Do you have any relationship with the stock footage companies mentioned here?
-
"Do you have any relationship with the stock footage companies mentioned here?"
I've said this before. I have absolutely no relationship with any of the stock footage companies mentioned here. I have no economic interest in any of the matters discussed here. It would be dishonest to not disclose it if I did. I find the issues somewhat interesting. The post about Wright and that case did annoy me because I thought Matt's post was moronic on several levels. And it made me wonder what in the world he actually wants. Does he really think every case of infringement should be settled for $200. No, he can't mean that. He seems to want to limit any damages to the amount it would have cost to license otherwise he thinks it's "extortion". OK. Then say that. At least I'll have a clue what this campaign is about other than banging out $195 letters (not a bad little business). Of course, if he does mean that it's somewhat inconsistent with his statement that he's against infringement. Clearly if the only penalty to willful infringement is to pay what it would have cost you had you obtained a license, we are going to be encouraging a lot of infringement.
I think because the issue is very emotional for some people (understandably) and they need to or want to define everyone as on their side or not. And if they think not they ascribe some ulterior motive (like I represent the interests of a stock agency and want people to pay them, which I don't and I'm indifferent) and they discount what the person says on that basis alone.
Anything I post can be checked by your own sources. And you can make up your own mind. I sometimes have linked to cases, which you can read yourself. I encourage you if you are the recipient of a letter that you are concerned about that you see a lawyer. I don't like people getting bullied without having all the facts and their own lawyer anymore than Matt. I'm not unsympathetic to innocent infringers and if I found myself on a Jury and I thought someone was an innocent infringer I'd have no problem awarding the minimum (the cases almost never go to trial). I'm not backing any particular case and certain cases me be more or less weak. I never once suggested anyone send dime one to anybody because they got some settlement demand in the mail. I find Righthaven's actions in deceiving the court appalling and hope the Judge comes down hard.
-
I think SG posted : "We may recall that Riddick of Imageline sent phony correspondence with an attorney's name on it.
The attorney in question didn't even know who Riddick was when inquiries were made."
That attorney was none other than Carolyn Wright! But let me add this. I have had a number of matters with Ms. Wright who is very well-versed in these claims and is an excellent attorney as well as being a professional photographer. She is also a reasonable person who I have resolved claims with.
Helpi seems bent on making me continually post copyright law here, but removing Content Management Information (CMI) is a separate claim from copyright infringement and exposes the infringer to additional damages, though it may be hard to prove who removed the CMI. Having your name imprinted across the image (like a signature) is CMI. A watermark is of course another form of CMI. Cropping a photo so as to use only that part of the photo that does not contain the CMI is removing CMI as well.
I do suspect however that Carolyn would not make that demand unless it was a registered image. Now if it was registered as part of a compilation then the registration may not be valid to enforce rights for individual images. Thats why asking to see the registrations is important.
-
I'm bent on making your "information site" provide people with accurate information. So that's a compliment then.
-
OK
-
mcfilms,
Thanks for your post.
Let me ask you...
...do you believe that "Helpi" is who he's made himself out to be?
S.G.
-
Nice S.G. Very charming.
-
http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=ryan+mcginnis&court=ohsdce (http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=ryan+mcginnis&court=ohsdce)
It looks like Ryan McGinnis, photographer from Nebraska likes to sue, do we know anything about this case?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/gettyimagesonflickr/discuss/72157612849664574/
Ryan has some funny comments in the above thread, he is a class act.
-
SG -- I'm willing to take Helpi at his word until facts prove otherwise. I actually find it useful to hear the counter position to what is obviously the more popular opinion.
It is interesting he is chiding Matt about thinking the "low" figure of $200 to $300 an image is fair on a thread where the discussion is about a photographer-lawyer copyright troll seeking NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a single image.
The bottom line is, if the stock footage companies were serious about wanting to change public perception and prevent abuse, they would be proactive about watermarking images, providing proof of registration and presenting a reasonable settlement offer. Since they are not doing that and they are pursuing few of these cases in court, it is what it appears to be, a cash grab. And I believe judges will see it as such.
All I can say is I was closing in on spending $1000 a year on stock footage from Getty and iStockPhoto. That money is now spent on freelance photographers and on Pond5, which I understand has no relationship with the trolling companies.
-
"a photographer-lawyer copyright troll seeking NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a single image."
I won't repeat my earlier points about this. Usually settlements are not made public. Recently Jay Maisel (who's a famous photographer) settled for $32,500 for use of one image. Google it.
"they would be proactive about watermarking images, providing proof of registration and presenting a reasonable settlement offer."
No obligation to watermark. It makes the images ugly and it hasn't been legally required for copyright protection in the US since the US went along with the rest of the world when it signed the Berne Convention. (There are still good reasons to put a copyright notice on your work but its a choice to be made by the copyright owner not the infringer). They are under no obligation to lay out their case in a settlement letter (if they don't provide proof of registration after they file suit you can have the claim dismissed. They can refile when and if they register.) Reasonable settlement offers are in the mind of the beholder.
Good morning.
-
From a negotiations POV, I think threatening someone with such a ridiculous amount of money ($9k) is a poor move. Maybe a rookie move by Evan Anderson who is fresh out of law school.
I can't think of too many individuals with 9 large in their bank accounts, thus you put the defendant in the position that they can't settle or they would simply rather take their chances in court. At least with Getty and Master File the amount might be attainable, sure they might have to sell their car to do so, but it's attainable.
It is sad that that blogger caused Ryan McGinnis $9,000 in damages though!
-
http://threatenedbyryanmcginnis.blogspot.com/2011/05/have-you-been-threatened-by-ryan.html#comment-form
Ryan McGinnis is becoming a house hold name, quite the photo hound.
-
@Helpi: "Recently Jay Maisel (who's a famous photographer) settled for $32,500 for use of one image. Google it."
Let's break that down. The original photographer was very famous. The subject was Miles Davis AND the case never went to court. Frankly, the content that Getty claims to exclusively represent has no where near that value.
For those not familiar with that situation:
Baio produced a chiptune tribute to Miles Davis’ classic album Kind of Blue. He licensed all of the tracks and assigned all profits directly to the five musicians on the album. The one thing he didn't do was check about the cover art, a pixelated rendering of the photo on the original album cover. Jay Maisel, the photographer who shot the photo in question, sued Baio for $150,000 per download plus $25,000 for DMCA violations. Baio settled for $32,500, not because he wasn’t convinced he was in the right (this almost certainly qualifies as fair use), but because it was “the least expensive option available”.
In regards to watermarking images, I agree that they are not under any OBLIGATION to do so. However just including a copyright notice on the edge of the image would stop the vast majority of unlicensed use. So although they are not required to do so, there is a solution at hand.
Again, ironically, the photographer in the subject of this thread DID affix a copyright notice to the picture and apparently it was removed and used to promote a marathon. He also registered the pic with the copyright office. Even then, I doubt he would be awarded $9000.00 for this image. However a verdict might be rendered in his favor and the defendant would be liable for all court costs. I can almost guarantee that this will settle out of court.
-
"Let's break that down. The original photographer was very famous. The subject was Miles Davis AND the case never went to court. Frankly, the content that Getty claims to exclusively represent has no where near that value."
I agree that every case is different. Different facts, values, etc... But I don't know what inference you draw from the fact that it never went to court (I assume you mean to trial). Almost no cases go to trial. One could infer strong pressure to settle with statutory damages and possible recovery of atty fees hanging over your head and, at best, an uncertain defense.
"For those not familiar with that situation:"
Thanks for the detail. I'm only casually aware of it, viewed the image and thought derivative work. We don't need to debate fair use especially because I haven't heard it raised in the context of most of the situations discussed here and because it often involves a one-off and you can't draw any grand conclusion. There are better sites for that analysis anyway. I do note the thugs that apparently messed up his building. Disgusting. That's supposed to garner popular support ? What's next, maybe fly a plane into his building. Anyway, his lawyers obviously were not pleased with the risk/reward calculation and advised a settlement. It's sort of a common song the "I could have won on fair use but it's too expensive to try." I suppose if Congress wanted to paint bright lines on what is fair use they could but instead they have always punted to the courts.
"Again, ironically, the photographer in the subject of this thread DID affix a copyright notice to the picture and apparently it was removed and used to promote a marathon."
There are advantages to using the notice. I think photos display better without it. And it is about looks when we're talking about photos.
"I doubt he would be awarded $9000.00 for this image. However a verdict might be rendered in his favor and the defendant would be liable for all court costs. I can almost guarantee that this will settle out of court."
It isn't the court costs that will kill you it's the attorney fees. Yes, one would expect it to settle.
-
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B731czgvHvn9N2Y3ZDgyMzQtYTVjYy00YzY2LThlMjktZTlkMjNiMDkwYjFj&hl=en_US (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B731czgvHvn9N2Y3ZDgyMzQtYTVjYy00YzY2LThlMjktZTlkMjNiMDkwYjFj&hl=en_US)
Looks like Ryan McGinnis and Photo Attorney are filling suit for a single photo against Rentech. Oddly enough it's a photo of Lincoln, NE.
Of course in this instance they are going after a company and in the $9k example they are going after a blogger.
Be interesting to see how this one plays out.
-
So, I just got my letter from Photo Attorney/Carolyn Wright with their $12,000 request for 4 photo's that were NOT taken from their site nor were they cropped as the letter claims, they were found that way. The staff member who copied them found the pictures on general Google picture searches and none were marked as copyrighted. I know that doesn't excuse it.
I've reviewed a lot of information on this site today and would like to know if anyone has any idea of Photo Attorney's actual lawsuits filed? Any information would be nice, thanks.
-
Who is the photographer they are representing?
-
If it's Mcginnins you could be in for a battle.. :(
-
Anyone here know any details about Ryan McGinnis?
Is there anything novel in his approach?
Or, is he just another "Getty Clone"?
Thanks,
S.G.
(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5611/ryancopyrighttrolling.jpg)
-
He's a professional photographer, known for registering all of his images, and apparently has jumped on the bandwagon, by retaining well known IP attorney C. Wright. I wouldn't be surprised if he's using pic scout, as it seems in just the last few days his presence is brought to the surface with at least 1 suit filed and 1 letter sent from his attorney. I did some quick research and see that he has well over 1500 registered images and also a slew of collections registered. While I agree that photogs need to protect their work, I can't help but think this is way over the top and just another case of someone adopting GI business model.
-
Ryan McGinnis is a photographer from Nebraska. He does a lot of forum posting under the name chakalakasp.
Google "chakalakasp + copyright" and you'll get a ton of post by Ryan McGinnis.
Here is his method.
Bing Image search and Google Image search. Search for keywords that might contain your images. (This tends to work best with images of very specific things, of course.)
Google / Bing (non image) search: Search for your name. Search for any aliases you post under, such as your Flickr alias (many times, people will credit your photo, thinking that that's good enough.)
Look through your Flickr stats (if you are a Flickr Pro member). See where people are coming from. Go to those sites and look to see if your picture is there. Look at what keywords people are using to find your images in Google; then go to Google Image search and plug those keywords in.
Try Tineye. I haven't had much success with it, but Tineye does occasionally find infringements for me
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=773253
You get the impression that the guy puts his photos out on Flickr, his blog and on forums, then waits for people to use his images so that he can go after them.
Perhaps he makes more money going after people than by actually being a productive member of society. His advice is almost comical, it's like he could set up his own photo franchising business teaching photographers how to toss their images all over the net and then how to track people down who use the images and threaten them for $12k!
-
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/970/1071/1600/_MG_2291WEB.jpg
http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/lincoln-nebraska-by-night.html
In that pdf that Matthew posted , Ryan McGinnis claims that his image was watermarked and shows the watermarked image on his Flickr catalog.
Check that link out, that is his personal blog with the image in question that he is threatening the one guy for $9k and Rentech Solutions.
As you can see there is no watermark on his own image. That's not going to help his case.
-
Nice work by MikeD. Well done indeed!
This is why everyone who receives a demand letter should check all the facts carefully.
Even if you receive a demand letter from a well-known and respected attorney, do your research.
I'm not implying that attorney Wright was aware of the online existence of the unwatermarked photo, mind you.
But, people make mistakes, people won't tell you everything, and a demand letter is just a "letter".
It's not a court document wherein testimony is "sworn".
I also find it interesting how forum participant "sumtime" mentioned (above) that he/she didn't crop the photos in their case either.
I know that Mr McGinnis has some copyrighted photos.
Now, it's time to really find out if this photo is legitimately copyrighted.
S.G.
-
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1425
Even on the Photo Attorney website Carolyn Wright states that you should register your photos within three months of the first publication of the picture.
I like how she also states that actual damages usually don't amount to much so that attorneys will not take your infringement case on a contingency basis and I'm guessing they took Ryan McGinnis' case on a contingency case.
-
I also find it interesting how forum participant "sumtime" mentioned (above) that he/she didn't crop the photos in their case either.
I know that Mr McGinnis has some copyrighted photos.
The photos that we used were not McGinnis' photos. They are another client the Photo Attorney.
I am still in the research stage and some of you seem like you really understand the research side more. Can anyone advise where to check the copyright without calling the attorney involved?
-
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
You can try this search, but odds are they registered their photos in bulk so you'll have no idea if the photos in questions are in that bulk registration.
-
MikeD
Searched that and couldn't find any copyrights under the Photographer name, nor under the company name...any ideas? Broke the search down into very minimal key words and then sorted through them without luck.
-
With regard to finding images on the copyright database, the system seems to be hit-and-miss.
Sometimes, it's easy to find things, other times, it's difficult to find documents unless one knows exactly what to search for.
Sometimes, documents are "pending", and aren't listed as yet.
Oscar mentioned in one of his postings that those sending the demands don't have an obligation to forward the copyright information. That's true of course.
I'd like to add that there is an expectation that the parties involved will make all reasonable attempts to settle their issues before going to court.
That would include the exchange factual information that would facilitate a fair settlement.
So, you should ask for actual proof of the copyright information if that will help you deal with the issues at hand.
Should they withhold such information, it could very well hurt their chances in court, if they choose to go that route.
So, they do have an interest in proving their case. It's not just about the demand letter recipient proving his/her innocence.
No counsel for the plaintiff wants to hear that the issue could have been settled amicably outside of court if only they had cooperated with the defendant.
I only mention "court" here, as demand letters always make the threat of "court", whether or not it's practical.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Furthermore, I have viewed collections of images registered in bulk on the database. Each image had a separate document and number, within the collection itself.
But, I'm wondering if this is always the case? Are collections sometimes registered in bulk, but without documents or descriptors for each of the individual images in the collection?
Thanks in advance.
S.G.
-
Great dialogue on this issue folks! SG: it was this lack of identification of authorship of each image that cost Corbis to lose the Muensch case (among other reasons). If I take all the images and I register them in bulk I may not need to identify them all separately. But that does not change that all I have done is register the entire compilation. The copyright Act is clear to me that this form of bulk registration does not give individual registration to the individual images.
On the issue of when he registered them, all that matters is that they are registered at the time of the infringement not the time of first publication.
-
Thanks again for taking time out of your busy day to respond, Oscar.
This "bulk registration" issue is pretty interesting.
If the stock image companies (and others) abandon this method of registration, it'll be tough to fight them.
S.G.
-
It will be very expensive to independently register each image, so the stock photo industry would not likely do that. Instead what they are doing is spending lots of money lobbying Congress to allow compilation registration to serve for registration of the individual items contained in the compilation. Once that passes, Getty could register its entire catalog at one time as "the Getty Catalog Compilation", paying a single fee to the copyright office and instantly get protection for all of its millions of images.
-
Quote from S.G.
"Furthermore, I have viewed collections of images registered in bulk on the database. Each image had a separate document and number, within the collection itself.
But, I'm wondering if this is always the case? Are collections sometimes registered in bulk, but without documents or descriptors for each of the individual images in the collection?"
How do you view the images on the US Copyright site? I could only find the registration paperwork, but could not verify the image.
-
Oscar had mentioned that "what they are doing is spending lots of money lobbying Congress to allow compilation registration to serve for registration of the individual items contained in the compilation. Once that passes, Getty could register its entire catalog at one time as "the Getty Catalog Compilation", paying a single fee to the copyright office and instantly get protection for all of its millions of images." What do you think, how likely this will pass? And what can we do to prevent or dispute this? If this happens, this will tie a knot on innocent infringers' neck......And almost no way to get out of this. This will double or triple their earnings from infringements.
Also, I was thinking, and it was written somewhere here in the forum, about what if to make MF or Getty to put copyright sign on every single image they have in their collections, and require this sign to be remained on the images even if their clients pay for license and use it on their website. Well, yes, it can prevent many potential infringement (which is probably not what they are looking for, as I can see), which can be good. But this will also eliminate the state of innocent infringement then, as you cannot say "I used it because I didn't know" as there was a copyright sign. This can give MF the power to ask for full $150000 for willful infringement. What do you guys think? We all have to think in advance of what effect our actions can have in future....
-
As you can see there is no watermark on his own image. That's not going to help his case.
There is also no copyright information stored within the blog image. Someone should download it and take a screenshot as evidence.
There is no way of identifying the blog photo as his own and normally this isnt an excuse but it means there is no willful removal of copyright info and so will negate that part of the case.
I would also get the defendant to check his professional status. It doesnt appear that he is a full time professional and that might have an influence on the amount of damages awarded (if any) although I am not a lawyer and this might be complete bs.
I am not condoning any copyright theft, indeed I regularly send out demand letters myself but there are times when the amount demanded by others is just ridiculous which makes it more difficult to those of us who like to reach reasonable and where possible, amicable settlements (and get on with our business).
PS meant to add if the image was uploaded to the blog first and then registered as unpublished/published later....
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/digicana/257006413/ (copyright notice on the bottom middle)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/digicana/3824421125/ (copyright on the bottom right)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/digicana/257006414/ (no copyright)
Ryan McGinnis, photographer from Nebraska, is really inconsistent. I almost wonder if he puts his copyright notice on the Flickr image right before he sent out his demand letter so that can tack on additional damages, but does not watermark his images up until that point.
One thing is for sure, that picture of Lincoln, Nebraska is easily worth $9,000, it's a classic, one that could never be replicated.
-
http://planetwaves.net/pagetwo/photo-by-ryan-mcginnis/
Ryan is making a lot of enemies.
-
One thing is for sure, that picture of Lincoln, Nebraska is easily worth $9,000, it's a classic, one that could never be replicated.
I hope you are being facetious about this....LOL!
-
According to Ryan's profile page, all of his work is registered, he doesn't give anything away for free and if you don't have much to spend, go somewhere else.
He's pretty well up front with everything. Watermarks are not required by law. I don't use them very often, I hate them, I want people to actually view my image, not some artsy fartsy copyright notice. If you aren't bright enough to read the copyright notice on the page, the popup or in the exif, that's not my problem.
-
ok - I just received my demand letter from Evan and Carolyn. They have a screenshot of a photo that was in an area of my site where users can upload photos. The (c) was not readable as it was a white (c) on a white background. As soon as I got the letter I took down the whole area of the site that has user uploaded photos. As of right now I can't determine whether or not the photo existed on the site, for how long or who posted it or when.
They want $12k. I told them I could track down the user who posted it if they gave me the date the photo was on my site or the photo URL.
I recently registered a Copyright notification agent for our site - I also have a DMCA take down notice form on there.
What do you think I should do?
Thanks,
Chris
-
It appears Carolyn E. Wright of Photo Attorney is back after a long quiet period. This time someone is attacking ELI's Document Library on Scribd trying to remove, suppress, and hide her $9,000 extortion letter on behalf of photographer, Ryan McGinnis.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/carolyn-e-wright%27s-photo-attorney-extortion-letter-taken-down-by-scribd/msg5639/#msg5639
-
What was the outcome of this case? Was Ryan McGinnis paid anything? or?
Wondering because Carolyn E. Wright's law firm is behind a new claim for even bigger dollars - between $25,000 and $600,000 for four images that a fan posted to the fan-run JoniMitchell.com website. The pics were taken down immediately the situation was raised.
Les Irvin, who runs that site, has posted to http://jonimitchell.com/justice.cfm (http://jonimitchell.com/justice.cfm) and it would be good to know what happened with this earlier case.
Thanks very much for any information or insight.
-
Les Irvin needs to get his eyeballs onto our website and forums ASAP! Send him an email and send him our way!
We have lots of info on how Photo Attorney works and who they are.
-
Gotcha. Sounds a good course!
Thanks :)
NB for the record, Leslie J. Burns is who's signed the letter in this case
-
ahhhh Leslie Burns, one of my favorite trolls!!... jonimitchell.com appears to be offline, but something tells me, this will be a different case than a typical "stock image" we're dealing with a celebrity, we don't know exactly what the image is or who took it, which will all come into play.. I wonder if a user posted the offending image on said site, and if there was a registered agent?? probably not, most people don't do any homework on the legal pitfalls, they just jump right in.
-
Also worth noting that the 9k "case" was actually only a demand, not a "case" as no papers were ever filed..People get "demand letters" and automatically assume they are being sued..
-
as suspected the images in question, were uploaded to the site by an anonymous fan, and Les being the webmaster does not have a registered agent in place, which would have prevented this whole situation from happening... There may be hope, but i'm not sure how much water this will hold...from his legal page:
JoniMitchell.com is privately maintained, managed, funded, and hosted by Les Irvin, who is solely responsible for its content.
Neither Joni Mitchell, her management, her record company, or other affiliated organizations have any involvement whatsoever in the site's content and financial decisions and may in no way be held liable for any infringements of copyright.
Copyrighted material on this website is used in accordance with 'Fair Use', for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis, and will be removed at the request of the copyright owner(s). As a non-profit, non-revenue producing site, JoniMitchell.com provides its content as a free, educational, and informative service for its readers. Copywritten content on this site may not be further used for profitable purposes without the expressed written permission and consent of the copyright owner.
Might be worth a shot, however claiming fair use and proving it in court are 2 different things. Les needs to pay ELI a visit, and get educated..
-
I also have a concern with ALL of the other images that are used as well..he best hope he has licenses or express written permission to use those...Les is a sitting duck
-
You can ask him but my understanding of that site and the situation is that fans upload their pics of concerts. In this instance, it appears a fan may have uploaded four pics that did not belong to them, and, were in fact taken by the photog who has retained Carolyn E. Wright's law outfit.
There is explanation of things @ http://jonimitchell.com/justice.cfm (http://jonimitchell.com/justice.cfm)
Hopefully the webmaster Les Irvin will be in touch with ELI. You can reach him c/o [email protected] and I imagine he'll be happy to send you the letter he's received from Leslie J. Burns and learn more about how these scenarios work.
-
Although the site owner should get educated here, I would be very surprised if this went anywhere. I looked at the site. There is ZERO commercial gain, not so much as a block of Google AdWords. It is truly the ultimate fan site. Also, although the owner did not have a DMCA agent, a member of the site was the one to upload the images. Typically I would expect this to go nowhere. However I believe the Carolyn E.Wright law firm has been known to file on looser cases such as this. So it's important to document everything and engage the support network here as much as possible.
By the way, do you think the photographer Carolyn E.Wright represents got a model release from Joni Mitchell?
I also notice that http://jonimitchell.com/justice.cfm just says "To be continued." I wonder why. Remember, the truth will set you free. There is nothing wrong with posting factual information on your site and I don't think the owner of jonimitchell.com should be persuaded to do otherwise.
-
I don't know any more than I've posted - and have not seen the pics in question. I just know the site and its history of serving fans of Joni Mitchell so well for years.
I see, too, that the page of explanation has been removed. My assumption is that Les Irvin has been in contact with you folks at ELI and a different approach to dealing with the situation is now being followed.
You may know better than I!