A letter to my Congressman and my two Senators

[Crying-out-Loud]

The reply from John McCain reads like the spam comments  people post to my blog - Generic and not related to the topic! ( obviously sorted out by my spam filters )

[Matthew Chan]

As least you got a reply of any kind.  I didn't get a single acknowledgment whatsoever 2 years ago when I wrote my senators and congressmen here in Georgia (relating to a different matter).  I sent my letter Certified Mail which obviously didn't mean anything.

Even the White House, responded better than they did.  I got a generic email response at least.

Matthew

[phxsunbum]

Received a response from Senator Jon Kyle.  While he did not completely blow me off, his response was not encouraging.  He did suggest I contact my State Attorney General if I felt Getty was "indeed preying on unsuspecting users of copyrighted material" who is responsible for investigating cases of misrepresentation and deceptive practices.

Here's the link to his letter:  http://www.box.com/s/q7jl1jvrvc3zlry84e4b

Any thoughts on his suggestion?

[Mulligan]

Personally, I believe asking for help from government "officials" is about as effective as counting sand grains on a beach.

I would argue that time and effort yield better results by sticking to the Internet where each of us can spread knowledge about the copyright trolls and how to respond to them. The more noise we make in forums and on blog comment areas, the more light we shed on the legalized extortion these people are profiting with.

Looking to government for help when so many politicians are in the pockets of big companies is a total waste of time, in my opinion.

[Oscar Michelen]

Well said Mulligan

[dieselfish]

Though I agree with Mulligan on this, there might be something in making it very easy for people to write to their elected officials.  I have seen several "causes" actually post pre-written letters and current lists of addresses for senators and congressmen.  All one would have to do is then print the pre-written letter, sign it, and send it off.  A site like ELI would be perfect to host such letters.  I have also seen several attempts on the ELI forum to start online petitions on the whitehouse.gov site - does anyone know if they gained any traction?  When I found the links, the petitions had already expired.  Yes, it may be a waste of time, but it can't hurt our cause.   

[Matthew Chan]

mcfilms and I actually discussed this on-camera in his very first video update.  mcfilms is a more thoughtful and methodical guy than I am. He thinks like you do while it may be very slow, there is benefit from it.

My position is that if someone wants to sprearhead the idea of pre-written letters, I would be happy to post them into our Scribd account for anyone to use and access. ELI Defense Team members have different strengths and preferences in what each individual member wants to bring to the fight.

If someone believes in the idea strong enough and wants to take the lead in it, I would be happy to give support and visibility to it. However, for me, I think my time is best spent on another front.

Let us remember, ELI is a hobby or side-project for most of us including me. We have to be selective in how and where we put our time.

Though I agree with Mulligan on this, there might be something in making it very easy for people to write to their elected officials.  I have seen several "causes" actually post pre-written letters and current lists of addresses for senators and congressmen.  All one would have to do is then print the pre-written letter, sign it, and send it off.  A site like ELI would be perfect to host such letters.  I have also seen several attempts on the ELI forum to start online petitions on the whitehouse.gov site - does anyone know if they gained any traction?  When I found the links, the petitions had already expired.  Yes, it may be a waste of time, but it can't hurt our cause.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

we could probably use the OP's letter to his/her congress person, as he did give MCFilms to use bits, at least for a starting point. I agree it's a good idea, but my writing skills pretty much suck, as evidenced by my posts, and as mentioned there is the time factor.. Maybe another idea if someone is willing is to draft a letter that can be sent to different media outlets, from small home town papers to larger publications, and maybe even TV shows or news related youtube channels not that it would get us anywhere, but it couldn't hurt to send it out there.. I keep thinking of Shawshank, and Andy writing the state everyday for a number of years, but he finally got the library..

[lucia]

buddhapi--

I've been wondering if there are differences between the demongraphics of recipients of HAN , Getty and any other group letter.  I haven't followed this long, but it seems to me the few HAN cases discussed here involved small businesses who used images at a business site.  For example: The HAN/skunks involves a picture of skunks front page of a dog grooming site which existed to make money. The skunks were selected to highlight a service the site sells: deskunking of dogs. The other case I read about was a plastic surgery case. In that case, the images were on a site used to give a professional appearance to the medical groups site. In both cases, the sites were online and in active use.

So, it seems to me that at least at the outset, these HAN has picked cases were the site designer should have known that they needed to pay for images even if they were merely "decorative".

I don't know the general demographics of Getty cases, but we seem to hear of theme designers who had a demonstration product on a server that turned out to be connected to the web.  In my case, I got a letter because a hotlinked thumbnail image of cardinals appeared well down in comments during discussion on a blog post at a personal hobby blog.

Comparing this range, it seems to me that when discussing what one would do, I think it's likely important to recognize that cases where the images really, truly were used as the decorative matter on front pages of commercial sites. My understanding of copyright is it still exists even if the images wasn't registered-- the only open questions are: what is the open range of damages and who has standing to sue.  HAN names the copyright owner in the suit, so even if HAN's paper work isn't in order, it seems someone has standing.   

I understand that you are hopeful that a judge would see that the wallpapers were all over the place, making it easy for the business person to believe they were free might make the judge decide there is an implied license. But I would also think if you step back as a disinterested 3rd party that the judge might not see it that way. Especially not if the photographer shows evidence that many of those wallpaper sites are in eastern europe etc.  I really think if someone wants to make that argument in court, they would be wise to beef it up, check if the photographer himself makes the images available on Webshots and look into whether or not it's easy for pirates to get the digital images.  Merely showing they are all over the place might fall short- and in court, you don't want to fall short.

I don't want to dishearten people-- but I think it's important to do the extra work  and not just assume showing the images are all over the place must be enough to convince a judge. 

In the Tylor case, it's not just that they are all over the place. It's that they are all over the place, and I think it's happening because he is uploading to Webshots. And he continues to sell through Webshots while suing.

[SoylentGreen]

I checked via Google for impressions of Tylor's Road to Hana - Turquoise Lagoon.
I went to the first 7 instances of the photo.
Out of the 7, a WhoIS search showed that two were registered through GoDaddy.

http://www.wallpaperzzz.com/widescreen-river-download/

http://v3wall.com/es/html/pic_down/1600_1200/pic_down_5488_1600_1200.htm

So, just in an informal search, nearly a third resided on domains wherein a DMCA takedown request would work immediately.

I smell scamola here.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Lucia:

I'm not going to get into demographics, mainly because I don't think we really have enough data at this point, true most of the letters we hear about are from small businesses or hobby sites. My theory on why we don't hear from larger corporations and such as I think they have the resources to handle these matters in house, whether it be to fight or just pay. In my time here I have seen no examples of any of them being selective..business sites, non-profits, retirees, blogs, we've seen them all.

We also know that very few suits have been filed from any company, and most if not all of those suits were involving sites that used many images, the only exception that I am aware of is the plastic surgery firm in Hawaii, that chose to default.

I't has been mentioned that Getty alone sends out perhaps 1000's of letter per year..and they have even sent their own customers demand letters.

I certainly would not go in front of a judge with only 1 piece of the puzzle ( implied license) I would also be armed links to all of the site said image was available on, printed copies of sites that have the creative commons license agreement, screen shots of what the actual image is selling for ( $10.00 for a VK Tylor 4 x 6 print..including shipping from Hawaii!), I would show  that some of these site are registered / hosted thur go-daddy ( I don't care if they are from the ukraine) and that no action has been taken to remove these infringers (DMCA Takedowns).. am I hopeful??? yes I'm hopeful that the judge got lucky the night before, and I'm hopeful that he would be a reasonable person.. One other I would like to ask HAN if given the opportunity is not only how many letters do they send, but of the total how many are for single images?

I want to be clear here, and state that try to only post my thoughts/ idea/ opinions, of what I would do, I try not to give anybody advise on how to handle this, we all have to our own fights, if I were to do this all over again, I would most likely handle things a bit differently, althought at this point i'm certainly satisifed.

[SoylentGreen]

I'm enjoying the discussions here, indeed ELI gets even better with time.

I've noted that H.A.N./Tylor have a track record of pursing infringements internationally, specifically Canada.
This is 2012, and I don't see any reason that they couldn't pursue infringements by "free wallpaper" sites in Europe, or wherever.
"International" is not a problem, as shown by their own actions.  They can't testify that it can't be done.

While somebody always has "standing", and "copyright" subsists in a work at the moment of it's creation,
it's only the copyright registration that enables "statutory damages" to be sought that makes a lawsuit worthwhile.
Otherwise, it's just "actual damages", and Tylor sells his stuff for ten dollars, or something.

Therefore, the first thing that I would check is to see if the work was registered at the time of the alleged infringement.
If they won't send you proof of registration, that's an answer in and of itself.  That would mean that they have nothing.
If they have nothing, then it's over.

Next, to the free wallpaper sites...
It would be very difficult to prove who submitted the image to the wallpaper sites.
Often, you can submit images anonymously.  IP addresses are shite.  So, I suspect that this is a dead-end.

I don't think that a judge is a "disinterested third party".
Tylor's images are found on free sites worldwide, even on ones that shut down sites immediately upon a DMCA notice.
Hundreds, if not thousands of web impressions of his free images exist.  They can be brought to court as evidence.
The key point is the "public interest".  I doubt that a judge would grant their motion, as it would open the door to scams of truly epic proportions.
That's a compelling argument that can be made to a judge.

But, I really wonder if HAN/Tylor really have any intention of going through with a lawsuit, other than the one that is in "default".
Don't be so naive as to think that this isn't a scam.  Don't be so naive as to think that Tylor and HAN haven't visited ELI months ago.
I'm seeing just a bit too much of the "benefit of the doubt" song and dance.
Next thing we know, Tylor is going to piss in everyone's face and say "it's raining".
Wow!!  Thanks... that helps the flowers grow!! Herp-a-Derp.

But, yeah... some people won't put up a fight without a "guaranteed win".
They pay and it goes away.  But that still doesn't necessarily mean that the plaintiff had a case from the beginning.
Just ask thousands of Getty victims who paid.

S.G.

[milosron]

buddhapi--

I've been wondering if there are differences between the demongraphics of recipients of HAN , Getty and any other group letter.  I haven't followed this long, but it seems to me the few HAN cases discussed here involved small businesses who used images at a business site.  For example: The HAN/skunks involves a picture of skunks front page of a dog grooming site which existed to make money. The skunks were selected to highlight a service the site sells: deskunking of dogs. The other case I read about was a plastic surgery case. In that case, the images were on a site used to give a professional appearance to the medical groups site. In both cases, the sites were online and in active use.

I just want to make a correction here.  The website is not selling the service of deskunking dogs.  The link goes to a page with instructions on how to clean the animal yourself. 

[lucia]

Ahh! I stand corrected. But the dog grooming site was for a business, right?

I'm not trying to suggest that either HAN or Getty are the greater or lesser of the two evils. I'm just trying to wrap my head around whether their operations differ slightly.  Someone ran a video where a HAN representative indicated they avoid going after hobby bloggers and focus on businesses. The examples we read about here seem to be small businesses and evidently not-for profit businesses,  but still what at least appear to be businesses.

In my case, and mikedrag on another thread, Getty sent letters to a hobby blogger (me) and someone who runs an aggregator (mikedrag).   So the two may have slightly different 'business models' dictating who they send letters to.

If they send stuff to hobby bloggers, they are eventually going to get jammed up.  Some hobby bloggers are going to roll over. But others won't. And hobby bloggers with medium to large audiences can make their own publicity.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'll throw another 2 cents in...

I think it's a mostly an automated process, they hire picscout ( owned by Getty images) PS does its thing, and send reports back, letter are generated and send. Having personally seen 4 different Getty letters and comparing them, they are all identical in verbage, the only difference is the images in question. Again we have no idea how many letters they send out, but i'd be willing to bet that we see a very small percentage here at ELI.

BTW - there was a hobbyist in Canada that got a nice HAN letter demanding 5k for one image, none of them discriminate in my opinion..

We NEED more of those bloggers to make a stink!!

I have visited a bunch of blogs over the last 2+ years that have gotten the letters and made posts, but they most of them didn't get much attention.