A Man of Principal and Not Interest

[lucia]

My view is the best way to handle the name calling would be to request others not do it while also answering the questions.  If you don't answer the questions you will appear to have evaded them and that looks bad even if you think being called names is a reason to do so.  I've been blogging a long times-- and that's the way that works best at garnering sympathy etc. 

Of course, it's also best to studiously avoid even appearing to name call when asking questions hoping to have an actual conversation.  All sorts of things can happen. One is you'll look bad if they behave well, answer but request you not call them  names!

On the turf here, I am likely in the "least unsympathetic to Glen" range. He's ostensibly here to have a conversation.  He asked questions and got answers.  He seems to expect Matt to answer his. I think he should have answered your questions.

[Moe Hacken]

Yes, it's a little off-topic.

If you have an opportunity, consider supporting public funding of elections like Mr. Carner and I have. It's the one reform that makes all other reforms possible.

[SoylentGreen]

"least unsympathetic to Glen" = most sympathetic to Uncle Glen?

I do think that people whom can prove their claims (whether in discussions of law, or discussions of actual cases) gain respect and legitimacy here.
"I'm owed money" and "I want to settle these claims without consulting the law" are not a proof of anything.
In my book, people that come to ELI (or court) and can't prove their claims are trolls.
I actually feel sorry for anybody that respects other people/companies that do this.
The burden of proof is on the "claimant", it's not on me, Budd, Matt, ELI, McFilms, Oscar or anyone else.  If a claim is "legit", step up or fuck off.

Also, although Moe's post was a bit off-topic, I think that people are interested in the man that's behind the most outrageous/aggressive trolling since Riddick/Imageline.
It's like Riddick and Righthaven had an autistic baby that hired a lawyer/rapper with a personality disorder in order to make money on unproven claims.
It's interesting.

S.G.

[lucia]

"least unsympathetic to Glen" = most sympathetic to Uncle Glen?

These are not the same. As far as I can tell, no one here is sympathetic to Glen. 

[SoylentGreen]

You've made a "double-negative".  English isn't your first language.
Also, stop defending scammers.

http://i52.tinypic.com/15gc9zr.jpg

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Chill out kids!
Lets try to keep our witty barbs pointed in the right direction!

I think it's safe to say we all love Glen Carner being here.

[SoylentGreen]

R.I.P Eduard Khill - Trololo
"Official Troll Song".



S.G.

[Extortion-Victim-No Longer]

Funny C&D letter response

http://www.edibleapple.com/2012/01/13/best-letter-ever-written-to-a-lawyer/

[Glen Carner]

It's really very simple why Glen Carner only chooses to engage in certain topics IMHO. He is only striving to make his newly renamed company Copyright Services International, Hawaiian Art Network, and his own name look good, all three have been taking a beating here on ELI and he is trying to save face and keep sinking ships afloat.. It's completely coming from a PR perspective (which I might ad is not working out to well...again my opinion).

At the risk of being accused of being a FOG (Friend of Glen), I can see why he doesn't want to engage the topic Moe introduced. It's not about copyright, collections/extortion or anything else.

Anyway, on the topic itself: I don't see anything wrong with Glen writing a letter to the editor to support a particular political initiative in Hawaii.

Copyright Services International was created to provide copyright related services.  The only CSI service that relates to collections is the account director position who was trained partially with the postings of ELI members.  It takes reading "between the anger" but I see far more benefit to what ELI provides vs. fight, resist, and "they are bad, you are good" thinking.   You have seen our account director's communications and can tell her approach is far different then anything that has been tried before.   That’s why I was surprised you guys shot it down so quickly because it moves away from some of the concerns spoken about here so frequently and towards a model where a person can pay for an image plain and simple without the rigmarole or hardness that comes with formal legal action.  I do support an attorney’s follow up if what appears to be a reasonable and appropriate first step is ignored but we are certainly moving in the right direction (IMO) with that first step.   I’m quite proud of the way CSI collections are done which is respectful, hospitable, understanding, and appropriate. 

Yes BuddhaPi, that may be saving face or sanitizing but that it the way CSI works and you and others have condemned it to be this bad thing because "Glen Carner" created it.  For that matter, doesn't it make it easier to dismiss my actions (positive or negative) because you label and call me names?  Don’t you see how this distances you from ever seeing positive (even favorable) movement or change and hardens you from the position as others might see it?  I have worked to understand you and others on ELI and thought about compromises between the photographers and business using the images without license since I first read these forums.  Please try to see that this is not a greed driven industry run by green monsters living under bridges.  We all have our opinions including some who see the unlicensed use of images being committed by “thieving pirates."  I don’t subscribe to that view because if I do, I can’t hear them and when did name calling ever lead to solutions and understanding.   

That brings me to fair elections.  Just because I believe that artists should be paid for their work and that attorneys MAY have a role in that does not mean that all I do is green, boiled in a cauldron, and inherently evil.  I know it’s important for ELI to stop stock photo companies (including HAN) from trying to collect money after an image has been used without license but that doesn't mean that I and others are not working to try and find a better (less hostile certainly) way to deal with these issues. 

Fair Elections have always been something I have felt strongly about.  There are many positions and things I have done (and continue to do) in my life that have nothing to do with copyright issues and are very much in support of making the world a better place.  I’m not an industry insider which is why I always want to make changes to improve our systems which does not mean higher fees, more penalties, and jail time. 

Better often means the middle way "Buddha."  Many photographers feel this way as well which is why the attorneys may collect higher amounts in recoveries, but our photographers often prefer the lower "license fee only" amounts that CSI attempts to collect.  This is less profitable, but speaks to a more reasonable and amicable solution.  When ELI puts down CSI's informal call and email system, you are putting the photographers and agencies that use it in a position of feeling like they have to use the attorneys exclusively because any action needs to carry more teeth.  Yes, I know you don’t approve of either action but isn't the business to business model as a starting point at least a better compromise then attorneys letter?  No need to respond as this is rhetorical; we know it’s a better way.

While the collection of money for unlicensed stock photos is certainly not among them (at least it gives me no joy or fulfillment) I can assure you that you might find that I am far more balanced in my positions then the extremes encountered in copyright discussions.  Treat me as such or keep watching over time and you will see the changes we make at CSI are moving towards more palatable solutions for all parties.  For that matter, if I give you or ELI feedback, please know that it is not coming from someone who has any intention of hurting or belittling you because I respect your position on the matter.  I don’t respect ELIs methods of attempting to harm a new attorney’s career because they felt that their C&D letter was harsh or extreme but I have a excellent solution forthcoming that you may appreciate.  Only from hearing each other can any improvements be made. 

Why is it a risk to be called "my friend?"  Do you think if you met me or one of the attorneys on the street that you would inherently feel that we are awful people?  Probably not.  Just because I don't approve or agree with another persons actions on one issue doesn't mean that action encompass the sum of who they are.

[lucia]

Yes, I know you don’t approve of either action but isn't the business to business model as a starting point at least a better compromise then attorneys letter?

If you mean "real business" to "real business", it likely is a better way. 

One difficulty with communicating on the phone issue is that just as with the letters, and the different companies, there are phone calls and phone calls and there are companies and companies.

So, for example:

My case was Getty who sent me a letter asking for about $875 for a hotlinked photo deep in comments at a hobby blog.  Naturally, I have lots of readers (more than ELI!) and naturally I blogged for advice.   http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/copyright-legal-eagles/  (Click the link. It was only 1 image in the getty letter, but I took out the other hotlink for good measure. )

It's clear from the letter to me that Getty really had very little information about me, my blog etc. My contact information is on a link at my blog, so someone must have found it, read my address and sent something to my "legal department". (As if!)   The level of vagueness on this letter is considerable. (They don't even mention which of my thousands of posts the image appears on! I had to do a site specific google search to find the post!) 

The blog has no business number-- no business address. Heck it doesn't even have advertising.  If I got a phone call from someone who knew as little as the letter writer seemed to know, I would simply not volunteer anything.  Period. I get weird calls at home and I don't just hand out information. 

In contrast, other cases letter cases (and my impression many HAN cases) are to what appear to be honest to goodness businesses. In these cases, you would likely be calling a business, and contacting their business rep.  They might take your information and get back to you-- but you'd already have a business number. So, it might be wise for them to take a message and get back to you. But presumably that would be ok with you. (I hope?)


But I think when you read these range of issues, you might see that it's easy to talk past each other.  My sense in the conversation was that some one was getting a call that was "getty letter-like". My other impression is there is a strong sense around here that Getty in particular collect a small snippet of information and that to some extent, they try to collect their evidence by scaring the bejezzus out of people with little or no business experience, very shallow pockets and getting them to volunteer evidence Getty didn't have prior to the letter and then demand unreasonable amounts of money for images. 

In contrast, at the risk of experiencing the wrath of Soylent Green, it seems to me HAN is a bit different. As far as I can see, your letters have at least tried target businesses though I think you may have bungled a number of points. (ENVL was a HAN case, right?). That said: plastic surgeons who are actually accepting clients, travel agencies who have numerous clients and so on are businesses and ought to respond to other businesses in a business like way.

In my mind, phoning an honest to goodness business to discuss an issue is fine-- provided you are willing to give some details on the issue that concerns you and let them get back to you. They may contact their attorney to decide what to say, but I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with you phoning an honest to goodness ongoing business that operates a website with an obvious business purpose.

In the end,  I don't necessarily view the all "copyright-collection-extortion-whatever" phone calls the same. My previous comments revolved around assuming the call was fishing. Quite honestly, I suspect calls from Getty would very likely be fishing. I would advise people to give out nearly no information to any call that seems like fishing. Period. This advise isn't even copyright related.

Why is it a risk to be called "my friend?"

Don't worry. I have a hide thick as a rhino.  I developed it being taunted with "gringita" as a 5 year old in El Salvador.

Also, I don't think this is the first time SG has suggested I'm too nice to trolls.  I'm going to continue to say what I think either way. I will also continue to use double negatives to connote weak positives -- a practice that is entirely standard in English.  BTW: Depending on how we look at the evidence, English may or my not be my first language. Little gringita had an El Salvadoran nanny and I learned Spanish and English in parallel.  I no longer speak Spanish. (I do speak French.)

But enough ammo for Soylent.

What I meant before was that given what I've written about how deeply suspicious I am about one of your photographers posting things at Webshote etc. it would be odd for someone to suggest that I am actually sympathetic to you or your positions in general.  I believe it is more accurate to say I am sometimes not unsympathetic to some of your points.  I try to be fair.

No need to respond as this is rhetorical; we know it’s a better way.

Whoo hoo!  (At my blog, I actually have a rule about rhetorical questions. People are encouraged to tells us their answer to their rhetoricals. I created this rule because the alternative results in chaos!  I didn't think I could get compliance without the power to ban. )

[Extortion-Victim-No Longer]

In contrast, at the risk of experiencing the wrath of Soylent Green, it seems to me HAN is a bit different. As far as I can see, your letters have at least tried target businesses though I think you may have bungled a number of points. (ENVL was a HAN case, right?). That said: plastic surgeons who are actually accepting clients, travel agencies who have numerous clients and so on are businesses and ought to respond to other businesses in a business like way.

Yes EVNL was a H N, my website is home-made & no we are not a travel agency. My husband is a travel agent & I built the website for him to help improve his sales. It receives almost zero traffic. I offered to do this for him because I knew how...like I said before, anyone who can read can build a website but not everyone should.

[lucia]

ENLV--
The 'no clients' aspect is why I think HAN bungled. They need to be able to figure out when something really is a business and when what they found is basically a mock up.  This requires some effort. In your case just listening to you and doing a few checks should have cleared that up. But that effort wasn't undertaken by HAN and instead you were treated very, very badly and unfairly.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Further proof it is about greed and money, they could care less about the how or why - they being Hawaiian Art Network, Getty Images, Masterfile, Corbis, Copyright Services International LLC, Timothy B. McCormack, George Riddick, Geoffrey Beale, photoattorney.com Carolyn Wright, Cindy Hsu, Leslie Burns, Brandon Sand, Peter T. Holt,  the list is endless ( I apologize to those trolls I did not mention, these were just off the top of my head!) These so called attorneys, don't even bother to look into the case before sending the extortion letter, they are just interested in getting the settlement, their cut and the opportunity to send out more letters..

ENLV--
The 'no clients' aspect is why I think HAN bungled. They need to be able to figure out when something really is a business and when what they found is basically a mock up.  This requires some effort. In your case just listening to you and doing a few checks should have cleared that up. But that effort wasn't undertaken by HAN and instead you were treated very, very badly and unfairly.

[Matthew Chan]

My comments are inline.

Copyright Services International was created to provide copyright related services.  The only CSI service that relates to collections is the account director position who was trained partially with the postings of ELI members.  It takes reading "between the anger" but I see far more benefit to what ELI provides vs. fight, resist, and "they are bad, you are good" thinking.   

Glen, like attracts like. Despite the varying personalities here on ELI, I would say the intelligence level is high and the "regulars" our outspoken. Many of us are not pushovers. And you are right about one thing, ELI is definitely more than fighting and resisting. It is about empowerment, getting smart quickly, and making an impact.

You have seen our account director's communications and can tell her approach is far different then anything that has been tried before.   That’s why I was surprised you guys shot it down so quickly because it moves away from some of the concerns spoken about here so frequently and towards a model where a person can pay for an image plain and simple without the rigmarole or hardness that comes with formal legal action. 

This has been explained many times before. Most of us are suspicious because of HAN's track record and the misdeeds of "your side" is not so easily forgotten. And believe it or not, I believe Vincent Tylor is more despised than you are. His being your friend and co-hort does not help your image or conciliatory tone.
 
Yes BuddhaPi, that may be saving face or sanitizing but that it the way CSI works and you and others have condemned it to be this bad thing because "Glen Carner" created it.  For that matter, doesn't it make it easier to dismiss my actions (positive or negative) because you label and call me names?  Don’t you see how this distances you from ever seeing positive (even favorable) movement or change and hardens you from the position as others might see it? 

Tell it to the letter recipients. I guarantee you they are not thinking about it while they are staring down the barrel of a potential or imagined lawsuit.

I have worked to understand you and others on ELI and thought about compromises between the photographers and business using the images without license since I first read these forums. 

What's so hard to understand? You must be a bit dense then. I can draft an extortion letter tomorrow and send it to you and threaten "something" unless you pay me $5,000. (I take credit cards.) Let's see if that make it easer for you to understand.

Please try to see that this is not a greed driven industry run by green monsters living under bridges.

NO, you just got a lot of starving artists who don't understand business, economics, industry changes and that what they do and the product they produce (photos) has much lower market value today than years past.  Not to mention they aren't respected that much.  BTW, what have they done to earn respect?  Don't even get me started on many professional photographer experiences I've had.  Heard of digital cameras and phone cameras?  There are a glut of photos and the dumb agencies think by hoarding even more photos makes them more valuable.

Just because I believe that artists should be paid for their work and that attorneys MAY have a role in that does not mean that all I do is green, boiled in a cauldron, and inherently evil. 

If someone makes a move towards me and tries to extract something I am not willing to give willingly, it won't matter what you look like. I guarantee you there are many others who feel the same way. They won't give two licks about you if you overstep your boundaries.

I know it’s important for ELI to stop stock photo companies (including HAN) from trying to collect money after an image has been used without license but that doesn't mean that I and others are not working to try and find a better (less hostile certainly) way to deal with these issues. 

Quite frankly, it seems you don't have much of a choice unless you want to get out of the business.

Better often means the middle way "Buddha."  Many photographers feel this way as well which is why the attorneys may collect higher amounts in recoveries, but our photographers often prefer the lower "license fee only" amounts that CSI attempts to collect.  This is less profitable, but speaks to a more reasonable and amicable solution. 

I will believe it when I see it.

When ELI puts down CSI's informal call and email system, you are putting the photographers and agencies that use it in a position of feeling like they have to use the attorneys exclusively because any action needs to carry more teeth. 

I don't think it matters nowadays because ELI has come up with solutions and tactics against what has been reported to us. You want to do the lawyer thing? Oscar is watching and listening as are the rest of us in the ELI Community. Most of us now know that many attorneys have Achilles heels and know where to aim.  I have finally gotten the word out you don't have to use a courtroom to fight back.

While the collection of money for unlicensed stock photos is certainly not among them (at least it gives me no joy or fulfillment) I can assure you that you might find that I am far more balanced in my positions then the extremes encountered in copyright discussions. 

You have very little to lose and everything to gain by being here. You know the ELI Community has been relentless against HAN because your lawyers have been so young and dumb. Seriously, do I really need to go down the roster of each lawyer that I have come across and give my assessment of each?

Treat me as such or keep watching over time and you will see the changes we make at CSI are moving towards more palatable solutions for all parties.  For that matter, if I give you or ELI feedback, please know that it is not coming from someone who has any intention of hurting or belittling you because I respect your position on the matter. 

Amazing how holding a big stick, some smart tactics, and body-slamming a few lawyers along the way earned us respect. I didn't see much of that respect 3 years ago from anyone.

I don’t respect ELIs methods of attempting to harm a new attorney’s career because they felt that their C&D letter was harsh or extreme but I have a excellent solution forthcoming that you may appreciate.  Only from hearing each other can any improvements be made. 

Good thing we didn't ask the stock photo industry what they thought. If someone is dumb enough to get into the extortion business without research, they deserve what's coming to them.  I can't stand young, dumb lawyers who think they know so much. The minute we hit back, then they start crying to someone. Remember our favorite FEcmal CAnadian Lawyer? What a cry-baby blowing up everyone's phone EXCEPT mine, of course. She issued the first threat then started crying when we hit back.  That was YOUR lawyer among others.  How about Attorney Peter H. from California and his bullshit defamation accusation against me and Oscar about "extortion"? What a time suck.  He had a pitiful website. I don't even want to have to mention what was reported to me in confidence by a semi-famous ex-client of his. I still have half-a-mind to report it publicly.

YOUR lawyers have wasted more of my personal time than any other stock photo company's lawyers.  Even Timothy McCormack had the smarts to not come after ELI.  I simply heard he cried the blues to his mama at Getty.  Your lawyers were just plain DUMB and deserved everything we hit them with.

You think everyone is just going to bow down to them because they have a law degree?  We have managed to turn that law degree and their crushing school loans against them. They better watch themselves. The ELI "Collective" isn't dumb enough to just give in just because of a few nice sentiments.

Glen, you have tenacity I will give you that. But I probably have more "untold" stories in my head than almost anyone here, so please don't play Mr. Innocent with me.

[Matthew Chan]

I think EVNL is quite happy how it all ended up.  I think she got her 5 pounds of meat and then some.

ENLV--
The 'no clients' aspect is why I think HAN bungled. They need to be able to figure out when something really is a business and when what they found is basically a mock up.  This requires some effort. In your case just listening to you and doing a few checks should have cleared that up. But that effort wasn't undertaken by HAN and instead you were treated very, very badly and unfairly.