ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Moe Hacken on May 25, 2012, 03:38:40 AM
-
Glen Carner actively lobbied for Clean Money in Hawaii in 2007! He wants his POLITICIANS to be ETHICAL!
BahahahaHA!
http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/WebLink8/0/doc/34445/Page1.aspx
-
Then he wrote a letter to the editor in 2009 to further champion campaign finance reform:
Let Big Island voters have public funding
Hawaii has a history of people who have access to lots of money taking advantage of those who don't have access to lots of money. Fair elections helps level the playing field.
Now we have the chance to allow Big Island candidates to spend less time raising money and more time listening to the people.
Given the economic situation, the responsible thing to do would be to enact Act 244 so that people start using the public funding program again. When taxpayers see that the public funding program is working, they will be more willing to donate $3 to the election fund again. Delaying the Fair Elections Act is fiscally irresponsible right now.
Glen Carner
Captain Cook, Hawaii
http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090311_Letters_to_the_editor
-
I'm not here to get beat up. Ill pass on this one.
-
This isn't a post I would have put up but an ELI Community member felt otherwise. You aren't here to get "beat up"? I am not sure what you consider getting "beat up" but you had to know that it would be risky for you to come on ELI publicly. For what it's worth, I have already said you are quite courageous (and maybe a tad crazy) for participating on ELI.
-
I'm not here to get beat up. Ill pass on this one.
Beat up? Mr. Carner, I am being perfectly sincere when I tell you that I actually ADMIRE your activism for public funding.
I spent two years of my life organizing, collecting signatures, creating pro bono websites and even speaking in public (not easy for me) in hostile environments to try to get people to understand how our democracy is being ruined by the undue influence of "dirty money". It was very frustrating. People are more interested in "reality shows" than in the real horror show of "pay-for-play" politics.
After the Citizens United abomination from our highest court (and they must have REALLY high when they ruled this), the money floodgates are open and now they won't even want to tell us who's giving the money and how much. In this election year, have you seen the amount of money being spent by unknown parties to sling mud indiscriminately? It has to stop before we become a total corporate plutocracy, if we're not one already.
Why do you feel beat up? Don't you see the irony of your passionate statements about a "level-playing field" and the way your little legal henchmen are treating mom-and-pop outfits, and even real mom-and-pops whose kid put up a rights-managed image? Is that a level playing field for the intellectual property industry? I say your model is grossly asymmetrical.
Mr. Carner, I don't have any problem telling you your actions are unethical, and I find it VERY ironic that you want your POLITICIANS to be ethical! At least they have a medical excuse because of their profession.
As far as Matthew's and other people's view of your "courage", I respectfully disagree. What you're doing requires no courage, just amazing amounts of chutzpah.
-
Moe, I've yet to meet a copyright troll who understands irony.
Timothy B. McCormack, for example, thinks of himself as an independent filmmaker who, in his words on his law office site, tells us that his: "predisposition as a storyteller is to look for life’s universal connections and meanings in the human stories that might not otherwise be told."
This from the man who sends out settlement demand letters to extract huge amounts of money without giving a shite or even wanting to hear the "human stories" behind the "infringements" he states people have made while refusing to provide proof of registration or chain of custody.
Glen Carner apparently lacks this same understanding of irony, given how he responded to Extortion Victim No Longer's very human and what seems to me to be a quite genuine plea for understanding of her situation.
Here's what EVNL wrote:
Going back in time to when this all began, I contacted Vincent Tylors wife in an attempt to plead with Mr. Tylor but she answered the phone. I could barely speak as I made the call during one of my crying & panic episodes. I told her that I was so scared & what would my son do with me being in jail? I told her I had no idea that what I had done was wrong. I apologised with all my heart & told her about my financial situation. She was very kind & told me that no one goes to jail & advised me to call Glen Carter who is a very understanding man & to communicate with him.
I did call Glen Carter, again in tears, he informed me to discuss it with Brandon Sand. I pleaded with Brandon Sand...many times, begged him to give me a break, doing all I could to prove I couldn't pay & didn't have the funds. I called Glen Carner a second time & received the same former response. After many calls & emails to Brandon Sand, I made one final phone call, sobbing as always, I told him how scared I was & what would happen to my son if I went to jail? He said pay the money & that will no longer be a concern. I finally asked him where the humanity was in all of this & his answer was, "the humanity in all this is to pay the money".
I write this summary of the experience I went through because even though in the end I was guilty for being ignorant of the law, I want others to know they are not alone & hopefully save them from shedding a few tears & fear filled nights awake. I am a strong person who is not scared of much & I certainly don't cry very often unless I am threatened by something like prison. The truth of the matter is that these photos found on freewallpaper sites and such are making artists, lawyers & picscout a lot of money. Whatever way/ways these images are getting out there, either by mistake or intentionally, substantial earnings are being generated by the result of people's fear, ignorance & innocent infringements. Which is worse?
Glen, the beating you're taking here on ELI is nothing compared to the treatment EVNL described above as coming from you on two different occasions. And you want honest and ethical politicians. The irony here couldn't be cut through with a logger's chainsaw.
You copyright trolls nazis can dish it out, but you sure start whining about being beaten up when the facts about what you're doing to others start coming out.
As for you having courage to be on ELI, no, I don't buy that one either.
Men with courage don't whine about being beaten up when their actions are laid out in front of them.
Men of courage respond specifically to accusations made against them, and their responses regarding their behavior are based on moral and ethical foundations.
Men who lack courage as well as moral and ethical foundations at their core whine, cry, and "pass" on providing specific replies to facts presented to them about what they've done (and continue to do) because they know their answers would indict them.
-
"You copyright
trolls nazis can dish it out, but you sure start whining about being beaten up when the facts about what you're doing to others start coming out. "
@ Mulligan: Now YOU owe me a new keyboard!
-
When someone willingly commits a crime, they know the consequences could lead to imprisonment. It's a risk they are willing to take no matter how remorseful they may find themselves by the time they are in cuffs.
Anyone who truly has 'no clue' they cannot use that photo which is advertised as 'free' on their website would NOT risk criminal charges if they'd only knew the truth. This is the problem, people are not aware until they get a C&D letter. Publishing to the internet has become easier than ever... There should be a warning before something can be published to the internet. Copyright laws need tweaking & until they are, this will continue. Innocent people, especially the small time ma & pa's are committing crimes & theft without their knowledge. Large corporate entities are well seasoned in terms of taking measures to avoid legal battles, especially over a photograph.
I didn't think I was guilty when the photo I used was advertised as free. I, as well as the rest of us letter recipients learnt the hard way to discover that ignorance is bliss for some.
ELI has created a safe haven for which these letter recipients can become well informed. In that process, the truth is told & on the other side of the fence, the bliss begins to fade upon exposure.
I did receive an email from Glen stating that he was sorry for the hardship I experienced. If that is true, change is inevitable & much needed regardless.
-
EVNL, ironically, there's a good chance that you were never guilty of anything.
I haven't seen any concrete proof that H.A.N. and/or Tylor had any legal standing to collect monies based on copyright infringement.
Nobody (except Tylor and Carner) know what's actually in Tylor's registrations, or if the registrations were done properly.
I should also add that many of Tylor's photos are offered in the public domain as "free". That doesn't meet the definition of copyright protection by most yardsticks.
Mr Carner has said that "I think you guys have become so entrenched in fighting back that you never considered that there may not need to be one in the first place.", and "ELI will be there to shame them in the process".
I can't speak for Matt of course. But, I think that Mr Carner has mistaken the primary mission of ELI with the negative results of copyright trolling.
That is the "fight", "non-payment" and the "shame" are a direct result of the following:
- faked evidence
- lack of legal standing
- illegal threats
- ruined reputations of trolls/trolling companies and incompetent lawyers
ELI's mission is to inform. That's how I think of it. The collateral damage to the trolls is the result of greed and warped moral compasses.
S.G.
-
EVNL, ironically, there's a good chance that you were never guilty of anything.
I haven't seen any concrete proof that H.A.N. and/or Tylor had any legal standing to collect monies based on copyright infringement.
Nobody (except Tylor and Carner) know what's actually in Tylor's registrations, or if the registrations were done properly.
Mr Carner has said that "I think you guys have become so entrenched in fighting back that you never considered that there may not need to be one in the first place.", and "ELI will be there to shame them in the process".
I can't speak for Matt of course. But, I think that Mr Carner has mistaken the primary mission of ELI with the negative results of copyright trolling.
That is the "fight", "non-payment" and the "shame" are a direct result of the following:
- faked evidence
- lack of legal standing
- illegal threats
- ruined reputations of trolls/trolling companies and incompetent lawyers
ELI's mission is to inform. That's how I think of it. The collateral damage to the trolls is the result of greed and warped moral compasses.
S.G.
Ya buddy....that's a big 10-4!
-
You are correct on the reporting and informing part. That is why ELI was started. To organize the informational and ranting chaos that I saw running rampant and the stock photo agencies routinely ignored. We are required reading now. Amazing how a few short years has changed so much.
One reason why running ELI is easy is that the stock photo industry just gives so much fodder to hang itself. Witness the recent hypocritical and holier-than-thou videos by Jonathon Klein. Most of the ELI Community just had to laugh at his public statements.
People just keep submitting information to us. In the early days, it was more challenging to get people to give us information to share. Now, most people who drop by ELI "get it" and email us stuff quite frequently.
People don't hesitate to post on the forums anonymously with their information. And of course, there is Google which puts so much information at our fingertips. And the more we post, the larger ELI gets.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, ELI now has a larger web presence and footprint than most collection lawyers and stock image agencies we report on. Even the with "Getty Images" searches, we are starting to make serious inroads there.
As someone else pointed out, ELI is a safe haven for many. And the few who wanted to attack the ELI safe haven stirred a huge hornet's nest. That forces the entire ELI Defense Team to go on the offensive directly vs. simply reporting as we normally do.
I can't speak for Matt of course. But, I think that Mr Carner has mistaken the primary mission of ELI with the negative results of copyright trolling.
That is the "fight", "non-payment" and the "shame" are a direct result of the following:
- faked evidence
- lack of legal standing
- illegal threats
- ruined reputations of trolls/trolling companies and incompetent lawyers
ELI's mission is to inform. That's how I think of it. The collateral damage to the trolls is the result of greed and warped moral compasses.
-
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.
-
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.
-
buddhapi
Sure. But still. There is a point where someone doesn't need to address something.
I think Glen should answer your questions and suspect he is using the excuse about name calling as an evasion. And I also notice that he has skipped some key follow on questions I've posed. My theory is that he doesn't want to answer those in public -- possibly having certain information appear prematurely may not be favorable to his negotiations for settlement. (If it goes to court, Aloha's attorneys will likely ask certain rather questions in discovery and he will not be able to skip the questions asked.)
But I can't fault him for not want to explain a perfectly reasonable letter to the editor he wrote endorsing a view on a particular political issue. I do not have a low opinion of people who write letters to the editor on political issues, and I don't think he needs to defend that. Moe posted that-- and so I'm giving my opinion on that issue.
-
@ Lucia, I completely understand your position and frankly I could care less about his political views, opinions or his letter tho the editor, nor do I expect him to address them here. I can see how Moe has tied the 2 together, but i'd prefer to keep on the topic of the extortion demand letters and now phone call that Copyright Services International send out/make..
In regards to name calling, I've been very well behaved in that respect, yes I labeled Photographer Vincent K. Tylor, Glen Carner, Hawaiian Art Network and Copyright Services International "copyright troll", but I look at it as more of a "title" than a name. If he addresses my questions, fine, if not that's also fine by me, it only hurts his credibility more, if thats even possible at this point.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
You've made a "double-negative". English isn't your first language.
Also, stop defending scammers.
http://i52.tinypic.com/15gc9zr.jpg
S.G.
-
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.
-
R.I.P Eduard Khill - Trololo
"Official Troll Song".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1orMXD_Ijbs
S.G.
-
Funny C&D letter response
http://www.edibleapple.com/2012/01/13/best-letter-ever-written-to-a-lawyer/
-
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.
-
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. :) )
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Just a couple of points that I'd like to add to the discussion here.
Everyone must take personal responsibility for their actions.
I know for a fact that ELI was never created to "blow up anyone's careers".
I do not think that it's a reasonable argument to say anything to the effect that "if only 'ELI' had just kept quiet, Brandon Sand and his ilk would still be free breaking the laws set forth by the governing bodies".
Send a demand letter from the 'states to Canada? Threatening jail time over a civil matter?
Wow. Why not just turn your law career into a 9mm Glock, shove that cold metal into your mouth as far as it'll go, and pull the trigger as hard as you can?
Furthermore, let's not delude ourselves that our system of law is designed to be hidden behind shuttered windows and closed doors.
Most information is publicly available, and (surprise!) none of it is protected by "copyright".
Lucia has added a lot to the discussions here. I see her being the most tolerant or sympathetic of the regular posters.
Now, I understand that even those that send demand letters can make logical arguments and may indeed be wronged in some cases.
However, the vast, vast majority of those sending demand letters never, ever submit any proof of their claims and accusations.
This fact has an overall effect of nullifying any other arguments that may otherwise seem logical.
What difference does it make whether or not Carner/H.A.N. actually targets businesses instead of bloggers if he's a bullshit artist?
Where's his proof of anything that he's saying? This is what I see as the real crux of the problem. You can't be in the "right" if you cannot prove any wrongdoing.
What's the point of any of these arguments, legal or otherwise if no factual, concrete evidence is available?
Let me say this only once. This is not a goddamn game.
One day, somebody's going to go too far, and it's going to hit the papers.
S.G.
-
Soylent Green
What difference does it make whether or not Carner/H.A.N. actually targets businesses instead of bloggers if he's a bullshit artist?You seem to want to change every possible discussion into one about whether Carner and H.A.N. are evil incarnate (or a bullshit artist). I prefer to focus on whether certain actions or behaviors would be fairer or more respectful. In this way, the issue of whether he is a bullshit artist become relatively unimportant to my answer. The subject Glen brought up and I was addressing was whether calling people on the phone was necessarily a worse practice than sending letters. In this regard, I do think that whether one is calling an established business clearly linked to a web site and making "fishing" type phone calls to private individuals who may or may not be affiliated with a site is a valid difference that affects how I would view the practice. Other factors would matter too.
However, the vast, vast majority of those sending demand letters never, ever submit any proof of their claims and accusations.
This fact has an overall effect of nullifying any other arguments that may otherwise seem logical.I don't disagree with you on the contents of demand letters nor on the reluctance of many to provide proof. But that is a separate issue from the one Glen raised and I engaged which was the question of making phone calls.
As long as we are on the issue of providing proof: I agree with you that it needs to be provided. To be fair to Glen-- on other threads, he has asked what they should do differently. That question was open ended. One of the things I told him was that the people trying to collect should proactively supply proof of ownership during initial contacts. That is: not only do I think they need to provide it when asked, if they are sending letters, this stuff should be sent along with the letter or failing that, a link to a page that provides the proof should be provided. (I'd actually prefer the latter but others might prefer getting printed matter.)
Of course I cannot actually gauge whether Glen is sincerely trying to find out how he can restructure to make his company fairer or whether all your suspicions that he is just a bullshit artist doing .. what? But in my opinion, it is fair for his agency to contact people who are violating copyright and try to negotiate something. And that something can include his photographers being paid. The open questions are: Given what is going one, what sorts of practices on his part are fair or unfair.
We can of course all point to behaviors that were unfair: The behavior of H.A.N. affiliated people toward ENVL was clearly unfair.
Fortunately for her, because she disciplined herself, did research, and found Oscar-- and because Matt and Oscar run a site that makes that possible, she ended up being able to defend herself-- which is a good thing. Whatever his motives, on a thread somewhere Glen apologized to ENVL, and he seems to want to change his business methods to avoid what happened in the ENVL case. Even viewed in the most negative possible light for Glen, that is a step forward for the ELI community.
But that still leaves us with the question: Suppose tomorrow H.A.N. finds different web site that at least superficially appears to be a business decorated with one of their artists photos. They at least think they have a right to compensation. What sorts of behaviors on their part are fair and acceptable? In my view, the answer can't be "H.A.N., CSI and Glen Carner are evil and have no right to collect anything from anyone ever, ever, ever even unto the 7th generation of their offspring. Because we don't like how they handled things in the past. Oh. And we don't like what some other companies did in the past either!"
Going forward, there must be some actions stock-photo companies -- including those affiliated with Glen Carner-- can undertake that could hypothetically permit them to make some sort of contact and attempt to negotiate a settlement in instances where an honest to goodness money making businesses is using a photo that is properly licensed. I think it's fair for Glen to ask us. For my part, I'm going to try to give nuanced answers because I think the question of what is or is not a fair way to approach someone who may or may not be committing a copyright violation requires a nuanced answer.
How Glen uses the information in the answers will affect my opinion of him and his companies going forward.
-
Personally, I think that you're giving H.A.N./Tylor/Carner/CSI way too much credit.
The onus isn't on us to be "understanding", and give them the "benefit of the doubt".
I don't think that the regulars here agree with you that H.A.N/CSI et al have earned that.
I'd like to see others chime in and give their opinions, but some don't like disagreements among the regulars.
Your point about improving their marketing/PR is surely helpful to them, and it's nice that you're doing that.
As such, I understand your point about phone calls being an alternative to sending letters.
But, looking at the bigger, more complete picture, what's the point of phone calls OR letters if the alleged copyright holder can't or won't reveal what's in a collective registration?
I'm simply saying that even with the best, kindest, most respectful representatives in the entire world (phone or by mail), organizations and people such as H.A.N/Tylor/Carner/CSI still have an enormous stumbling block to overcome.
I think that our difference in opinion stems from my thought process that with out proof, anything else is irrelevant, and your opinion that better PR/marketing (being respectful, being fair, not having a paper trail) will help solve the problem.
To be fair, I never said that these people were "evil". I just think that they lie and are greedy. The proof is on ELI.
Furthermore, I never said that copyright holders have no right to collect on copyright infringements. It's in the law.
You certainly have a right to your opinions, however I'm quite sure that your reputation here has fallen several notches.
I'm sure that you'll be a great and loyal CSI employee.
S.G.
-
My comments inline.
Whatever his motives, on a thread somewhere Glen apologized to ENVL, and he seems to want to change his business methods to avoid what happened in the ENVL case. Even viewed in the most negative possible light for Glen, that is a step forward for the ELI community.
Actually, not so much what happened to EVNL. More like the whippings his attorneys, HAN, and his name have been getting. I don't think her incident ranks that high in his coming out. It is simply one of many incidents that motivated him coming out.
But that still leaves us with the question: Suppose tomorrow H.A.N. finds different web site that at least superficially appears to be a business decorated with one of their artists photos. They at least think they have a right to compensation. What sorts of behaviors on their part are fair and acceptable? In my view, the answer can't be "H.A.N., CSI and Glen Carner are evil and have no right to collect anything from anyone ever, ever, ever even unto the 7th generation of their offspring. Because we don't like how they handled things in the past. Oh. And we don't like what some other companies did in the past either!"
Not really our problem if you ask me. ELI is doing what it was designed to do (defend letter recipients, report on the extortion industry, and fighting back), not solving the problems of the stock photo industry. To me, it is a sinking ship like the Titanic. Very few will get to the lifeboats. Glen might be one of the lucky ones. Who knows?
There appears to be some hope of Glen recovering a tiny bit of the positive karma immensely lost. We will see.
So Glen, are you ever going to come out of the shadows from being a faceless account on the Internet? A smart thing to do is to humanize yourself by putting out a photo of yourself and maybe a bio. (Business 101 lesson, reveal yourself and stop hiding behind an online account.) Every member of the core ELI Defense Team is "out" in the public. We all have bios, businesses, photos, and on video. You want some respect? Get out of the shadows. You seem to care about what we think. Get out of the shadows unless you are so afraid someone will identify you in the streets.
Going forward, there must be some actions stock-photo companies -- including those affiliated with Glen Carner-- can undertake that could hypothetically permit them to make some sort of contact and attempt to negotiate a settlement in instances where an honest to goodness money making businesses is using a photo that is properly licensed. I think it's fair for Glen to ask us. For my part, I'm going to try to give nuanced answers because I think the question of what is or is not a fair way to approach someone who may or may not be committing a copyright violation requires a nuanced answer.
Glen can ask. What he gets is a different thing. Everyone gets to respond (or not) in their own way. As I said, it isn't a priority for me and I want to get paid a lot for putting my brain on that. Oscar already gave a freebie and I don't think he is going to devote a lot of time to answering him. I don't think BuddhaPi is extremely motivated beyond a basic answer. Everyone else, I can't say much about.
How Glen uses the information in the answers will affect my opinion of him and his companies going forward.
You and everyone else will be watching.
-
Personally, I think that you're giving H.A.N./Tylor/Carner/CSI way too much credit. The onus isn't on us to be "understanding", and give them the "benefit of the doubt". I don't think that the regulars here agree with you that H.A.N/CSI et al have earned that. I'd like to see others chime in and give their opinions, but some don't like disagreements among the regulars.
S.G.
+1 to what S.G. wrote.
It's all about money, and that's all it's ever been about for the copyright trolls.
Carner's self-serving BS and phony apologies to EVNL turn my stomach.
Giving this guy the benefit of the doubt is comparable to serving up fat tuna to slick sharks.
As far as I'm concerned, individuals who pervert copyright law to try to demand big payments from others are lower than Mafia hoods, who at least have the balls to try to extract your money one-on-one.
I wish Carner would crawl back in his hole because his self-serving BS would gag a maggot. It's certainly making my stomach churn every time I read the latest bit from him.
And, Carner, if you feel beat up reading this kind of post, sit down and look in the mirror and think about your treatment of EVNL (and God only knows how many others you and your BS lawyers have treated over the years in the same way).
-
And yet, here you are! LOL! :) Don't worry, you are not alone in the rubber-necking. It's irresistible. Glen spices up the forums every time he chimes in.
I wish Carner would crawl back in his hole because his self-serving BS would gag a maggot. It's certainly making my stomach churn every time I read the latest bit from him.
-
Thanks for the support, Mulligan. I'm waiting for Matt to get a little more annoyed, though.
Regarding the "apology" to EVNL, it's my understanding that Mr Carner made a weak apology for what Brandon Sand did.
It's "weak", because Mr Carner takes NO responsibility for what Brandon Sand did on his behalf. Can anyone quote the actual posting?
Am I to believe that Carner/H.A.N. didn't sign off on the very first demand letter that they sent out?
If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd fly to Hawaii with a pack of colts and a short length of hose.
S.G.
-
Call me dense. I get annoyed about a lot of things. But what am I supposed to be annoyed about here? Sorry, it went over my head.
Thanks for the support, Mulligan. I'm waiting for Matt to get a little more annoyed, though.
-
Matt-
I have no objection to your not spending time replying. I don't think my choices dictate yours. On the other hand: This is your forum so if you told me to go away, I would.
However, for now, if people ask my opinion, I plan to give my opinions. That will include giving informative answers to Glen's questions and also will include giving informative answers to letter recipient victims when I can. In my opinion, both types of conversation can benefit those on the receiving end of letters.
I realize that my choices seem to bother SG-- I've explained my reasons to him. I don't want my explanations to SG to give anyone the impression that my decision to spend my time engaging Glen in anyway suggests that I think you or anyone else has any obligation to volunteer your time. You have no such obligation either ethically, morally, socially or in any other way.
It is certainly true that Glen's business enterprise and his choices are his and absolutely no one is required to donate their time or expertise to assist hm. But by the same token, I hope that doesn't mean that people are not permitted to answer-- and sometimes if he asks questions, I will be answering. (Well, unless you decide to forbid it. But I have not developed the sense that it is forbidden.)
-
I'm pretty sure this will be my least popular post.
Although the stated goal of ELI is "defend letter recipients, report on the extortion industry, and fighting back," MY stated goal is to do what I can to change the way the stock industry does business. I won't be happy until they start providing proof of their claim and reasonable assessments. That means copyright registration if available, the "confidential" agreement in which the photographer supposedly granted them exclusive rights, and legitimate sales data. Having a person around from the other side, with an opposing point of view, is immensely useful to me in this regard. That's why I'm disappointed when ELI members choose not to take the "high road."
I understand the anger and frustration people on here have regarding the demand letters. Believe me I have it too. And it's human nature to want to unload all that at someone who clearly represents your adversary. It would be so easy to badger this person until they don't want to come here. But how is that going to help anyone?
I enjoy all of your posts, but I would have to side with Lucia. GOING FORWARD, if you have any interest in actually being a part of the solution and changing the stock industry's practices, then you have to at least listen with an open mind. Even in politics, there comes a time to set aside the petty B.S. and sniping and try and find something that works.
Is Glen doing a little "cover your ass" routine? Probably. Should the counter-suit against his company go forward, he can claim that he engaged the community on the largest site dedicated to this issue. That might minimize some of the damages. But is he also sincerely trying to find out how he can restructure to make his company better? This is probably true too.
I know everyone is anxious to get a little payback. If I'm being honest, I am too. I'm looking forward to the outcome of that counter suit. But I think the long-term, politically smart play IS to have some "understanding", and give them the "benefit of the doubt." I really don't understand the hand-wringing about giving out "free" advice. To me, if you want to change how the stock industry does business, you need to be vocal about HOW you want it to change. I don't believe the stock photo industry ship is sinking. But I do believe it is changing, and the extortion letters are a symptom of this change. It's possible to help shape this change if you are open to hearing ideas from the other side. Solutions are hard to come by, pitchforks and torches are easy.
Back to the question at hand. I think the phone call is a horrible idea. I think a letter with all the documentation, proof and information tied up into a neat little package with a reasonable (REASONABLE!) claim would be acceptable to me. I know other people on here are of the opinion that a takedown notice should be issued first. If the stock industry were to take that extraordinary step, they might win be back as a customer.
But a phone call out of the blue is going to be perceived as a scam. And when an outrageous price tag is thrown out, the call recipient will KNOW it's a scam. The first step the stock photo industry can take toward healing itself would be to get much more transparent and honest.
-
I won't be happy until they start providing proof of their claim and reasonable assessments. That means copyright registration if available, the "confidential" agreement in which the photographer supposedly granted them exclusive rights, and legitimate sales data.
I told Glen the same thing when he asked what companies can do differently. I think this information should be provided up front, and anyone asked to enter into negotiations ought to have access to this information before entering any negotiations about what to do about any alleged (or real) infraction. Moreover, no matter what the method of communication (phone, letter, email, instant message chat what have you) the photographer and agents should permit people time to review this information before any negotiations of a mutually agreeable resolution begin.
Is Glen doing a little "cover your ass" routine? Probably.I sure don't disagree with this!
-
To Quote MCFilms:
"Back to the question at hand. I think the phone call is a horrible idea. I think a letter with all the documentation, proof and information tied up into a neat little package with a reasonable (REASONABLE!) claim would be acceptable to me. I know other people on here are of the opinion that a takedown notice should be issued first. If the stock industry were to take that extraordinary step, they might win be back as a customer."
I agree 100% with the above statement..It's really very simple, but the stock agencies cannot see the forest thru the trees..
It's the un-reasonable amounts they demand they get me going, hell if getty had approached me and asked for an amount that was inline to what the image was worth, I may have very well paid them ( even though I had a license for the imagebut i'll forego that part for now) Don't be sending me leeter threatening a lawsuit and demanding 1200.00 for an image that is clearly available for 47.00.. I too want to see a change and trust me i'm trying to be open minded, but it's difficult when Glen comes along with his song and dance, talking out the side of his mouth.. I change my business as times change, I don't feel as if I need to figure out and advise stock image companies, how they need to change their business, they should be able to figure this out on their own. It's been well stated here on ELI what needs to be changed, they just keep stumbling over the money portion.. Rights Managed Images are DEAD for all intents and purposes, people ARE NOT going to buy/license these images, given the choice of micro-stock and royalty free options.
-
"Rights Managed" the way much of the industry is using it here will end up going away. You can't make the claim that an image is exceptional given there are hundreds of very similar images available for much less.You also won't be able to enforce it as "rights managed" if you have failed to protect it and it is now all over the Internet.
However, I would point out that there are those "one-in-a-million" shots that probably warrant a "rights managed" treatment. Whether it's a knockout punch from Muhammad Ali, or Marilyn Monroe over an air vent, certain images are clearly iconic and exceptional. There are also magazine-quality images that are so outstanding and remarkable that they may be "rights managed." Fine. But that being the case, MANAGE the rights -- register the copyright individually, don't post them without some sort of watermark, and by all means issue a takedown notice the moment it gets on a "Free Wallpaper" site.
Why is that so hard for GI, HAN, MF et al to understand?
-
As per "Glen"....
"While we wont ever get to a point where our photographers are having their work used for profit and then the business is expected to only remove them, there is no reason not to try and modify the recovery process in a way that is more palatable for the end user (and a new attorney for that matter)."
Strike One...
As per "Glen".....
"Until copyright law changes, the agencies will continue to function as they do, recoveries using attorneys will continue, and ELI will be there to shame them in the process. There is no reason not to continue examining the process and improving it in any way possible which is why our account staff was trained specifically on a "no legal language" approach when asking for the license fee only with no mention of copyright, penalties, or any legal position what so ever. We will continue to do this and I again appreciate your positions and feedback."
Strike two....
As per "Glen"....
"Some attorneys we work with have never have shown up on ELI and I think that has to do with many of the points mentioned. Most were experienced and choose the cases they accepted carefully. I want to go through this thread again when I have more time and will likely be steering anyone we work with in the future here."
"The idea of using attorneys less is still my goal but I think we can (and will) play a more active role in what they send out on our behalf based on these points. When HAN hires an attorney using current tracking systems, they are provided with a retail price based on the use and told to do the best they can. We don't have access to what is a more appropriate letter and what is extreme under the law. There seems to be very little standard in recovering revenue for photographers which one would think would have been standardized to some degree."
Strike three.....You're OUT!
It is my "opinion" that he is here to "learn" WHY exactly that he is in the "crapper" if you will so oblige me. The only "change" I can see is the kind of change that will keep his "company name" and his "company demand letters" OFF of ELI!
It is my "opinion" that ANY demand letter/PHONE CALL requesting to "remit payment" no questions asked, is "judge, jury, and executioner"!
You want "change"? STOP THE MADDNESS!
>:(
-
Good post by McFilms. It's good that Lucia has your support (which I think is the due to the "change" concept).
However, I think that you've agreed with my opinions on practically every other point.
i.e. proof of claims, documentation, and that the phone call thing won't work.
In fact, I also agree that change is needed.
I also like the political analogy that you've made. This is really true. I think that what works in a political arena would work here also.
Keeping in mind that unpopular politicians get voted out (companies go out of business), and crooked politicians go straight to jail (when they steal from people).
So, you don't get to play "politics" if you're a bad politician or a crook.
I don't think that "change" is going to come easy, or in the way that most people think or hope that it will.
The only stock images that actually sell are inexpensive royalty free products, and rights-managed current-events stuff.
Most businesses use the former, which cuts out rights-managed operations like MF, Getty, and Hawaiian Art Network entirely.
So, eventually, 99 percent of MF, Getty, and Hawaiian Art Network revenue will have to come from infringers/alleged infringers, and not paying customers.
But, nobody will pay unless they're threatened in an extremely aggressive way, which destroys such businesses.
Does anybody actually think that a "Uncle Glen Customer Care Center" that calls people and asks for money out of the blue is going to work?
Or that a nice letter will make people pay? It can be tried... but Carner might go bankrupt before he finds that it won't work.
In the case of inexpensive royalty-free images, they're not worth litigating over. So their reputation will remain in good standing.
My conclusion is that only the royalty-free reasonably priced stock image outfits will survive along with Getty's photojournalistic stuff.
In my opinion, it's not really productive to discuss how to make people pay over infringements, because that's a business concept that will fail.
But, you know... have at it.
Please don't mistake "passion" for "anger". If I wanted "payback", I'd get it believe me.
Also, while I don't want to see anyone leave, the people that sulk away into the shadows are the ones that called on stuff and can't win their arguments.
S.G.
-
Peeved, super post. +1
McFilms, I appreciate you, your contributions to ELI, and, almost all of the time, the way you think.
Regarding benefits of the doubt, however, I believe you're naive to believe for a moment that the serious trolls have any intention of changing to a C&D first for what are obviously non-egregious and in most cases innocent infringements and then escalation if a C&D doesn't occur (which to my thinking is the sole reasonable, moral, and ethical approach in the digital age for dealing with copyright laws that are out-dated and inappropriate for the Internet -- and thus highly abused by the trolls).
Unfortunately, there's no money to be had in taking the reasonable course and for people like Glen Carner and the Getty Images trolls, they are in the copyright payment extraction business to make money. That's their right, of course, at least until they get slapped down by a Federal Court at some point and end up losing some big dollars.
But as for giving these sharks the benefit of the doubt and providing them with insights on how to better extract payments using copyright laws... I'll personally take a pass on doing that, thank you.
-
I am a bit lost to why my name is brought up. I don't think I disparaged you or anyone for answering Glen. That is your choice. I simply stated I didn't want to spend time trying to solve HIS industry problems. And you are right, your actions don't dictate mine. It's your time and effort, not mine.
I don't think I have tried to squelch anyone's opinion regarding Glen. Somehow you have me confused with something.
In any case, Glen's time might soon be over. His free ride is over. Glen has been put on notice that he will have to literally pay an ELI monthly contribution to hang out here. Why should he get free benefits when we have extortion letter recipients having to pay ELI Phone Support calls, ELI voluntary contributions, and ELI Defense Letters? All of which to directly or indirectly support the continued existence of the ELI website and the ELI Forums. He is taking our collective knowledge only to use it to extract more monies for his business.
If I thought anyone was crossing the line or doing something I didn't like, I would be more explicit about it. Somehow during some communications or off-hand comment, you or SG might have read more my into my comments it was intended.
Matt-
I have no objection to your not spending time replying. I don't think my choices dictate yours. On the other hand: This is your forum so if you told me to go away, I would.
However, for now, if people ask my opinion, I plan to give my opinions. That will include giving informative answers to Glen's questions and also will include giving informative answers to letter recipient victims when I can. In my opinion, both types of conversation can benefit those on the receiving end of letters.
I realize that my choices seem to bother SG-- I've explained my reasons to him. I don't want my explanations to SG to give anyone the impression that my decision to spend my time engaging Glen in anyway suggests that I think you or anyone else has any obligation to volunteer your time. You have no such obligation either ethically, morally, socially or in any other way.
It is certainly true that Glen's business enterprise and his choices are his and absolutely no one is required to donate their time or expertise to assist hm. But by the same token, I hope that doesn't mean that people are not permitted to answer-- and sometimes if he asks questions, I will be answering. (Well, unless you decide to forbid it. But I have not developed the sense that it is forbidden.)
-
Glen can ask. What he gets is a different thing. Everyone gets to respond (or not) in their own way.
Matt--
I am a bit lost to why my name is brought up. I don't think I disparaged you or anyone for answering Glen.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. In response to a quote by me you wrote:
Glen can ask. What he gets is a different thing. Everyone gets to respond (or not) in their own way.
My position is pretty much exactly the same as yours.
I posted because I don't want anyone to misunderstand my defending my decision to answer Glen and somehow implying you or anyone else must do the same. I may be mistaken but I sense some others (not you) may have gotten the impression I think others must do as I do-- and I don't think that. Sorry if this wasn't clear.
-
I believe you're naive to believe for a moment that the serious trolls have any intention of changing to a C&D first for what are obviously non-egregious and in most cases innocent infringements and then escalation if a C&D doesn't occur (which to my thinking is the sole reasonable, moral, and ethical approach in the digital age for dealing with copyright laws that are out-dated and inappropriate for the Internet -- and thus highly abused by the trolls).
By the way I enjoy and agree with most of your posts too.
I didn't say that I believed they were going to switch to C&D letters first. I said that is a pathway they could take to win my business back and perhaps stem the tide of negative opinion. For true rights managed images with the paperwork in order, I actually think a reasonable fee would make sense. Buddhapi has said as much too. Your opinion is that this isn't reasonable, moral, or ethical.
Okay, so what's the end game? We chase off Glen, continue to try and help people that find this site, and bitch about how horrible the trolls are? I 'm not interested in that game. If people want to try and effect real change, count me in. If it's just pitchforks and torches, this villager will sit home and have popcorn.
-
I believe you're naive to believe for a moment that the serious trolls have any intention of changing to a C&D first for what are obviously non-egregious and in most cases innocent infringements and then escalation if a C&D doesn't occur (which to my thinking is the sole reasonable, moral, and ethical approach in the digital age for dealing with copyright laws that are out-dated and inappropriate for the Internet -- and thus highly abused by the trolls).
By the way I enjoy and agree with most of your posts too.
I didn't say that I believed they were going to switch to C&D letters first. I said that is a pathway they could take to win my business back and perhaps stem the tide of negative opinion. For true rights managed images with the paperwork in order, I actually think a reasonable fee would make sense. Buddhapi has said as much too. Your opinion is that this isn't reasonable, moral, or ethical.
Okay, so what's the end game? We chase off Glen, continue to try and help people that find this site, and bitch about how horrible the trolls are? I 'm not interested in that game. If people want to try and effect real change, count me in. If it's just pitchforks and torches, this villager will sit home and have popcorn.
For what it's worth McFilms, I agree with you regarding "real change". If I felt that was truly the case I would be standing next to you with my "pitchfork". :) I just do not agree that the change you are looking for is the same type of change that Mr. Carner has in mind.
-
McFilms
For true rights managed images with the paperwork in order, I actually think a reasonable fee would make sense. Buddhapi has said as much too.
This is also my position. I think one of the great difficulties for stock photo companies is that the reasonable fee to display some very beautiful photos on the web is generally much lower than photographers might consider reasonable. So we end up with gaps where as far as I can tell, someone is asking for $10,000 when the market value for perpetual display on that image on the web might be $50 tops.
As for the phone issue: If the phone calls were to a business, explained information, provided documentation and requested $50 I wouldn't have a big problem with CSI/HAN/Whoever using the phone. Likely, in this case, the business owner would respond by saying "let me look into that" and also explain that because their site is operated by their IT people, they might not be able to determine the facts of the case in less than 5 days.
Of course if the purpose of the phone call is to present the exact same sort of unreasonable $10K demand for an image worth $50, switching to from letter to phone isn't going to make people think any better of a stock photo company.
-
No problem. I was good all along. I was just confused at what you and SG were referring to my name about. I had no ill will or disagreements with either of you or your replies (for now. :) LOL.)
My position is pretty much exactly the same as yours.
I posted because I don't want anyone to misunderstand my defending my decision to answer Glen and somehow implying you or anyone else must do the same. I may be mistaken but I sense some others (not you) may have gotten the impression I think others must do as I do-- and I don't think that. Sorry if this wasn't clear.
-
Carner wants us to let cooler heads prevail and move forward with CSI and HAN. He want us to accept a kinder, gentler form of framing extortionate collection messaging, whether written or spoken. He wants us to put the past (and present) behind us and give him our views on how he could build a business model we can all live with.
However, I strongly believe actions have consequences and the past actions of CSI, HAN and VKT are no exception. There are NO exceptions to that rule in my book.
I would also like to address the courage issue. As I said, I don't believe what Carner is doing takes any courage, just lots of chutzpah (or "unmitigated audacity" as Frank Zappa would define it). Many people in this forum have shown REAL courage, and the list is so long I won't even start for fear of leaving anyone out.
Most of all, though, I'd like to say that there is one person who has been the MOST courageous because his courage involves not just talking about the abuse of process and educating people, but taking REAL action and truly standing for what's right even if he stands alone. He says what he means and he means what he says.
That would be Michael of Aloha Plastic Surgery. My hat will always be off to him for what he's doing regardless of the outcome.
Having said that, I do have some positive feedback for Glen Carner. In my opinion, what he could do to improve CSI's business model in the future are the following items, in order of urgency:
1) Drop the civil action against APS and take your $200 fee for innocent infringement. Offer to pay for APS's legal fees to date.
2) Use all your persuasion skills to convince APS to drop the countersuit. I think APS would be more than glad to drop the case and move on. No harm, no foul.
3) Change your model so that the first contact is a professionally drafted C&D with very specific information about the ownership of the image(s) in question, and how far you're willing to go to protect your clients' intellectual property. Maybe hire Oscar to write you a proper and ethical C&D letter to ask for the $200 innocent infringement fee. This will be enough to cover a form letter sent by your staff to innocent infringers. If the other party refuses to comply and/or pay the innocent infringement fee, THEN you can send a specific account of the legal actions you will take and how much money you're going to expect, or even take them to court if they're totally defiant. That would not be extortion at all. That's pure and legitimate copyright enforcement.
4) Blatant, serial infringers you can treat with the present model, and I'm sure the ELI community would even support that. For example, the THOUSANDS of wallpaper sites. I don't think anyone from ELI would have any sympathy for the infringers. In fact, no reasonable person would hold that against anyone else. I can give you a list of 12 websites hosted by ISPs controlled by Softlayer.com. That's $120,000 if you get $10,000 per infringement. I can show your staff how to find hundreds more, right here in the USA, some of them so close to where I live I could drive over and put them in a headlock for you.
5) After items 1-4 are completed, come back into the fold with ELI and show us that you really want to protect your clients' IP and not profit grotesquely from innocent infringements. I will personally put you on my IP protection White List, and I think the ELI community would too. I have proposed to the ELI community to create a White List for intellectual property protection vendors as well as stock photo companies. Heck, any of us could actually need help with a blatant infringement of OUR intellectual property.
If the litigation with APS does not go the way you may be envisioning, you could end up receiving a very serious financial setback and a serious blow to your companies' reputation and even your reputation as an individual. If any of the serious charges you are being accused of can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, you could end up in real prison and that won't work for CSI or HAN unless you have a very efficient and loyal staff that is willing to keep your doors open for a few years while you wear orange jumpsuits and print license plates. Like S.G. said, this isn't a game. It's for real and the stakes are very high.
I know this is a radical departure from what you're doing now, but you can do this. It's really your choice.
If you can bring yourself to make these moves, we won't call you a troll anymore. In fact we'll sing the praises of a company that is willing to revise their methods to be fair and balanced. We'll practically hump your leg for reconsidering your methods and becoming a shining example of how copyright enforcement can be handled with fairness and propriety.
If you can bring yourself to do these things, I will be the first to say you're a VERY courageous person, Carner. It takes a really courageous person to admit that one is wrong and to do something to make things right. I think the ELI community will reward you for doing the right thing and doing it the right way.
I assure you, Mr. Carner, that I am being very serious and sincere about this, and about Fair Elections too.