ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on June 03, 2012, 08:04:08 AM
-
While it is certainly great to see the ELI community so willing to share and pose questions to Glen Carner as well as offer FREE advise as to what he should change, I think it's a bit much to hand him stuff on a silver platter. I'm referring to links that point to accounts with his name on it, free wall paper sites with Tylor images.. After all he does have a "trained researcher" on staff, I think we should do our part to help the economy while at the same time giving the "researcher" some job security. If Glen and his "team" at Copyright Services International LLC are to lazy, ignorant or just plain dumb to figure this out on their own so be it.
I'm not by any means telling anyone what or what not to post, these are just MY thoughts on the matter...
-
buddhapi
I'd thought about that way of looking at things before. But by the same token, it also occurred to me that it can be useful to point have a record that shows that Carner is participating in discussions about the "Photo-posts-at-Webshots->stuff appears on wall paper site-> Photos representatives sue mopes" path. In my view, ethically and morally, a photographer whose business model results in his own enrichment at the expense of the mopes in this scenario is being rewarded for unjust enrichment-- and I don't think copyright laws should permit this enrichment. (Whether current copyright laws make this enrichment lawful I cannot say. But I don't think such a situation would be fair. )
Having him engage in such discussions in public means afterwards he can't later claim to have been unaware of this path exists. This means going forward, if he doesn't want to be seen to be unjustly enriching his business, he ought not to permit his company to get involved in any suits involving images that were listed previously listed at Webshots or places that permit similar practices. Moreover, he should advise his clients that if they list images at places like that, he will not spend his company time or resources sending out DMAC's to places like Go Daddy or pursue lawsuits against "mopes" for any image that has been listed at a site like Webshots.
My hope-- of course- - is that courts will also not reward this sort of practice and will not levy fines against businesses who are duped into believing the images are free and then unknowingly use them (i.e. become "mopes" in this scenario.) If courts act as I hope, I suspect Carner's company will follow the practice I advise because doing otherwise will hit his company in the pocket book.
But-- I also think-- making sure Carner has been made aware of that a business model appears to include a "Photo-posts-at-Webshots->stuff appears on wall paper site-> Photos representatives sue mopes" path at least means that -- in future-- judges might consider the fact that the company representing phographers is aware of the path. Also, it could make congress-critters aware, and that might influence modifications of copyright to prevent the possibility of unjust enrichment of photographers who might be tempted to exploit this path.
-
Maybe some people felt that they should remind him.
You know, in case he forgot where he and Tylor seeded those images.
The images are offered everywhere as "free"... it must be hard to keep track of hundreds of those sites. lol
S.G.
-
Maybe some people felt that they should remind him.
You know, in case he forgot where he and Tylor seeded those images.
The images are offered everywhere as "free"... it must be hard to keep track of hundreds of those sites. lol
S.G.
" Every effort is made to provide factual information" is on the first paragraph of the first page S.G.. It doesn't say "see what sticks, say it enough, and it will become truth because our job is to ruin these stock photo companies and the people who work with them at all costs."
-
Glen, you might find this hard to believe but we do not "ruin these stock photo companies and the people who work with them at all costs." We actually use some discretion and restraint. It's just that when we hit, we hit hard.
If there is incorrect information here on ELI, you aren't doing a good job pointing them out or offering some level of evidence to support your statements.
We do speculate and hypothesize and they may be incorrect. But given your industry's credibility, we are not going to simply accept your statements as fact until we can verify them.
If you choose not to provide supporting or corroborating evidence (because we can't make you) or statements from a credible source, we will stick what we have collectively come up with.
"Every effort is made to provide factual information" is on the first paragraph of the first page S.G.. It doesn't say "see what sticks, say it enough, and it will become truth because our job is to ruin these stock photo companies and the people who work with them at all costs."
-
Glen, you might find this hard to believe but we do not "ruin these stock photo companies and the people who work with them at all costs." We actually use some discretion and restraint. It's just that when we hit, we hit hard.
If there is incorrect information here on ELI, you aren't doing a good job pointing them out or offering some level of evidence to support your statements.
We do speculate and hypothesize and they may be incorrect. But given your industry's credibility, we are not going to simply accept your statements as fact until we can verify them.
If you choose not to provide supporting or corroborating evidence (because we can't make you) or statements from a credible source, we will stick what we have collectively come up with.
"Every effort is made to provide factual information" is on the first paragraph of the first page S.G.. It doesn't say "see what sticks, say it enough, and it will become truth because our job is to ruin these stock photo companies and the people who work with them at all costs."
That's fair Matt. Thank you. I can't speak to the HAN matters as you know but I appreciate you asking for the facts (which you also did prior at the first allegations of circulating images).
-
"ruin these stock photo companies and the people who work with them at all costs."?
What? By reporting what's been happening? Don't make me laugh.
Personally, in fact, I'm still buying stock images. I'm just not buying from the trolls.
I'm more than happy to pay a fair price, and I'm glad that I can support ethical photographers and ethical stock image houses.
S.G.
-
You just keep making me call you out on things.
You CAN speak out if you want to. It's your darn lawsuit after all. YOU hired the lawyer for gosh sakes. But if you choose NOT to then freaking say so.
Don't give this song and dance on how some lawyer won't let you. I already went through that BS with someone else and it turned out he was simply a coward that didn't know the first thing about publicly defending himself and got himself a huge ass lawyer bill for being silent. It didn't matter his audience was probably 10 times larger than ELI. He was just not very bright and blindly followed his lawyers.
Let me give you a freebie. Try keeping your own counsel once in a while.
That's fair Matt. Thank you. I can't speak to the HAN matters as you know but I appreciate you asking for the facts (which you also did prior at the first allegations of circulating images).
-
Personally, in fact, I'm still buying stock images. I'm just not buying from the trolls.
I'm more than happy to pay a fair price, and I'm glad that I can support ethical photographers and ethical stock image houses.
S.G.
Me too SG. There seems to be plenty of companies that offer reasonably-priced, quality, stock photography companies that don't include suing customers in their business plan.