ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on November 13, 2011, 05:09:16 PM
-
>>This post was hidden as a result of Julie Stewart's DMCA complaint. Consequently, we issued a DMCA counter-notification letter and we are now fully authorized to restore/unhide it for full public reading by Eapps.com<<
Just when I thought I would have a quiet Sunday, comes an email letter from Canadian Lawyer Julie Stewart of Blackline Law. She and Hawaiian Art Network apparently are not happy that one of our community members submitted a copy of their Demand Letter to us to openly share. It appears they prefer to do this in secrecy.
Words like defamation, libel, and slander are being tossed around again. (Brrr....) Remember the whole John McDougall and Steven Weinberg incident? If not, read this post to get up to speed.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2138.0.html
I am wondering if Julie Stewart had read the McDougall / Weinberg post first, would she have even bothered sending Oscar and I the email she did.
I have highlighted some interesting sections as emphasis. She does her share of name-calling if you ask me.
Her original post was actually relatively obscure and had relatively little traffic and readership. I suspect that will now change.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2303.msg3487.html#msg3487
Read her letter and share your thoughts. My response to her will be posted below.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: URGENT - defamatory content on your website
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:28:28 -0500
From: [email protected]
To: oscarmichelen
CC: matthewchan
Mr. Michelen and Mr. Chan,
I am a Canadian lawyer who recently represented a professional fine-art
photographer and his agent in a copyright infringement claim. The
infringing party was a for-profit corporation that used my clients' images
without purchasing a license. The cease and desist/ settlement demand
letter has been posted in various places associated with your website with
the suggestion that it is an 'extortion letter' and publicizes my name as
well as my client’s name. I have reported it as prohibited content to
facebook and Scribd, both in respect of slander, defamation and libel AND
copyright infringement.
Please confirm that this letter and all references to it will be removed
from your website and any associated sites (facebook, Scribd, Twitter,
etc.) immediately along with any reference to my name, my business name
and my clients' name.
My clients' images are high-quality professional-grade photographs created
for professional use. Companies looking for professional-grade images
purchase licenses from my client. Professional-grade images come with a
price tag because they often cost the photographer money to produce. I
work with many photographers, and they can spend hundreds, sometimes
thousands of dollars, to create their work (i.e., purchasing equipment,
paying models, etc.)
While I completely understand that it can be upsetting to receive a cease
and desist/ settlement demand letter, please also understand that it is
equally upsetting to the photographers to find that for-profit companies
are using their images without paying for them. It is theft, plain and
simple. Yes, it is upsetting to be on the wrong side of the law.
Under Canadian law, even if an infringer's use of an image was innocent,
the infringement subjects them to liability for damages plus the costs of
proceeding against them. To prove innocent infringement, you would have to
show that you had no reasonable grounds for believing you had infringed –
a defence rarely accepted by the courts, and difficult to establish for
commercial websites.
Nevertheless, my clients' settlement demands are calculated to assume that
infringement is innocent and only include the likely award for damages
(the catalogue license price for the size, length and type of use in
question) plus the costs of pursuing the claim, including legal fees. In
fact, the settlement demand is often significantly lower than the minimum
that a court would award as damages for innocent infringement.
There is nothing 'extortionist' about requiring the owner of a for-profit
commercial website to pay a license fee to a photographer who earns his
living from his work. It is entirely in line with Canadian copyright
infringement law, as it ought to be. My clients are committed to
amicable, fair settlement and simply want to get paid for their work as
anyone else does.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. I hope that we can
resolve this quickly and without me and my clients having to pursue
further action.
Julie
Julie Stewart
Lawyer, Blackline Art + Entertainment Law
T: 1-(416)-628-8364
F: 1-(416)-628-8364
www.blacklinelaw.ca
-
This was my email response to Julie Stewart. The letter speaks for itself to all concerned.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: URGENT - defamatory content on your website
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:54:57 -0500
From: * Matthew Chan *
To: [email protected]
CC: Oscar Michelen
Hello Julie,
I am surprised that our small posts have caught your attention and that
you have taken the time to send us an email on a Sunday morning. Here in
the U.S., it is a 3-day holiday weekend. You appear to be very diligent
working for yourself or your client, Hawaiian Art, during the weekend.
In any case, I will respond to your concerns of your email.
As you know by now, ExtortionLetterInfo.com was created to report and
serve as a communication outlet and educational resource for those
people who wish to discuss and share their experiences and be informed
about Stock Photo Industry Settlement Demand Letters. We colloquially
call those letters, "extortion letters". While you may disagree with it,
you will find we equally apply this term to everyone issuing settlement
demand letters. You and Hawaiian Art are not being singled out. In fact,
thus far, we consider you and your client relatively minor players thus
far as Getty Images is, by far, the "biggest elephant" in the business.
The reason settlement demand letters are colloquially called "extortion
letters" is because it because it illustrates an ongoing campaign by the
stock photo industry to take advantage of end-user ignorance of
copyright law and legal process to "compel", "motivate", "incentivize"
letter recipients into making payments. As much as we find these letters
distasteful, we do recognize it as being legal. We regard the whole
letter campaign as "legalized extortion" because it is very much an
uneven playing field.
Just as your client (Hawaiian Art) has a legal right (through your
assistance) to pursue alleged infringers with settlement demand letters,
those alleged infringers have a right to be assisted and openly
communicate with any entities that would assist them. Settlement Demand
Letter recipients are free to share their information with us either
privately or in an open forum. We, in turn, can accurately share
information with or without permission. As a general rule, we work with
our community members and have their full support and consent to share
information we do have. As much as you and Hawaiian Art may prefer to
communicate quietly behind the scenes, we have a right to report the
information as long as it is accurate.
As you requested, I have gone back to re-evaluate specific posts
regarding you and Hawaiian Art:
1. Regarding Scribd, there is/was no reference to the copy of your
letter as "extortion letter". It is being called the "Blackline
Settlement Demand Letter" in which Hawaiian Art is being referred to
within the letter. It is a legal document which feel is totally
appropriate to the sharing forum Scribd provides. You, of course, have a
right to contest this with Scribd.
2. The Twitter post in question cannot be edited. As such, I deleted it
altogether because you objected to the phrase "extortion letter" as it
relates to your name. While we feel it is EVERYONE's right to openly use
that term, we will in the future endeavor to refer to such letters as
"settlement demand letters" simply out of professional courtesy.
However, you should know through the DMCA, we cannot be held responsible
for language used by our community members who may still refer to
Settlement Demand Letters as "Extortion Letters".
3. The Facebook post in question could not be edited and was deleted for
the same reasons as Point #2.
4. Last, but not least, the original forum post announcing your letter
has been amended to "Settlement Demand Letter" replacing the previous
term "extortion letter". Again, this was done as a professional courtesy
but the thread of discussion will remain.
Regarding your accusations of slander, defamation, libel, and copyright
infringement, I question whether you truly are a knowledgeable lawyer in
the areas you are accusing or if this is just a heavy-handed tactic in
attempt to test our legal sensibilities. Quite frankly, I believe the
latter is the case. I cannot honestly believe you know so little about
slander, defamation, and libel. I cannot speak for Oscar but here are my
replies:
A. Regarding defamation, you have to prove what is being said is false.
It is quite questionable whether the minimum level of qualification for
defamation even exists. In the context of the entire existence and
premise of ExtortionLetterInfo.com, which we colloquially use the term
"extortion letter" in exchange and in lieu of "settlement demand
letter", you may find that term distasteful but it is not false. There
was no attack on you or your personal character. In fact, we know very
little about you aside from the bio on your website and your letter.
Even our community members have not had much to say about you or your
practice as you are still a relatively unknown entity.
B. Regarding slander, that generally refers to oral / spoken statements.
Quite frankly, there have been ZERO oral/spoken statements about you of
any kind. So the accusation of slander is outright ridiculous. Until
this email, you barely registered in our consciousness much less being
spoken about in ANY capacity much less in a way that is damaging to your
or your character.
C. Regard libel, that refers to written form. Again, does the minimum
level of qualification for libel even exist? Does 3 small posts
(consisting of at most two sentences) referring to your settlement
demand letter even remotely qualify or meet the minimum threshold of
falsehood and damaging? It's a blip. Refer to Point #A in whether the
term "extortion letter" even qualifies as false. I do not think it is
any worse than the statement you made in your email
"It is theft, plain and simple. Yes, it is upsetting to be on the wrong side of the law."
If you ask me, that is pretty inflammatory for a person in your
profession. I wonder how letter recipients would react to you calling
them "thieves" and being "on the wrong side of the law". I suppose it
might be similar to the way you seem to be offended as being thought of
as an "extortionist". (Incidentally, that word almost never is used on a
personal level to anyone.) Let us also remember this is a civil matter,
not a criminal matter. I don't think you are a judge qualified to say
who is on "wrong side"? There are simply opposing sides of the argument.
D. Regarding copyright infringement, what are you referring to? They
copy of your demand letter? Your letter is being used as a method of
direct communication to an alleged infringer. Are you going to sue
everyone who made a photocopy of the letter for the purpose of
information sharing or defending the case? If you wanted copyright
protection for that letter, maybe you should print it in some
publication and not actually use it as an instrument of legal communication.
Before I close this letter, you may want to advise future clients that
trying to squash Internet communications is a futile effort and only
makes them look bad. If they are too embarrassed or dislike the negative
attention associated with the demand letters, maybe they should revisit
how they approach the matter. People are going to talk and fight back,
not willingly roll over and succumb to outrageous settlement amounts.
In closing, I have acknowledged your concerns and made minor corrective
changes as mentioned above as a matter of professional courtesy. We have
made no factual errors that we can find. As far as I am concerned this
matter is now resolved and closed.
Respectfully,
Matthew Chan
-
looks like some feathers got ruffled...
"immediately along with any reference to my name, my business name
and my clients' name."
Isn't all of this public information anyway??
-
Interesting stuff, Matthew.
It's of note how some of these lawyers want the details of these letters to remain in the shadows, while also "getting their name out there".
The reason that many of these letters are referred to as "extortion letters" is because they deliberately mislead the recipient.
That's also why some lawyers don't want the general public to see them.
I also agree that it's not "theft", which I've mentioned before.
"Theft" is a criminal statute/code. Copyright infringements are of a civil nature as you mentioned.
Use of the word "theft" is quite misleading. In addition, "theft" also implies that the "original" article has gone missing, not simply copied.
But hey, if the professional copyright trolls want to get their name out there by writing extortion letters to the owners of the forum (threatening libel, etc.), I'm sure that it's cheaper than professional marketing efforts to get business. It's just not very effective.
S.G.
-
Apparently, not public in as it relates to revealing one of her clients and her name and business is associated with the negative aspects of the demand letter operation.
As she has been fully informed, she is fully within her rights to make her arguments for her client. But don't think that everyone will fall into line the way she wants it.
Lawyers are not totally immune from the cases they choose to take on. They are part of the process and accountable for their part.
We simply assist in making this a more open process and to equalize the defense position.
looks like some feathers got ruffled...
"immediately along with any reference to my name, my business name
and my clients' name."
Isn't all of this public information anyway??
-
Legal ignorance works to THEIR favor which is why so many letter recipients rollover. The stock photo companies can be heavy-handed but education and open information is a HUGE equalizer. They like the secrecy and one-on-one fight because they think they are bigger.
ELI helps affect a game-change by letting people know they aren't alone and it is a boiler-plate operation designed for revenue generation. Revealing the players and their tools and tactics is very important.
Matthew
It's of note how some of these lawyers want the details of these letters to remain in the shadows, while also "getting their name out there".
The reason that many of these letters are referred to as "extortion letters" is because they deliberately mislead the recipient.
That's also why some lawyers don't want the general public to see them.
But hey, if the professional copyright trolls want to get their name out there by writing extortion letters to the owners of the forum (threatening libel, etc.), I'm sure that it's cheaper than professional marketing efforts to get business. It's just not very effective.
S.G.
-
Read Oscar Michelen's reply to Julie Stewart of Blackline Law. Lots of great points being made.
I have to say that Oscar's reply cuts like a knife on so many levels. Generally speaking, I feel that I am the more aggressive on when I communicate online. But I think I can safely say this time around, that Oscar put a real hammer to Julie in his own inimitable but direct way.
I will be surprised if Julie Stewart wants to pursue this matter further. It would not be wise for her and would only make her and Hawaiian Art Network look worse than if they had left it alone.
Matthew
====================
Oscar's reply removed at his request.
-
Matt, Oscar, you guys rock! I wish to thank you both for taking time out of your weekend to address this.. I can't help but have the feeling you won't be hearing from her again..
-
If she had a more reasonable argument or request, she would have gotten more respect from us.
But it is clear by our separate responses, that neither Oscar or I like being treated like we are idiots claiming defamation, libel, and slander. It was just plain outrageous and nowhere to being close to qualifying. I would have had more respect for her if she had asked me to revise her entry from "extortion letter" to "settlement demand letter". I would not have gone to the trouble of writing everything I ultimately did.
When I read her email, I thought to myself "here we go again". I think Oscar thought the same thing and that is why he took the time to really lay out the whole use of "extortion" term and its legitimate use which was priceless. And make no mistake, if you want to accuse ELI of something, you better have your ducks in a row.
And the whole thing with contacting Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, and the like? I solved her problem by deleting those posts and put out more interesting content to read than her boiler-plate letter.
Matthew
-
Yes, thanks to Oscar and Matt.
We can really see what's happening here.
Some lawyers involved in these demand letter schemes are distorting the truth of what copyright infringement really is in legal terms (i.e. it's not a criminal act of theft).
The response from MF in the past re: John MacDougall, and now Ms. Stewart remind me a bit of how The Church of Scientology acts in response to the reporting of their activities.
Some lawyers are attempting to hide the facts about what's happening, and are attempting to quash discussion about specific cases and issues.
This won't be allowed to happen.
Additionally, some lawyers seem to be trying quite desperately to convince people that they have some sort of (international?) judicial powers that they clearly do not have.
Not many people are buying it, I'm sure.
I can't imagine how many trees have been killed to make paper to print up so many of these bullshit letters and claims.
S.G.
-
Check out Ms Stewart's bio here:
http://www.ccij.ca/nuit-blanche/ (http://www.ccij.ca/nuit-blanche/)
Ready for some irony? This is my favorite part: Julie "has a passionate interest in the use of the 'image' as a tool for justice."
Yet she objects to the image of a reproduction of her extortio.. err... Demand Letter on a site that discusses the tactics the stock industry and their lawyers use to squeeze money out of innocent infringers? Wow.
-
Here's mS Julie's Resume...so we now have a musician and a film-maker..
"Background as an independent documentary filmmaker. Articulate, persuasive bilingual writer.
Practical experience in legal research and advanced training in navigating legal databases."
;D I think the researching abilities could use a little honing..
http://clients.triggersandsparks.com/resumes/julie_stewart.pdf
-
hmmmm it would appear that photographer V.K. Tylor also likes to share his images on FREE wall paper sights, complete with a download button.. Most folks would see this as free to use, as most wouldn't know to or go thru the process of actually reading the terms..
http://www.webshots.com/pro/category/artist-vincent-khoury-tylor/nature-oceans
-
Wow, very nice find. What a sleuth you are. Good job.
This is a more accurate representation than the online bio on her site.
Matthew
Here's mS Julie's Resume...so we now have a musician and a film-maker..
"Background as an independent documentary filmmaker. Articulate, persuasive bilingual writer.
Practical experience in legal research and advanced training in navigating legal databases."
;D I think the researching abilities could use a little honing..
http://clients.triggersandsparks.com/resumes/julie_stewart.pdf
-
Here is another link of a photo being advertised as free...free wallpapers website - same photographer...
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://fwallpapers.com/files/images/road-hana-turquoise-lagoon-maui-hawaii.jpg&imgrefurl=http://fwallpapers.com/view/road-hana-turquoise-lagoon-maui-hawaii&usg=__G2huN_098plvFFevENfvF1yejXQ=&h=1200&w=1600&sz=662&hl=en&start=84&zoom=1&tbnid=dhcZY3kpBMATnM:&tbnh=158&tbnw=204&ei=zzKwTYTxJYrSsAPD0JTlCw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhawaii%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1659%26bih%3D841%26tbm%3Disch0%2C2140&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=936&vpy=327&dur=3308&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=98&ty=109&page=4&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:84&biw=1659&bih=841
But H. A. Net is earning 50% of their income this way...
http://www.picscout.com/customers/case-studies.html
-
The 50% in m y opinion is a direct result of "seeding" the images on these wallpaper sites..Clearly if you visit the photographers web-site, there is no options for locensing the images for web use, but you can purchase prints...the 4 x 6 prints sell for $10.00..yup a whopping 10 bucks!, yet they demand upwards of $1200.00 for web images that are much smaller.. What judge would not see this as a business model is beyond me.
-
Here's something. Go to the link that "Extortion-Victim-No Longer" provided above.
Download the picture. Now go to Google, click on "Images", click on the little camera icon next to the search box, click on "upload image", browse to the image that you downloaded and click "open".
Next scroll down to "Pages that include matching images", look at the listed pages.
The photo appears on more than 89 "FREE" wallpaper sites on the first 26 Google search pages alone.
Many will recall that the image in question was the subject of the infamous "Brandon Sand" extortion letter, seeking an astonishing $10,000.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/brandon-sand-extortion-web.pdf
I'd say that Hawaiian Art Network and photographer Tylor have a credibility problem.
S.G.
-
SG,
I am not even going to get into this now except to say, what an understatement about the credibility issue.
Matthew
-
I received a DMCA complaint on this thread. My best guess is that Julie Stewart did not like us posting her email to us and she is now claiming copyright infringement over her email. I have challenged this DMCA complaint and my rebuttal will be in a separate post.
I also requested a copy of the actual complaint that eapps was compelled to follow through on. For the record, I am entitled to see the actual complaint from the original complainant. They cannot simply make a complaint and hide behind the hosting provider's notice.
Matthew
========================
To Whom It May Concern:
We have received notice of a complaint of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violation under 17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A), regarding material hosted on your account. The infringing material can be found at:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html
Please remove the infringing content and respond to us confirming that this action has been accomplished. The disputed material must be removed as swiftly as possible. Please note that if the disputed material is not removed within 48 hours, we reserve the right to suspend your site to conform with the requirements of the DMCA.
If you feel that this complaint was made as a result of a mistake or of a misidentification of the disputed material, please send us a written counter notification within fourteen (14) days. A valid counter notification must substantially contain the following (as required per 17 USC § 512(g)(3)):
(A). A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber
(B). Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C). A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D). The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c) (2) (C) or an agent of such person.
Any counter notifications should be addressed to:
Legal Department
eApps Hosting
7742 Spalding Drive
Suite 363
Norcross, Georgia, USA 30092
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this complaint, please let us know.
Regards,
eApps Hosting
=========================
>> Original Complaint filed to eApps <<
==============================
Hello,
Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I am requesting the
removal of the following infringing document/s hosted on your server:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html
The document is an infringement of a copyrighted work of authorship as
defined in Title 17 of the Copyright statute.
I have a good faith belief that use of the material on the above mentioned
website is not authorized by the copyright owner.
The information in this notification is accurate, and is made under penalty
of perjury. I am the owner of the exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.
Julie Stewart
Lawyer, Blackline Art + Entertainment Law
T: 1-(416)-628-8364
F: 1-(416)-628-8364
www.blacklinelaw.ca
This e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential
and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized review, copying, transmittal,
use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this message in error. Please immediately notify us by reply
or collect telephone call to 1-(416)-628-8364 and destroy this message and
any attachments.
-
I received a DMCA complaint on this thread. My best guess is that Julie Stewart did not like us posting her email to us and she is now claiming copyright infringement over her email. I have challenged this DMCA complaint and my rebuttal will be in a separate post.
what? emails has copyright too? Are they serious? ROFL
-
I think it might be worth bringing this to the attention of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/ (https://www.eff.org/)), their mission is to stop online censorship and these bogus DMCA claims are precisely that.
-
Matt: An EFF complaint might be a good idea relating to these attorneys that are complaining about us posting things they have written and put on their own LinkedIn sites.
-
This is the original complaint I made to eApps. I made a formal request to get the original complaint.
===================
Hello,
Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I am requesting the
removal of the following infringing document/s hosted on your server:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html
The document is an infringement of a copyrighted work of authorship as
defined in Title 17 of the Copyright statute.
I have a good faith belief that use of the material on the above mentioned
website is not authorized by the copyright owner.
The information in this notification is accurate, and is made under penalty
of perjury. I am the owner of the exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.
Julie Stewart
Lawyer, Blackline Art + Entertainment Law
T: 1-(416)-628-8364
F: 1-(416)-628-8364
www.blacklinelaw.ca
This e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential
and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized review, copying, transmittal,
use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this message in error. Please immediately notify us by reply
or collect telephone call to 1-(416)-628-8364 and destroy this message and
any attachments.
-
Wow, that letter is almost a carbon copy of the Brandon Sands letter. Interesting.
I wonder how long it will be until you get a take-down notice to take down the take-down notice? Do you think they will try and claim that is copyright?
It's remarkable that Brandon Sands and Julie Stewart are so surprised to see their redacted letters shared on a site that discusses the tactics used by the "Extortion Letter" Industry (please note the quotes-- call it what you want). Perhaps they just got so used to people rolling over and cutting a check for the Demand amount, they never expected any push-back. Surprise!
-
I am withholding my full opinion and analysis at this time because this bus is still moving at 100mph and I need to stay focused on the highest priority items. When it all settles down, I WILL be sharing my personal opinion of these folks and analyze what they have done to themselves.
Let's just say they appear to be very inexperienced in the ways of the world and just because you are a lawyer does not mean you are beyond reproach or cannot receive a real challenge from non-lawyers.
They continue to embarrass themselves. To think this all started out with a couple of buried posts that no one barely read... Amazing.
-
SG strikes again!
-
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! lol..
Spread the word! YOU GO MATTHEW!
Kudos to all!
-
You guys rock!
(I"m also surprised that Julie only requested a cease and desist and didn't demand compensation as well. ;))
-
Just spent a good amount of time at chillingeffects.org, whom work in conjunction with EFF.