ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Glen Carner on May 31, 2012, 04:02:40 PM
-
#1 - Have you ever seen an attorney letter that you felt was reasonable and appropriate? Can you provide a copy and who was the attorney?
#2 - Are there any attorney letters that don't get posted on the ELI website because you "approved" of them?
#3 - Under what circumstances do you feel an attorney should be used to settle a copyright claim for a photograph?
#4 - Do you make any distinction between a person downloading a song for personal use or a business using an image to make profits?
#5 - Do you have any suggestions on how "for profit" use can be compensated after the image is already being used if you disapprove of the current law and method?
#6 - I have heard you mention $200 for innocent infringement claims as a settlement amount. If a specific photographer agreed to only ask for this amount in the recovery, would you support that?
#7 - If you could change one small thing that about how agencies collect money retroactively for commercial use, what would it be?
#8 - Do you know of any agency, photographer, or author who is using a recovery method that you felt was acceptable and what was it?
My apologies if you had already posted some of this in the other threads.
-
I'll bite on a couple of these:
>> #6 - I have heard you mention $200 for innocent infringement claims as a settlement amount. If a specific photographer agreed to only ask for this amount in the recovery, would you support that?
For me, this could work with a couple caveats. I would expect a pointer to the page where the image was being sold for $100 or so. I would also like to see proof the photographer had registered the images individually prior, that they assigned the right to collect to the agency and proof of registration was provided. In the vast majority of these cases, this can not be done and that is one of the reasons this is such a contentious issue.
#7 - If you could change one small thing that about how agencies collect money retroactively for commercial use, what would it be?
Documentation. Seriously, if you expect people to pay money based on a claim, that claim needs to be well documented. Again, the industry doesn't seem willing to do this.
-
Glen: I will answer your questions from my perspective later this evening.
-
Glen: Here's something you apparently have not had for awhile, some sound, free legal advice:
#1 - Have you ever seen an attorney letter that you felt was reasonable and appropriate? Can you provide a copy and who was the attorney?
I deal with C &D letters all the time, both in issuing them on behalf of clients and in responding to them on behalf of clients. Many are forceful and direct but do not go over the top into the land of bullying and extortion. The proper balance is not that hard to achieve. Just don't overstate your case. For example, I only use the word "theft" when I have proof that the target of the letter "intentionally took something" that belonged to my client. That's what "willful" means by the way - they meant to do it or acted so recklessly that they show they don't care about whether someone owned the property or not. It's a fairly clear standard.
#2 - Are there any attorney letters that don't get posted on the ELI website because you "approved" of them?
To my knowledge, Matt publishes whatever letters he receives and which the recipient has allowed him to publish. We want to inform on this site - its not an attack site. All over the place we repeatedly state that we do not condone copyright infringement. We advise everyone to take the images down immediately once they receive a letter. I suspect we would give a lot of space to praising someone who is doing it fairly and in a balanced fashion. But for some reason, the digital image industry, following Getty's lead, insists on making claims that are not applicable and asking for amounts of money that are legally insupportable. I am certain that the slightly softer tone of the more recent Getty and Masterfile letters is from the effect of the folks who contribute regularly to this site.
#3 - Under what circumstances do you feel an attorney should be used to settle a copyright claim for a photograph?
For me that answer is simple - EVERY TIME! I mean I have three kids to put through college for crying out loud. But the real answer to this question is the same for IP as it is for any other form of claim. For minor matters (and I think the alleged infringement of a few digital images is a minor matter in most cases) the IP holder should ask his lawyer for a form letter they can disseminate and see if that gets the person to C & D and settle. Some matters are major and require a thoughtful letter from a lawyer that (1) accurately and efficiently sets forth the relevant facts and law (2) will not embarrass the lawyer or the client if litigation becomes necessary and (3) does not violate any laws or ethical rules. But Glen, this is not hard stuff really. I mean I teach my first year law students how to craft a C& D letter and the chapter on it in the text we use is barely 5 pages long (the shortest in the book), if they can get it, practicing lawyers should be able to get it. And while we are on the topic of younger practicing lawyers, I disagree with your comment about seasoned lawyers "drifting away from the law." Experienced lawyers know that the law is not always applied exactly as written; that courts have a wide range of latitude in most cases and that maximum penalties are reserved for "maximum cases." Experienced lawyers have perspective and can more readily tell which battles are worth fighting and how best to fight them. Experienced lawyers (hopefully) have enough confidence and business to look a client in the eye and say "That's not right, I won't do that. And if you want a lawyer to do that, you are going to have to find another lawyer." I have a conversation like that fairly regularly with clients and prospective clients. I have every right NOT to take a case if I disagree with a client's requests or demands. Clients come to me for advice on how best to handle a situation and my reputation helps get them fast and fair results. When we say that a lawyer "represents"a client that's what we mean - we stand in their place and the client and its case take on the lawyer's characteristics. As much as the young lawyers you have employed have caused some harm to their own reputations by their overreaching conduct, they have also harmed HAN's reputation. While Getty can take the hit because of their market share, can HAN continue to be berated all over the internet because of the methods you and your lawyers employ?
#4 - Do you make any distinction between a person downloading a song for personal use or a business using an image to make profits?
OF COURSE! Who doesn't know that a song is copyrighted? Whether its for personal or commercial use everyone knows that music is copyrighted. Conversely, who would believe that a thumbnail image that pops up on an internet search on a site that is screaming FREE IMAGES - FREE WALLPAPER is copyright protected? Also, you can search the copyright office for a film title or a song title and you will likely find it. These digital images are filed (when they are filed) en masse normally in digital databases that are not searchable by description. You type in "Palm Tree on Hawaiian Beach" and you will not necessarily find Mr. Tylor's images.
#5 - Do you have any suggestions on how "for profit" use can be compensated after the image is already being used if you disapprove of the current law and method?
I do not disapprove of the current law (except that I feel the US should follow the UK method and allow for no damages if the infringer C &D and can prove he did not willfully take someone's IP.) See above for the answer to the balance of your question.
#6 - I have heard you mention $200 for innocent infringement claims as a settlement amount. If a specific photographer agreed to only ask for this amount in the recovery, would you support that?
Yes. Provided the image was registered, otherwise they should be required to pay only the fair market value for the use they made of the image. That does not necessarily mean the high license fees that Fotoquote or Getty or Masterfile of HAN employs. But what can the image be replaced for on the open market.
#7 - If you could change one small thing that about how agencies collect money retroactively for commercial use, what would it be?
See above but especially stop threatening people with the maximum in statutory damages (you know you will never get it) and criminal penalties (you know its not applicable at all). I don't doubt that its a successful method but it's just plain wrong. Anyone can spend about an hour or two perusing this site and realize what's right and wrong with the digital image industry and what steps can be taken to address it. That is , if they are truly interested.
#8 - Do you know of any agency, photographer, or author who is using a recovery method that you felt was acceptable and what was it?
Nope, we are all still waiting for Prince Charming.
Here endeth the lesson.
-
NOTE: It appears Oscar Michelen and I were typing at the same time but his reply made it to the forum before mine. My reply was made without reading Oscar's reply.
My answers will be brief. I don't give provide comprehensive answers on a "silver platter" because so much has been discussed before. I don't even do it for extortion letter recipients. If they want more, they have to pay for my time.
For you, being on "the other side" you would ABSOLUTELY have to pay ELI and it would be a fairly sizable consultation fee. Somewhere in the $1,000 range direct to ELI for one hour with me.
#1 - Have you ever seen an attorney letter that you felt was reasonable and appropriate? Can you provide a copy and who was the attorney?
Yes, I have. No, I won't provide a copy.
#2 - Are there any attorney letters that don't get posted on the ELI website because you "approved" of them?
Every letter that is new to me gets posted. Even the tame and sanitized ones. The only letters I "approve" are the ones I write for myself.
#3 - Under what circumstances do you feel an attorney should be used to settle a copyright claim for a photograph?
It depends. Too much to get into here. You will have to pay ELI a good consulting fee to get into this assuming I even want to focus my brain on this.
#4 - Do you make any distinction between a person downloading a song for personal use or a business using an image to make profits?
Yes, I do.
#5 - Do you have any suggestions on how "for profit" use can be compensated after the image is already being used if you disapprove of the current law and method?
Yes but you won't like my suggestions because it is too radical for your industry. This is consultation you will have to pay for.
#6 - I have heard you mention $200 for innocent infringement claims as a settlement amount. If a specific photographer agreed to only ask for this amount in the recovery, would you support that?
That is too simplistic a view. And what does it matter if I support it or not? You don't need my permission.
#7 - If you could change one small thing that about how agencies collect money retroactively for commercial use, what would it be?
I don't need or care for any changes. It is immaterial to me because I know the game your industry plays. I boycotted stock photos and I recommend the same to others. If I was "forced" to buy a stock photo under duress, I know what I need to do to protect myself. I personally think most photographers are too lazy to learn the business side so they become overly reliant on agencies. I tend to think most of the stock photo agencies are fairly sleazy nowadays with their extortion letter program so I could care less about them. You and the other agencies are only coming around simply because ELI has become a large thorn, not because of any "goodness" or contriteness.
#8 - Do you know of any agency, photographer, or author who is using a recovery method that you felt was acceptable and what was it?
You are still missing the point. You are still focused on collections and "recovery" and that is a big part of your problem.
-
I'll give it a go! (I'll skip the ones that don't make sense for someone who just reads and sometimes posts. For example, on 1 I've seen too few for my answer of "no" to be very meaningful. )
#4 - Do you make any distinction between a person downloading a song for personal use or a business using an image to make profits?
Absolutely. I think photo-companies absolutely do need to figure out how to get something like pinterest to pay them. I think given Pinterest's business models, I think they should be paying some sort of subscription fee already. Same for Tumbler.
I think differently about a hobby blogger who ran an image accompanying an opinion when commenting on a news story compared to a company who uses a pretty image to decorate a business site.
BTW: In some instances when I read letters presented here, I think the the small business owner who got the letter should pay something. However, often the amount requested is ridiculous given the image. When the amount demanded is 10 -100 times what the image ought to cost, I tend to side with the letter recipient not the photographers representatives.
#5 - Do you have any suggestions on how "for profit" use can be compensated after the image is already being used if you disapprove of the current law and method?
This is difficulty for me. If I were permitted to play god and decide how much should be assessed, it would depend on where the image appeared and a number of factors that may well be irrelevant to copyright law.
#6 - I have heard you mention $200 for innocent infringement claims as a settlement amount. If a specific photographer agreed to only ask for this amount in the recovery, would you support that?
Depends on the image, where and how it was used and what steps the photographer has taken to prevent his images from being easy to rip off. Some images that have been discussed should settle for $5-- which is probably 5 times what anyone would every if they knew up front. Others $200.
Some whose quality might merit $200 should get an order of magnitude less because the image is appearing on massive number of "free" sites and-- whether the photog likes it or not-- he's lost control. Whatever the system is, the prices can't be such that anyone has an incentive to put full size images in locations where a site visitor who didn't even register or log in can copy and later upload to a free site. (Some of the Hawaiian images fall in the latter category.)
#7 - If you could change one small thing that about how agencies collect money retroactively for commercial use, what would it be?
I don't know if this is "small", but I think agencies should provide proof of valid (and appropriate) copyright and proof they have a right to pursue the case either as owner of the copyright or as exclusive agent. This proof should be provided with the first contact letter. (It would be acceptable if to save postage, the proof was in the form of a link to a page with all necessary information.)
When requested, they should also provide proof that some customers actually have purchased that particular image for display in a similar medium and listing the distribution of prices paid for various periods of display.
-
"For you, being on "the other side" you would ABSOLUTELY have to pay ELI and it would be a fairly sizable consultation fee. Somewhere in the $1,000 range direct to ELI for one hour with me."
Damn, you're expensive! Maybe Glen Carner would be willing to trade you 1 image for 1 hour of your time..cause those images are certainly well worth that kind of money.
-
Dear Mr. Carner-
Thank you for participating in this forum.
Allow me to answer all the questions for you in a painfully simple manner:
If you find unlicensed use of an image send me a firm, but polite, C&D letter. I will stop. If not, sue me.
I am an innkeeper. I employed an outside web design firm who used Getty images without a license. Getty did not ask me to stop, their first request amounted to over 1% of my annual gross sales. There was no "willfull intent" on my part, there was no knowledge of the infraction. Getty's actions were clearly aimed at extortion of funds, not protecting the artist.
Make your first contact a C&D request, not a threat.
Simple.
Problem solved.
-
Dear Mr. Carner-
Thank you for participating in this forum.
Allow me to answer all the questions for you in a painfully simple manner:
If you find unlicensed use of an image send me a firm, but polite, C&D letter. I will stop. If not, sue me.
I am an innkeeper. I employed an outside web design firm who used Getty images without a license. Getty did not ask me to stop, their first request amounted to over 1% of my annual gross sales. There was no "willfull intent" on my part, there was no knowledge of the infraction. Getty's actions were clearly aimed at extortion of funds, not protecting the artist.
Make your first contact a C&D request, not a threat.
Simple.
Problem solved.
Welcome to the forum bruceh!
yup simple and to the point, however the trolls will never see it this way, they are like horses wearing blinders with tunnel vision..
-
Dear Mr. Carner-
Thank you for participating in this forum.
Allow me to answer all the questions for you in a painfully simple manner:
If you find unlicensed use of an image send me a firm, but polite, C&D letter. I will stop. If not, sue me.
I am an innkeeper. I employed an outside web design firm who used Getty images without a license. Getty did not ask me to stop, their first request amounted to over 1% of my annual gross sales. There was no "willfull intent" on my part, there was no knowledge of the infraction. Getty's actions were clearly aimed at extortion of funds, not protecting the artist.
Make your first contact a C&D request, not a threat.
Simple.
Problem solved.
I'll drink some company Koolaid to that!
8)
Of course you know it does not solve it on the troll's end, as it is "lost revenue" and the fight continues........
-
Well stated bruce!
-
Welcome to the forum Bruce, very good comment concise and to the point.
Dear Mr. Carner-
Thank you for participating in this forum.
Allow me to answer all the questions for you in a painfully simple manner:
If you find unlicensed use of an image send me a firm, but polite, C&D letter. I will stop. If not, sue me.
I am an innkeeper. I employed an outside web design firm who used Getty images without a license. Getty did not ask me to stop, their first request amounted to over 1% of my annual gross sales. There was no "willfull intent" on my part, there was no knowledge of the infraction. Getty's actions were clearly aimed at extortion of funds, not protecting the artist.
Make your first contact a C&D request, not a threat.
Simple.
Problem solved.
-
Mr. Carner,
Bruce solved your dilemma. If you do find an "infringement", start off with a C&D letter. If the C&D is ignored, then proceed accordingly. I highly doubt that anyone on this forum went out to your company website and downloaded a picture (or pictures). 99.9% of the people here legitimately believed that they were allowed to use those photos, and were in shock when they received an extortion demand letter.
Why don't you focus your attention on the websites that are offering your work for free? If I was a photographer and someone else was offering my work for free, I would be focusing ALL my anger and attention on the creator(s)/owner(s) of the website, and not the people who downloaded images from that website.
You said that you have issued take-down notices to these websites. If that is the case, why are your images still being offered online?
-
bernicem77, it is clear that it is just about the money and that’s all. HAN, MF, Getty and the rest don’t care what reasons you have as to how/why the alleged infringing image(s) appeared on peoples sites, nor do they care if you can 100% prove any infringement is innocent and non-willful, they just want the money. HAN has already stated that 50% of their revenue comes from the collection side of the business. Unfortunately until it no longer is profitable to bully, harass and extort money from people it will continue since fairness, customer service and common sense are words not included in their current business model. Apparently 50% of the bottom line is worth negative press, loss of potential customers and your company’s reputation being in the toilet.
Due to recent court rulings where judges are showing they are fed up with the judicial system being used as a means of generating income rather than justice, a growing community of people learning how to fight back thanks to ELI and finally people who when sued will file a counter suit putting the trolling companies on the defensive I think we are on the verge of being able to turn the tide.
Mr. Carner talks about defending the rights of the artists his company represents, and believe me I am all for true copyright enforcement, but what about the rights of the individuals and small businesses who get extortion demand letters asking for many many times an images worth.
Again, thanks to ELI and the knowledge base of its members I have been able to educate myself and no longer fear my situation as it is nowhere near as dire as my demand letter implied, not to say I take the situation lightly either. I know what to expect and if it should come to it I am prepared to vigorously fight with everything means available to me.
-
The problem with just issuing a cease and desist letter is twofold
1. Glen Carner, Vincent Khoury Tylor, Hawaiian Art Network, Copyright Services International, Picscout, Picscouts "team of newbie lawyers" and the rest of the trolling agencies simply would not make any money.
2. Sending a cease and Desist is not the letter of the law, heaven forbid they should vary from what the law states, to do what is "right"
-
There's no doubt in my mind that it is just about the money. If the companies REALLY cared about their copyright they would: (1) focus on the websites that are offering their work to unsuspecting individuals and (2) mail out a C&D letter (or a C&D phone call as we have now seen) instead of the infamous settlement letters .
-
Interestingly, H.A.N. would have an excellent legal case against those websites.
That's where the real money is... unless there's some reason why they won't pursue this...
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/7619/glencarnercrymeariver.jpg
S.G.
-
Oscar and the rest of you took a considerable amount of time responding to that and I'm sure Matt feels that you would have been better off watching the grass grow but thank you. There is already one change that we can make with HAN's attorneys based on your statements.
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.
I look forward to learning and implementing more.
-
Oscar and the rest of you took a considerable amount of time responding to that and I'm sure Matt feels that you would have been better off watching the grass grow but thank you. There is already one change that we can make with HAN's attorneys based on your statements.
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.
I look forward to learning and implementing more.
Ok.......based on "this post" It appears that your main purpose is to make sure that future demand letters from your company do not end up here on ELI.
Interesting.
-
This Glen Carners quote is too much, for one minute I will move out of my observer role.
"Oscar and the rest of you took a considerable amount of time responding to that and I'm sure Matt feels that you would have been better off watching the grass grow but thank you. There is already one change that we can make with HAN's attorneys based on your statements." -
Is Glen in a subtle way attempting to silence all critics, stifle free speech as usual or does he simply feel that the rest of of the members are not worthy give their views, including Oscar? This is a FORUM, Matt owns it, but he can speak for himself or is he now so important here that he can be mouth piece for Matt?
Did he really write the above quote? Somebody please explain, if I read this wrong and if I did my apology to Glen. Seriously if I misinterpreted this someone explain to me. Again if I am over reacting I am very sorry.
Michael
-
Sorry, but I did not see any " new year resolution" regarding the website which offers the photos for free. Is it because it would be suicidal for your business ?
It is like fighting the drug users but on the other hand protecting the drug dealers.
Kahn
-
Excuse me, Glen. Thanks for incorrectly interpreting what I want others to do. Everyone was able to freely respond as they saw fit. Quite frankly, I am surprised that as many people jumped in given that your post was directed specifically towards me. But the community including Oscar decided to jump in regardless. They had something they really wanted to say to you. You should be flattered over this.
A good online community leader tries to let ideas and thoughts flourish as much as possible. Everyone voluntarily participates as they see fit. We allow as much freedom of thoughts and ideas as possible, including yours. I try to lead by example. People, including Oscar, were willing to provide their insights and time to you for free. I wasn't. Why should I? You want MY thoughts and MY ideas to YOUR specific questions? You have to pay ELI a consultation fee. If ELI was a charity service (which it isn't), you and your peers would be last on the list for that charity. I openly disclosed my fee to you if you were serious. You obviously didn't like it. No surprise there. Maybe $100 fee would have been more to your liking, instead of $1,000? Many letter recipients pay ELI $50 to ELI for 30-minutes of my time on the phone and everyone has been happy having done so. Others have contributed other dollar amounts showing their gratitude of the work ELI has done.
With you being on "the other side" walking in and expecting my best responses for free? Are you kidding me? What have you done to get something for free? That is part of the ongoing entitlement mentality you, your peers, and photographers have. You are so focused in your little world and mindset, you can't imagine any other options. Fine by me. It's your industry like newspapers going down the tank.
I have provided PLENTY of feedback to the stock photo agencies over the years. I know this because plenty of adjustments by your peers have been made over the years. They were smart enough to read between the lines.
I don't know why you seem confused as to my position on things. I value my time and I pick and choose what and how I respond. I could have written this long, elaborate industry thesis of what I think should happen on your side. But to what end? I didn't start ELI to help the stock photo agencies. I did it to help myself FIRST which expanded to helping others, specifically people who get these extortion letters. I am good at what I do and this isn't my first rodeo.
Just because you come to the ELI Forums from "out of the blue" and I promised you reasonable freedom of expression and some degree of "protection" from abusive behavior doesn't suddenly mean we are going to roll out the red carpet for you or embrace you. Respect is earned, not given especially with you and your industry's terrible track record. Quite frankly, you are being tolerated by many. People don't trust you or your peers. The consensus from what I hear is that you are here for self-serving purposes, nothing more. You are here because ELI has become a thorn on your side which finally forced you to do something about it. For me, I am neutral. I can see pros and cons to your participating here. I like it because it has set the ELI Forums on fire again. The energy is up. Participation is up. The downside is you are getting "free air time" and access to our community on our dime. For now, it balances out. As I said, this is an experiment to see where it goes.
Remember, no one asked you here. You are in "our house". We tolerate you. So mind your manners. You want to make little snarky remarks about me within the very community I started? Fine, but everyone knows I hit back. Don't be surprised if others hit back also. You don't like my or my community's attitudes towards you and your ilk? Well, you knew you were walking into hostile territory. No one promised otherwise.
You want a "freebie"? Don't fool yourself that because of some of your lawyers haven't shown up on ELI doesn't mean they are brilliant. It means they got lucky, I promise you. They dealt with a letter recipient who has not discovered ELI and what we do. We can't save the cheap, lazy, spineless, or the ignorant. If they feel comfortable being passive, hiding in the shadows, and ultimately paying these extortionate amounts, we can't stop them.
We know who we can help and who we can't. We do what we can for those we want our help. ELI is the leader in reporting, fighting, and defending copyright extortion letters from stock photo agencies and photographers. Tame or not, sanitized or not, they will all get reported. Rest assured that the lucky lawyers who have flown under the radar thus far will get found out if they send out enough letters. It is statistically inevitable.
As long as the ELI community continues to financially and morally support us, we will continue on.
Oscar and the rest of you took a considerable amount of time responding to that and I'm sure Matt feels that you would have been better off watching the grass grow but thank you. There is already one change that we can make with HAN's attorneys based on your statements.
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.
I look forward to learning and implementing more.
-
You picked on that, did you? Don't worry. Every collection lawyer will show up eventually if they send out enough letters or if they hit the right letter recipient.
Ok.......based on "this post" It appears that your main purpose is to make sure that future demand letters from your company do not end up here on ELI.
Interesting.
-
Michael,
Good of you to join us. You read it correctly and you did not misinterpret and you are NOT overreacting (compared to my own response. LOL.) I appreciate you catching Glen's little snarky remark towards me especially in my own domain. Give me a break. Does he think I would even let that slide?
Obviously, I have hit back already and he just doesn't get it. He is frustrated that, unlike everyone else, I demanded a $1,000 ELI Contribution for me to give "silver platter" service. Maybe the amount was too "extortionate" for him? Does that sound familiar?
This Glen Carners quote is too much, for one minute I will move out of my observer role.
"Oscar and the rest of you took a considerable amount of time responding to that and I'm sure Matt feels that you would have been better off watching the grass grow but thank you. There is already one change that we can make with HAN's attorneys based on your statements." -
Is Glen in a subtle way attempting to silence all critics, stifle free speech as usual or does he simply feel that the rest of of the members are not worthy give their views, including Oscar? This is a FORUM, Matt owns it, but he can speak for himself or is he now so important here that he can be mouth piece for Matt?
Did he really write the above quote? Somebody please explain, if I read this wrong and if I did my apology to Glen. Seriously if I misinterpreted this someone explain to me. Again if I am over reacting I am very sorry.
Michael
-
You picked on that, did you? Don't worry. Every collection lawyer will show up eventually if they send out enough letters or if they hit the right letter recipient.
Ok.......based on "this post" It appears that your main purpose is to make sure that future demand letters from your company do not end up here on ELI.
Interesting.
Agree Matt, it is an unrealistic goal. It is the goal however.
Based on what I have read here including Mr. Carner's questions, my opinion is that the goal is to find out exactly what makes a demand letter recipient "freak" to the point of searching the internet and stumbling across a website called extortionletterinfo.com. If the demand letters are "soft" and "non-threatening" and the demand amount is "reasonable", the recipient may be more likely to PAY verses searching the internet and finding this "thorn in side".
This is the "damage control". This is why he is here......period.....end.
"#1 - Have you ever seen an attorney letter that you felt was reasonable and appropriate? Can you provide a copy and who was the attorney?"
"#2 - Are there any attorney letters that don't get posted on the ELI website because you "approved" of them?"
"#6 - I have heard you mention $200 for innocent infringement claims as a settlement amount. If a specific photographer agreed to only ask for this amount in the recovery, would you support that?"
-
.... and because of the law suit: He wants to show (or fake) good will which is traceable on the net.
-
.... and because of the law suit: He wants to show (or fake) good will which is traceable on the net.
Again, he's a little late to the party. It's early, it's Saturday I have the day off and rest assured I will respond to his above statement.
-
My take on Glen's presence here:
Glen is a businessman. He's trying to maximize revenue. He's asking himself which model maximizes revenue:
1) Many smaller dollar amount easily extracted settlement payments
2) A few big wins requiring lot's of legal costs
I think he wants to find the optimum wording and approach for the first type of demands (#1 above). Any info you give him here helps him estimate a target number that most people would pay instead of fight, and helps him come up with a convincing letter to compel quick payment.
I hope that all this means that approach #2 above hasn't been working out so well for him. To his credit, at least he seems to want to try a non threatening approach.
Of course that's just my take on it and I suppose I could be wrong. However, just in case he really wants to know what is right and proper:
Send a C&D letter with a reasonable market value invoice (usually a few dollars per image). If you don't get a payment and if they dont take it down sue them. If you just cannot accept the fact that stock images are mostly worth a few dollars each (refering to the type of usage commonly found among those of us on this forum), then you should find another line of work.
And if you are involved in any type of entrapment or seeding, then stop it and pay back everyone that settled with you to date.
Just my 2 cents. Keep the change.
-
Now who's creating the myths? The only reason why some letters have not shown up on ELI is because we haven't seen them yet..it has nothing to do with any statements we have made here on ELI. I'm quite sure that your well trained and experienced attorney Russell Aldrich, carefully studied the case before deciding to take it on, after all he was admitted to the bar in November of 2011..Here's another "tid-bit" for you, not only are you continuing to trash your own reputation as well as Hawaiian Art Networks, and Copyright Services International you are also succeeding in damaging the reputations of these experienced and not so experienced lawyers.. as they are guilty by association in my humble opinion..once again as we have seen time and time again, it's all about the money
Now with all that being said and as I'm always up for a challenge, I'll do my fair share and see if I can accommodate Glen Carners request to obtain and share more letters his trolling operation has sent out.
Enjoy this scene from one of my favorite movies..I find it rather fitting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynKoZD-sFi4
"you would have been better off watching the grass grow"
keep in mind grass grows much better and faster with a good dose of manure, so thanks for that!
-
Buddhapi, I'm going to have to send you a bill for all the coffee that came out of my nose and got on my laptop.
-
no problem, as long as it's within reason I'll glady pay.. :D
Buddhapi, I'm going to have to send you a bill for all the coffee that came out of my nose and got on my laptop.
-
Glen, I think you are still missing the point. While kinder and gentler demand letters designed to soften the blow may be nice, if someone puts a gun to your head (metaphorically speaking) and says give me your money, oh wait, I meant to say please give me your money, it’s still the same thing. The main issue, at least for me is the amounts being asked for. While a kinder letter would have not immediately put me on the defensive, until I got to the amount part, it is still wrong and smells no matter how much perfume you try and put on it. While my letter came from Getty Images rather than HAN I would have reacted totally differently if it had said something more to the effect of:
We saw an image that belongs to us on your website and we cannot find your licensing of the image, if you have a license please provide it to us. Here is what the law states about copyright infringement and recourse available to us to protect our IP. We ask you remove the image or register it immediately, enclosed is a proof of registration and contract giving us right to protect this artist and this image. If you have not removed or registered within X number of days, or provided proof of your valid license we will pursue our rights provided to us under the current copyright laws.
If I had received that, I would not be here now and I would not be committed to being here and supporting ELI any way I can until we are no longer needed. If it had been one of the nicer letters you are talking about and the amount still the same, I would still be here, no difference.
Until you stop using the courts as a means of profit rather than as justice to go after willful infringers I see no change in the attitudes and actions against you and the other stock photo companies. You will continue to see more resistance, when you do bring cases to court you will see more counter suits against you and you will see your companies and the artists you represent image and public standing continue to fall.
These are just my opinions and you may take them or leave them and I really don’t care. Your comments so far have seemed to be more about how can you still get outrageous sums of money from people and make them feel better about it. I will again say I give you credit for coming to the forums, and I know you have only been here a few days now but it looks to me like you are just trying to find a way to keep doing business as usual while trying to improve your public image/relations. Please prove me wrong and I hope continue to talk on the forums. Things will change whether you do it or are made to do it, they will change.
-
I think that there will never be much common ground between infringers (alleged or willful) and trolls that wish to collect on infringements.
It's like the two of them being across an impassable gulf of water, with no boat.
On the one hand, we have the content owners (who are perceived to be sketchy).
They want to be paid sums that amount to thousands of times what the content is actually worth.
I think that their perception is that anyone that is "caught" infringing has to make up (pay) for all other infringements that might exist, whether real or imagined.
Of, course there's also the "greed" factor.
On the other hand, there are the alleged infringers. These people know that these photos are worth a couple of bucks at most.
If an alleged infringer is the brunt of over the top threats, or the accuser can't provide any proof, then the reputation of the retailer and/or artist is damaged.
Demanding less money from the alleged infringer won't improve results either. Unless a couple of dollars is demanded, the settlement demand will be seen to be unfair.
A "fair" settlement is probably two dollars in most cases. But, people couldn't be bothered putting a 2-dollar check in the mail.
There's a solution to the whole problem. But some people aren't going to like it.
Stock image businesses will have to sell images at a price that people will pay.
Furthermore, a bit of savvy marketing is needed to let people know that a plethora of affordable images exist in a convenient, friendly place to do business.
Now, I can already hear the hollering all the way up here in the woods.
I'm hearing, "I can't make six-figures doing that!!" and "I can't feed my family".
Get over the sense of entitlement. Tell your wife/husband to get a job. Maybe photography isn't for you. Maybe you need a better and different business model that makes money.
DO NOT expect copyright laws to be "loosened" to the point that registration isn't required, or that non-exclusive agents (retailers) can collect statutory damages.
It's not going to happen.
(http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/3627/theword002rotatecropsm.jpg)
S.G.
-
. . . He is frustrated that, unlike everyone else, I demanded a $1,000 ELI Contribution for me to give "silver platter" service. Maybe the amount was too "extortionate" for him? . . .
Matt, In all fairness, $1000 + fees are usually reserved for goods and services that require an extremely high level of artistic or technical expertise and ability. You know, things like snapping a thumbnail quality photo of a seagull, a shopping cart, or a football for example.
-
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). My comment towards Matt is in recognition of his frustration and suspicion. I understand there is much anger towards to process (obviously) but as business owner its my responsibility to examine that regardless of what I think. Where else to better get feedback then ELI.
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.
I know you see the agencies as greedy, archaic, abusers of the law and most agencies see businesses using our images as thieves, pirates, and whatever other name calling is common these days but I don't subscribe to either of these extreme positions. What I believe in is solutions and finding the best way to do things with the parameters I am given. The fact that both positions are so entrenched is unfortunate but hopefully improvements can be made.
-
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). My comment towards Matt is in recognition of his frustration and suspicion. I understand there is much anger towards to process (obviously) but as business owner its my responsibility to examine that regardless of what I think. Where else to better get feedback then ELI.
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.
I know you see the agencies as greedy, archaic, abusers of the law and most agencies see businesses using our images as thieves, pirates, and whatever other name calling is common these days but I don't subscribe to either of these extreme positions. What I believe in is solutions and finding the best way to do things with the parameters I am given. The fact that both positions are so entrenched is unfortunate but hopefully improvements can be made.
And there you have it......What is going to keep us in the "extortion" business and yet keep us off of ELI.
8)
-
We saw an image that belongs to us on your website and we cannot find your licensing of the image, if you have a license please provide it to us. Here is what the law states about copyright infringement and recourse available to us to protect our IP. We ask you remove the image or register it immediately, enclosed is a proof of registration and contract giving us right to protect this artist and this image. If you have not removed or registered within X number of days, or provided proof of your valid license we will pursue our rights provided to us under the current copyright laws.
In a perfect world this would be the perfect letter + it would mean actually having a clear & clean conscience. As long as there is crack on an addicts table the addiction will remain...The difference is that at least many addicts wish they could come clean if they were strong enough to beat it. But when you make a living "selling your soul" for money, as Budahpi puts it... lines have been crossed & well past the time for perfect letters...
-
Look, nobody's going to pay some huge fee even if the letter comes from "kindly Uncle Glen" for what amounts to an image that's offered for free.
Then the gloves are off again, and everybody's back to square one.
S.G.
-
My comments are inline again.
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).
Last time we checked, the collection lawyers are (smartly I might add) making changes all by themselves without asking us. If you don't want to modify, then don't. Be prepared for the consequences. Most of us in the know, know the drill and what to do. Those who don't, get initiated very quickly. Many us in our own private lives tell others to be careful not to caught up in the copyright trolling fiasco as we have and many have a cavalier attitude about it and I don't try to save them from themselves.
Glen, you should be happy to know that I feel some people actually "deserve" the stress and getting worked up over the extortion letters because some were already warned by me and others in the ELI Community. I don't feel that much sympathy for the people who have been warned. Hence, they have do decide if they want to cope with the stress and hassle to deal with it themselves, pay ELI, or pay you guys. Everyone always pays one way or another.
My comment towards Matt is in recognition of his frustration and suspicion. I understand there is much anger towards to process (obviously) but as business owner its my responsibility to examine that regardless of what I think. Where else to better get feedback then ELI.
I am not sure what frustration you are talking about. I am pretty happy with my position and what I do. However, you better believe I am absolutely suspicious and skeptical. Here on ELI, you will get all kinds of answers. Most of it is easy to understand. Mine could be more cryptic simply because I don't have all the time in the world to fully explain the full scope of my reasoning in a "free format" but rest assured that I am very results-oriented and go way beyond traditional thinking and conventions.
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.
Sure, go ahead with that premise that the copyright law will be the solution to your and other media industry related problems. You still don't get there are much larger forces at work decimating ALL THE large media companies that are MIDDLE-MEN. You are a middle-man because your photographers are too lazy to reinvent themselves. They feel entitled because they made money before, they need to continue making money without changing.
Regarding the so-called "shaming" part. Go ask your collection lawyers if the so-called "shaming" does not, in fact, have real impact. Prior to ELI coming on the scene, nearly everyone thought the way to fight back was through legal means. That is because people stupidly and blindly accepted your industry's propaganda. They didn't know any better. The legal aspect of all this is one tool and one talking point that people keep obsessing over. On the flip side, your photographers' solutions to their problems does NOT lie with they copyright law. It is only one tool.
Just so you know, I have more than once asked Oscar Michelen, a very smart lawyer, why he doesn't just go on without me or ELI? Even his blog courtroomstrategy.com he works with me when he doesn't have to. I don't think he needs me or ELI at all to do what he does. And yet, someone who has this tremendous legal reputation and online presence continues to work with me and ELI, an unconventional and renegade website entity. I keep asking him isn't ELI embarrassing him by what we do? But he seems to like us anyway.
He hasn't explicitly told me this but I have inferred from his comments to me that he understands that his services and legal part is simply one component of a much larger repertoire of tools and abilities. I am guessing he likes being part of an online community that makes a big difference also.
You keep dwelling on extortion letters, how to collect money, copyright laws, copyright registrations, etc. while upheavals continue to devastate ALL the major media industries. I do have proposals and ideas but I am not going to give them out for free. It goes way outside what everyone has been suggesting. I am a web strategist for hire and good at what I do. I have given you some free hints, go do your part and get smart or pay someone to make you smarter. FYI, I am not the only person with this knowledge. Plenty of smart people to hire to enlighten you. But your incestuous industry probably wouldn't even know where to look.
I know you see the agencies as greedy, archaic, abusers of the law and most agencies see businesses using our images as thieves, pirates, and whatever other name calling is common these days but I don't subscribe to either of these extreme positions. What I believe in is solutions and finding the best way to do things with the parameters I am given. The fact that both positions are so entrenched is unfortunate but hopefully improvements can be made.
I see the agencies as incestuous and having blinders on. Jonathan Klein, CEO of Getty Images, thinks he is smart but all he has done is to go on an acquisition spree to create a monopoly with investor money given to him. He doesn't seem that smart to me based on the interviews he has given. Only the people in his incestuous industry is in awe of what he says. At some point, when you buy everything up, then what?
Wal-mart has gone through the same thing. They are worldwide and there is a Walmart store nearly everywhere. At some point, you can only buy your way so far. You actually have to perform and do right by customers/end-users.
Quite frankly, your industry antics help MY and Oscar's position in life. We continue to gain in influence and notoriety with every extortion letter that goes out. It's free marketing to us. So keep going with it. That is more badwill for you guys and more goodwill for those of us for helping them. Did I mention that Oscar and I give MOST of our information for free and yet people still wanting to pay us to help them?
I don't even know how many thousands of people would never have heard of Oscar or me without the extortion letter industry. Keep up the good work. We enjoy the free marketing at YOUR expense. Remember, every extortion letter sent out is one new enemy of your industry and a friend to ELI. Go read the book "Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. We have hit a few tipping points already and will continue to hit more at this rate. It is a transfer of positive karma from your industry to us. And Vincent Tylor makes more enemies with every passing day with each extortion letter that goes out. What a way to travel through life, building enemies up on a daily basis.
Whether your industry puts ELI out of business because no one needs ELI anymore or whether they keep sending letter recipients our way, Oscar and I win either way. I know BuddhaPi really enjoys his daily "ELI crack" habit. He is obsessive and hounds me every other day. He pays to work on ELI with his time, energy, PACER fees, and his forensic detective skills.
It used to be I couldn't get the guy to put his real name or photo on anything. Now, he wants to put on business clothes and asking do more ELI videos! BuddhaPi is starting to make me nuts pushing so hard. He keeps digging and digging information without asking me, you'd think he was an obsessed dog trying to dig his way to China!
Did I mention that all of this helps BuddhPi's business as a web-hosting provider? I think he would admit he has learned a ton of new PR and marketing techniques for his own and his client's businesses being part of ELI. Plus he loves the drama. Unlike it is for me or Oscar, ELI is his hobby! I don't mind feeding his "online ELI Crack" habit. BuddhaPi is so predictable, I just know what to do to get him going. Like a druggie, he thanks me for continuing his addiction. I take advantage of him all the time.
The ELI Community members love watching the drama so keep the extortion letters coming. Their participation is like being part of an "online reality show" where their comments are being read world-wide by hundreds if not thousands of people.
So, don't change. Keep up what you guys are doing.
-
This may be off topic of the "8 questions", but Matt I could not agree more with you young fellow! I have been a participant in the internet and observer for well over 30 years from the days of it being a research tool ( no I am not like Al Gore and invented the internet). Its a changed us for the better.
My first web site if you could call it that, was in early 1990's and I was one of the first plastic surgeons in 1993 to advertise my services on the internet. There were 8 maybe 9 of us I think who did this around that time we were scolded by the societies then, look at it today.
Lately for reasons related or directly to ELI, I have received a call almost weekly from some local designer or blogger and even had inquires about doing work for them, by our VERY small web development company=AiMiYo. Karma is everything live honest , treat others as you want to be treated and be transparent and benefit.
What we are seeing now is the realization of change by the old guard, who want to see things done the old way forever, now trying all they can to prevent the change with lawyers etc. Of course I am speaking of the bigger picture, not copyright infringement. They are simply upset that the old way of business is DEAD. No longer will the middle men control what they have , its impossible, game over, find a new job ! Integrity, honesty and transparency are even more important today instead of the back room deals.
As example a local artist musician friend of mine who runs the group HAPA, is doing well on Itunes and guess what NO middle man to speak of like the old days. Although I guess apple is a middle man to a small degree, look at the self publishers on Amazon with ebooks, Artist like him are not controlled by the big labels or even the smaller ones ..I shed no tears for that loss.
Great points Matt.
Michael
-
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.
I think that retaining control over what is being presented in your behalf is an extraordinarily good idea. Allow me to frame this up a little differently for you. Suppose I rent you a room for $100 a night. After you check out, I go into the room and discover that you have spilled red wine on the carpet. About a week after you arrive home, you get a letter from an attorney that you have never heard of demanding that you pay me $5000, or WE WILL SUE.
Wouldn't it be better if I sent you an e-mail saying "Hey Glen, I had to get a professional carpet cleaner in to get rid of the red wine stain for $200, and I couldn't rent the room for 2 nights because of it, please send me a check for $400." That's reasonable, that is defensible.
My issue with this whole mess is the unreasonableness of the demands. The burdens being placed on people far exceed the damages. And in this case, at least you knew you had spilled the wine, in my Getty case I was not only unaware, but also unaware of the actions of the design firm.
I don't think people should be using licensed images without compensating the artist. I also don't think licensing companies should use unreasonable extortion methods and commission based lawyers as the initial point of contact.
Don't start the discussion by pointing a gun at me.