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.
Topic: Glen Carner's First 8 Questions for Matthew Chan (Read 22827 times)