ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on May 28, 2012, 07:51:23 PM
-
Every time I think we have "heard it all" comes a new twist. This time around I have direct evidence and testimonial of the "Hawaiian Art Network / Copyright Services International Settlement Notification Phone Call"
This is how it works. I actually have the emails and spoke to the person who submitted the information to me. At my request, I wanted to see the series of emails a reader received. IN that email chain, I was a bit confused to the "starter" email because it made it sound like I missed something. The person told me what I saw was actually the first email. However, the very first contact was a phone call from out of the blue!
My thinking is, "How does anyone expect anyone to blindly pay any money based on a phone call claiming to be Hawaiian Art Network or Copyright Services International using a phone notification call of an alleged copyright infringement?"
No one with any kind of business sense. Only the lazy, ignorant, or spineless would do something stupid and pay based on a phone call.
Lynne Hubsch, "Account Director" of Hawaiian Art Network, uses the email address lynne@hawaiiart.com to send a confirmation email to our reader of their phone call. I have XXXX'd out the identifying names.
Dear XXXX,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me yesterday. As I mentioned, I am reaching out to you on behalf of Hawaiian Art Network, llc. Our systems have identified an image on the XXXXX.com website that does not appear to have the proper licensing.
The specific photograph I am referring to is O-06 Hanauma Bay (VA0001696555) and is occurs on multiple pages (in a random fashion) http://XXXXXX.com/
The photo looks great on the site; however please understand that it is our responsibility to protect the rights of our photographers. We would like to resolve this concern in an amicable fashion. Accordingly, we are offering an opportunity provide proof of license or, if necessary, to retroactively license this image and provide documented release from all claims of copyright infringement related to the above stated image.
We understand that XXXXX is a small local business and in appreciation of your willingness to settle the matter without legal means we are willing to drastically discount the retail retroactive licensing to $678. Our standard fee for the site wide retail use of this image as seen on http://XXXXXX.com is $1425; and this discount is provided in the good-faith that we can resolve this concern in an amicable manner.
Simply removing the image will not provide release from the aforementioned copyright violation and only though retroactive licensing can release be given. The retroactive licensing agreement does not provide for future use, however we do offer future use licensing at fair market rates should you be interested.
We would very much prefer to resolve this matter with you in a direct and cordial manner by June 17, 2012. Please contact me to to provide proof of license, or to arrange for payment, which can be processed through PayPal. We will provide an invoice and photographer-signed release agreement for your documentation upon receipt of payment.
Kind Regards,
Lynne
Further in the email chains, Lynne uses lynne@copyrightservicesinternational.com as her reply-to email address. It is clear by this point that Lynne Hubsch works and speaks simultaneously for HAN and Copyright Services International, both owned by Glen Carner.
As polite as Lynne might be, I advised to our reader to not waste time going back and forth anymore by email as that is not recognized official communication in these matters. The email chain I was sent was quite long and an extensive effort was made to explain the alleged infringement situation clearly went nowhere. As we all know, it really doesn't matter what anyone says, the only thing they want is money.
I told her they will likely escalate this into a letter format. If and when that happened, she should simply contact Oscar Michelen that would put a stop to all communications. She already paid for the official ELI Phone Support and I would remain in the loop if she received any more communications.
Isn't it curious about using notification phone calls now? These are my ideas of why this is now happening.
1. Phone calls are more difficult to document. and less threatening.
2. HAN did not have our readers mailing address.
3. HAN, Glen Carner, its lawyers, its lawsuits, have been the focus of intense scrutiny and investigations by the ELI community. Using a phone call helps keep them under the radar except for when they get reported to me or the ELI community.
4. By avoiding a traditional heavy-handed letter system sent by a collections lawyer, the phone/email system is far less formal and intimidating.
5. There is greater potential for information-gathering by this informal kind of communications vs. a traditional business letter or from a collections lawyer HAN typically uses.
It is difficult to say when these settlement notification phone calls began but it is the first I have heard of it being used by anyone of any significance.
Oh, did I mention it is regarding another Vincent K. Tylor image? Vincent even states the following in one of the emails:
I have given full authority to Glen, Lynn, our attorneys and Hawaiian Art Network altogether to take care of any copyright settlements directly. As you probably know, moving into a new place is a very draining and time-consuming event. I just do not have the capability to handle these negotiations directly so hired these professionals who've already been in touch with you.
VKT is definitely in bed with Glen Carner as we have long known.
-
There is greater potential for information-gathering by this informal kind of communications vs. a traditional business letter or from a collections lawyer HAN typically uses.
This may be one of the main advantages for the troll. Also, people receiving a call are likely to speak first and google later. Many getting email will google first and then respond. Moreover, if taping is legal, the person calling may tape. It's unlikely the person receiving the call will also do so.
It would be useful for everyone to understand that they if they get a call out of the blue with any sort of revelations that make them nervous, they should do what you should always do when you get weird calls: give out very little information. Avoid confirming your name-- certainly if they don't know your name, do not volunteer! I don't when I get wrong numbers. If a stranger called me, I don't give a name, address, age or anything. Not to be melodramatic, but it might be an identity thief!
This is a general policy. Even apart from copyright trolls, you shouldn't be giving out information to strangers who call you up.
If the call turns out to be from an legitimate agency (police, FBI, person with a real gripe etc.) they'll eventually come to the door and give credentials. I mean... seriously!
-
My understanding is that it's illegal to record conversations in this context without the consent of both parties.
Such evidence would be inadmissible in court.
S.G.
-
Something I wrote and keep on my desk just in case I ever get a call from a copyright troll:
"I do not discuss legal matters regarding copyright disputes on the phone. Put what you have to say in writing and mail it to my address. I keep a paper trail for all legal matters. Doing so has always served me well in and out of court."
At this point I'd hang up and not reply to any additional calls from that number. I most definitely would not engage these people in any form of conversation.
-
I would also not volunteer my name or address, let them find it on their own.
Something I wrote and keep on my desk just in case I ever get a call from a copyright troll:
"I do not discuss legal matters regarding copyright disputes on the phone. Put what you have to say in writing and mail it to my address. I keep a paper trail for all legal matters. Doing so has always served me well in and out of court."
At this point I'd hang up and not reply to any additional calls from that number. I most definitely would not engage these people in any form of conversation.
-
Obviously this phone call tactic is in direct response to the ELI site putting up all the documentation and exposing the troll's methods. However trying to pimp people for money via a phone call and a follow-up email is going to appear to be just what it is -- a scam. The good thing about the trolls sending email demand follow-up letters is that it makes it that much easier for a target to copy a sentence, punch it into Google and then find themselves here.
-
We had a new forum visitor today, none other than Glen Carner from Hawaiian Art Network, as seen in the below screen capture.. He was originally posting in this thread, but it appears, he bailed.. Don't know if he thought better of it, or if his balls got to shriveled up..I would think the ELI community would welcome a debate..
http://www.palmbeachdns.com/glen_carner_trolling.jpg
-
Neat. The discussions here must have touched a nerve for him to join up, and attempt a post.
I would be interested in what he has to say.
It's just a big hurdle to get over the fact that they're going after "end users" and not the free "distribution channels".
Which I think will be a pivotal discussion in court (if they have the guts to show up).
Even if the free distribution channels weren't their doing, it's almost like the concept of an abandoned trademark.
"Our stuff is offered everywhere for free, but we can't do anything about it. But, lets sue end-users and make money on it anyway".
How unfortunate. If it's "free", and it's practically public domain now, then what are the damages?
S.G.
-
Matt is correct on all points. Lynne has been instructed to be understanding, professional, and empathetic in her communications. Her email clearly shows this and I am pleased you recognize that CSI is using a different approach to resolve the unlicensed use of the artist's images without any mention of penalties or copyright law that typically is included in an attorney's C & D letter.
I recognize that receiving a C & D letter from an attorney who spells out the penalties of copyright infringement can be shocking. Unfortunately, no other method has shown to be effective in dealing with companies that are using a photographer's images for products and services without paying for it except for legal recourse.
CSI is moving towards ELI's goal of reducing the shock and stress resulting from the recovery process on behalf of the photographers and agencies we serve. This may be naive, but hopefully it's successful and amicable resolutions can be worked out without the distress that resulted in the creation of these forums in the first place.
I look forward to representing CSI on these forums.
-
Note: I did not realize Glen Carner was posting simultaneously as I typed my own post. His post obviously beat mine to the punch. Please regard my comments as taking place BEFORE Glen posted his first ELI comment.
Regarding the legality of recording "phone calls", I have no problems recording calls if I need to regardless of what the law books say because it will be for my own use. I know that the law on recording phone conversations vary from state to state but it doesn't bother me because I have a good idea what I will use it for and what I can't. Unless you plan on using it egregiously to be malicious, very few prosecutors are going to devote their time on this "crime".
It is analogous to the fact that speeding is technically illegal. But nearly no one goes to jail or gets a speeding ticket for going 5 mph over the speed limit. Very few people worry about it. Or a U-turn where you are not supposed to. Or talking on the cell phone while driving. So many vehicle-related laws that people break all the time.
Or how about the "blue laws" relating to sex for certain sexual acts? Is anyone really going to bust down your door and arrest you for engaging in a particular activity between 2 consenting adults? Some couples are "breaking blue laws" every week! Lots of weird laws on the books but not really that big a deal by most "normal" people. It would cause an outrage trying to enforce them.
So, my own OPINION, is that I am not going to obsess over the laws regarding recording phone calls. Most people never give me a reason to need to consider recording a phone call without their permission. But if I feel the need to record a phone call to protect myself or my interests, I will and I won't feel bad about it at all. I will take that risk. I won't let people get away with saying crazy things to me if I can capture and record it and then use it against them.
It is obviously YOUR choice whether you are willing to take that risk to record a phone call without someone's authorization.
And on Glen Carner posting here, ELI would probably be a hostile audience and it would definitely set these forums on fire!
It is interesting how the copyright extortionists seem to believe in their position but seem so embarrassed by it. They don't "get it". The people who "get it" much better are the people in the software industry. They don't go running around threatening users, they simply try to get them to "get legal".
-
I recognize that receiving a C & D letter from an attorney who spells out the penalties of copyright infringement can be shocking. Unfortunately, no other method has shown to be effective in dealing with companies that are using a photographer's images for products and services without paying for it except for legal recourse.
CSI is moving towards ELI's goal of reducing the shock and stress resulting from the recovery process on behalf of the photographers and agencies we serve. This may be naive, but hopefully it's successful and amicable resolutions can be worked out without the distress that resulted in the creation of these forums in the first place.
I look forward to representing CSI on these forums.
It's not so much the shock and fear from the letters, it's the amount you and the other copyright trolls demand..how could you possibly demand upwards of $1000.00 for an image thats sells for 10.00 SHIPPED on your site?
You wouldn't care to explain the brothersoft sites with VK Tylors images and being labeled as YOU as the uploader??
No other method has been effective?..well why would it be when you have clearly stated this:
"Recovered revenue now accounts for about 50% of Hawaiian Art Network's income, and artists and photographers are more confident in the security of their intellectual property than ever before."
are you telling us that this is not a business model??
You must understand that MY method helps reduce the amount of infringements you and VK Tylor will see.. I make it a point to tell every client and potential client to not only not "steal" your cheesy images, but I also suggest they never purchase them either.
-
Glen,
I must say you are courageous for coming here to the ELI Forums. I am sure this is not your traditional audience.
I want to assure you we don't make a practice of deleting messages even those we disagree with. You may get some disagreeable or unhappy responses but you will not be deleted for simply disagreeing with the ELI Community. I say this because I want you to feel "safe" in that regard.
I also want to say that this is unprecedented for anyone on "the other side" to publicly post here on the ELI Forums. You are even using your "real name".
If it means anything, I will not permit any forum participant to overstep boundaries in terms of their behavior towards you or your posts. It may get heated and disagreeable but if it degraded to an inappropriate level, you can be sure I will intervene.
Feel free to post your thoughts but I am sure you will know you will be challenged. I know by the website traffic logs, ELI is practically required reading by most of your stock photo agency peers in the business. I think it is safe to say you are making a risky but cutting-edge move. I commend you for having the courage to do so.
ELI was not started for the intention or the expectation "the other side" would ever listen or participate here. But for you to step out now is really a stunning occasion none of us expected to see. But for what it's worth, at least you seem to be paying attention.
It will be interesting to see how all this evolves. Thanks for taking the chance to participate.
Matt is correct on all points. Lynne has been instructed to be understanding, professional, and empathetic in her communications. Her email clearly shows this and I am pleased you recognize that CSI is using a different approach to resolve the unlicensed use of the artist's images without any mention of penalties or copyright law that typically is included in an attorney's C & D letter.
I recognize that receiving a C & D letter from an attorney who spells out the penalties of copyright infringement can be shocking. Unfortunately, no other method has shown to be effective in dealing with companies that are using a photographer's images for products and services without paying for it except for legal recourse.
CSI is moving towards ELI's goal of reducing the shock and stress resulting from the recovery process on behalf of the photographers and agencies we serve. This may be naive, but hopefully it's successful and amicable resolutions can be worked out without the distress that resulted in the creation of these forums in the first place.
I look forward to representing CSI on these forums.
-
Matt is correct on all points. Lynne has been instructed to be understanding, professional, and empathetic in her communications. Her email clearly shows this and I am pleased you recognize that CSI is using a different approach to resolve the unlicensed use of the artist's images without any mention of penalties or copyright law that typically is included in an attorney's C & D letter.
I recognize that receiving a C & D letter from an attorney who spells out the penalties of copyright infringement can be shocking. Unfortunately, no other method has shown to be effective in dealing with companies that are using a photographer's images for products and services without paying for it except for legal recourse.
CSI is moving towards ELI's goal of reducing the shock and stress resulting from the recovery process on behalf of the photographers and agencies we serve. This may be naive, but hopefully it's successful and amicable resolutions can be worked out without the distress that resulted in the creation of these forums in the first place.
I look forward to representing CSI on these forums.
WOW! How cool is this and WELCOME!
First thing that stood out...."I recognize that receiving a C & D letter from an attorney who spells out the penalties of copyright infringement can be shocking."
Agreeing with Buddhapi......Let me just say for "starters" that "receiving a C & D letter from an attorney who spells out the penalties of copyright infringement" is not at all "shocking". What is "shocking" (among many things) is the DEMAND AMOUNT as well as when an attorney who represents your company proceeds to tell a letter recipient that she could face JAIL TIME for her ALLEGED infringement!
But hey.....congrats on your goal regarding "moving towards ELI's goal of reducing the shock and stress resulting from the recovery process on behalf of the photographers and agencies we serve."!
It is really too bad that your company cannot just send out C & D letters FIRST and then go after the "willfull" infringers. This of course would hurt your bottom line however as we all know all too well!
-
Hi Glen,
Although I disagree with your business model and the value you place on your clients' images, I respect you for coming on here to tell your side of the story.
You no doubt are aware that this will be a hostile audience. But if your goal is to reduce copyright infringements and start turning suspected infringers into customers, I would say posting here is a great first step.
Buddhapi has some great questions. I'm also curious about why more takedown notices have not been issued to the sites that are supplying the images. It has been pointed out on here that several of these sites are hosted through goDaddy.com. And they will take a site offline with just a single DMCA claim. I also wonder why so many small businesses are being targeted and yet none of the cases your company has filed have been against the wallpaper sites? Wouldn't it make more sense to cut off the supliers?
Anyway, I do hope you hang in there. Your feedback could prove benificial to everyone. Welcome to ELI.
-
I look foward to posting on these forums daily and addressing the concerns that have been brought up on the appropriate thread. The outcome may not be as glamorous or conspiratorial as expected but there is still plenty of anger and frustration to go around as a result of the current law and how it's utilized by stock photo agencies. I don't have as much flexibility on the HAN issues but will do my best to contribute as a member of CSI. Thanks guys and expect more tomorrow.
-
Glen,
Feel free to start a new discussion thread / topic if you feel it is warranted. There is a great deal of flexibility of how people can participate on the ELI Forums.
I think it is safe to say that some in the ELI Community are probably a bit apprehensive of your participation given that HAN has filed suit and currently have demand letters against some of our participants.
To those folks, I would simply say that whether Glen participates or not, most of the copyright enforcement staff from all the major stock photo agencies read the ELI Forums. We have nothing to lose to hear what he has to say.
I think this is an opportunity for an interesting experiment to see if there is a possibility of a meeting of the minds.
I look foward to posting on these forums daily and addressing the concerns that have been brought up on the appropriate thread. The outcome may not be as glamorous or conspiratorial as expected but there is still plenty of anger and frustration to go around as a result of the current law and how it's utilized by stock photo agencies. I don't have as much flexibility on the HAN issues but will do my best to contribute as a member of CSI. Thanks guys and expect more tomorrow.
-
I don't have as much flexibility on the HAN issues but will do my best to contribute as a member of CSI. Thanks guys and expect more tomorrow.
Naturally this would be the case now that you have a counter suit thrown back at you..problem is most if not all of our issues are with Hawaiian Art Network and Vincent K Tylor. I like how you state "utilize" the law...more like twisting, bending and distorting the law to fulfill YOUR own selfish needs.
-
Well, I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised to see anyone for HAN or CSI come forward to get into the debate. Along with Matthew Chan, I ask all our posters and contributors to keep the dialog respectful and on a high level. It is important that all stock photo agencies recognize that ELI is not supporting copyright infringement in any way shape or form. We simply feel its wrong to use threatening letters to force people into paying settlement amounts far in excess of what the infringement is worth - particularly when those letters make claims of criminal penalties and excessive fines that would never apply to the misuse of a single thumbnail image. Our second biggest gripe is the failure of these stock photo agencies to realize that the vast majority of website owners who receive these letters did not choose their own images and relied upon a third party to do so. They are normally shocked and upset about it and it has been my experience never hesitate in taking the images off once they learn of the infringement claim. Yet, this conduct is never given any credit and the settlement demands and flurry of letters continues on; this despite the Copyright Act's protection for innocent infringers.
With respect to HAN and CSI Glenn, as you likely know, I have been able to reach an amicable settlement several times with your respective lawyer(s) when a calm, rational, law-based discussion is had between us. For example, despite the sometimes rancorous flak that Peter Holt received on here a little while ago, recently he and I were able to quickly resolve a claim he was handling for HAN to everyone's mutual satisfaction. So it makes me a bit angry when I see that despite these positive interactions., HAN and CSI continue to pound people with the same exorbitant, threatening demands. You know what these images are worth and the various defenses to serious damages that can be raised yet you continue on the same path.
Specifically to discuss HAN, though I realize your hands may be tied there due to the on-going Aloha Plastic Surgery case, HAN or anyone affiliated with HAN will never be completely trusted until this issue of "seeding" free wallpaper and free images sites is explained, resolved or proven wrong. There are three possibilities:
(1) The conspiracy theorists are correct and Vincent Tylor and HAN (or others acting on their behalf) have intentionally placed their images on so many "free" sites that you can still find them 15 pages deep into a Google search. If this is ever proven to be true, then everyone affiliated with HAN should be investigated and criminal penalties for fraud and larceny may be applicable. Since I tend to be more of a "the glass is half full" kind of guy, I will go on assuming that this is not the case;
(2) HAN had nothing to do with their images being released all over the place for free and is mad as hell that this mass infringement is going on and is taking no prisoners in its attempt to stop this proliferation of piracy. That is what the community would expect for a company that places such a high value on its images that it threatens people with jail time in its demand letters. We haven't seen that kind of response, which lends credence to theory (1) above and theory (3) which follows;
(3) HAN had nothing to do with their images being released all over the place for free but is letting it go for now because it is generating a great deal of money for the infringement side of the business. I think this is the most plausible scenario. But if HAN and/or CSI were able to resolve this issue once and for all, I think it will go a long way to achieving what you want - people respecting Mr. Tylor's work and paying the appropriate license fee for its use.
I could go on about other issues, but this as good a place to start the dialogue as any. Thank you once again for joining us in this discussion and I look forward to a healthy, substantive dialogue.
-
Matt is correct on all points. Lynne has been instructed to be understanding, professional, and empathetic in her communications. Her email clearly shows this and I am pleased you recognize that CSI is using a different approach to resolve the unlicensed use of the artist's images without any mention of penalties or copyright law that typically is included in an attorney's C & D letter.
I recognize that receiving a C & D letter from an attorney who spells out the penalties of copyright infringement can be shocking. Unfortunately, no other method has shown to be effective in dealing with companies that are using a photographer's images for products and services without paying for it except for legal recourse.
CSI is moving towards ELI's goal of reducing the shock and stress resulting from the recovery process on behalf of the photographers and agencies we serve. This may be naive, but hopefully it's successful and amicable resolutions can be worked out without the distress that resulted in the creation of these forums in the first place.
I look forward to representing CSI on these forums.
I have been following most posts regarding anything to do with Vincent k Tylor & Hawaiian Art Network ever since it became known on the ELI site. Now that Glen Carner has chosen to represent Hawaiian Art Network on ELI, I have a few comments to make. I hope I can make my point as respectfully as I possibly can.
After all that is being said concerning HAN & VKT, I wondered how this was all being processed on their end.
I was pursued for $10,000 by a lawyer (Brandon Sand) that Glen Carner & Vincent Tylor hired as a result of using one of his photos I found on a freewallpapers website. The photo was 300pixels by 225pixels & was on my website for approximately 2-3 weeks.
I was self taught in computer & internet-land & was grossly ignorant of the laws of infringement. Because of everything that has happened to me as a result of this ignorance, the settlement letter & threats I received, I am now well aware & more cautious than ever. I deleted every photo I had thought free leaving me with zero photos & a very limp website. I have since re-built it with the help & permissions of friends & family. Prior to this incident, I have never willingly or knowingly broken any laws in my life except for going over the speed limit on the odd long straight stretch...I am proud to be honest at all times, loyal, loving & respectful & most importantly being the best mother I can possibly be. I am a full time stay at home mother & loving wife.
The most important part of my existence is my son. He is number 1 in my life & always will be. I would give up anything in the world for him, make any sacrifices.
I consider myself fairly intelligent but also naive. I lack education in some areas but have compensated for that by realising there is always something to learn & the more you know the better. I made a mistake in thinking the photo I found on the free wallpapers website was okay to use. You can't imagine how stupid I felt when I started reading about copyright laws. There it was in black & white, I was guilty. It didn't matter that I did it innocently, I was still guilty. It didn't matter that I immediately deleted the photo which wasn't even on my website by the time I received the settlement letter, demanding $10,000 in one month's time. It didn't matter that I was sorry & actually felt bad for the artist this happened to. And it didn't matter that I was submerged with fear & drowning in my own pool of tears. My fear & sadness of what was to come was as fierce as the stance Brandon Stand took on being paid.
I am surprised that I am still invested in all of this since I am the kind of person who deals with issues and leaves them in the past...I move on, I have moved on...BUT! I will NEVER NEVER NEVER forget being so afraid of being sent to prison for 5 years & being taken away from my son! I was threatened to pay up $$$$$ or pay the consequences which could be up to a $250,000 fine & up to 5 years of prison! I believed this was a real threat. I didn't have the money, I had no savings & was not earning an income at the time. I was newly married to a man who had just lost his 22 year old daughter in a sudden tragic death. My husband was starting over financially, we couldn't pay even if we wanted to & no one to ask for it. My husband was angry & wanted me to fight it but all I could think about was what was going to happen to my son when I was behind bars.
To spend just one day in that state of mind was unbearable & it went on for more than 3 weeks. I love to garden, get my hands in the soil to create beauty within my surroundings. It is a place I feel whole, happy & when I tried to escape the nightmares I was facing, I broke down in front of my family. My father was there to witness it one day...I remember the look on his face when he saw me sobbing & he promised me I would never spend one day in prison. It was the first time I felt the sunshine in my heart because when love shines through in the darkest moments, it is more powerful than anything.
Going back in time to when this all began, I contacted Vincent Tylors wife in an attempt to plead with Mr. Tylor but she answered the phone. I could barely speak as I made the call during one of my crying & panic episodes. I told her that I was so scared & what would my son do with me being in jail? I told her I had no idea that what I had done was wrong. I apologised with all my heart & told her about my financial situation. She was very kind & told me that no one goes to jail & advised me to call Glen Carter who is a very understanding man & to communicate with him.
I did call Glen Carter, again in tears, he informed me to discuss it with Brandon Sand. I pleaded with Brandon Sand...many times, begged him to give me a break, doing all I could to prove I couldn't pay & didn't have the funds. I called Glen Carner a second time & received the same former response. After many calls & emails to Brandon Sand, I made one final phone call, sobbing as always, I told him how scared I was & what would happen to my son if I went to jail? He said pay the money & that will no longer be a concern. I finally asked him where the humanity was in all of this & his answer was, "the humanity in all this is to pay the money".
It was in that moment that I became angry & I found ELI & Oscar. One phone call to ELI & I was no longer the blubbering, pathetic & fearful half person I had been for over 3 weeks. They immediately relieved my deepest fears that no one in my circle could release.
This is happening to a lot of people, it isn't right even if the law says it's right when something is advertised as free, it's no wonder that so many people are making the same mistake, unknowingly.
Recently, someone even wrote about feeling suicidal over $700! These letters may be lining pockets with gold but they are also damaging people's lives, especially those who can't pay.
I write this summary of the experience I went through because even though in the end I was guilty for being ignorant of the law, I want others to know they are not alone & hopefully save them from shedding a few tears & fear filled nights awake. I am a strong person who is not scared of much & I certainly don't cry very often unless I am threatened by something like prison. The truth of the matter is that these photos found on freewallpaper sites and such are making artists, lawyers & picscout a lot of money. Whatever way/ways these images are getting out there, either by mistake or intentionally, substantial earnings are being generated by the result of people's fear, ignorance & innocent infringements. Which is worse?
-
ExtortionVictimNoMore, thanks for posting that summary of what you've been through. I'm looking forward to reading Glen Carner's response.
-
ExtortionVictimNoMore, thanks for posting that summary of what you've been through. I'm looking forward to reading Glen Carner's response.
Plus one.
-
EVNL, thanx again for sharing this, you have suffered the most of all the letter and experiences I have encountered thus far, but you made it through and can now move onward..Karma will have it's place..Brandon Sand, Vincent K Tylor, his wife and Glen Carner should all be ashamed of themselves, but they are too consumed with making money by preying on hapless victims. It must suck to be morally and ethically bankrupt, what a lowly way to go thru life..
-
Thanks for your comments, I hope my experience may shed some light to whomever may need it...
-
EVNL, thanks for lending your voice to an issue that affects good people on a daily basis.
We talk about the laws on the forum a lot, but there's definitely a human aspect to this.
I can't imagine how many people have suffered in fear because of what in my opinion is greed.
S.G.
-
Wow, this thread has become super-charged thanks to Glen.
Let me say I am not a big fan of melodrama and uncontrollable emotions because it clouds the ability to think and process. I also discourage it because it gives the "other side" too much power due to a person's own naivete and ignorance. As adults, no matter how we feel, we have a certain responsibility to "get it together" to deal with the problem at hand.
Having said that EVNL was the first person who publicly dealt with HAN, contacted us, and getting an outrageous $10K letter gets some special consideration here. She had the wherewithal to do some research and look for help. She wasn't cheap about it and she hired Oscar. This set in motion a series of events that led to a devastating PR campaign that ran Brandon Sand out of the business and a very favorable settlement for her. Today, she can speak freely with no repercussion because she is part of the well-read, highly-credible platform called the ELI Forums.
Fortunately, EVNL learned a lot as have we all as a community and all of the participants give something of themselves when they post "passing it forward" to others. In a roundabout way, EVNL ultimately got her way because she "compelled" Glen to finally come out to discuss the issues two years later. Simply amazing.
With ELI's powerful standing in the Google search engines, it doesn't take long for the uninitiated collection lawyer to feel the impact of our relentless and piercing coverage, reporting, and callout activities.
You see, the secret is out. Readers of ELI know there are ways of fighting back inexpensively WITHOUT their cooperation. The ELI Defense Team & Community is very good at what we do. And to think, we only do this in our spare time.
I have promised Glen that I would not delete his messages or allow over-the-top behavior, profanity, name-calling, and other inappropriate behavior against him here on the ELI Forums. But I certainly have no problem with people challenging and questioning Glen. I am not overly optimistic about the answers we will get because the ELI community can ask some very hard questions. But no one can say, he didn't have a platform to speak from.
What Glen needs to know is the power of anger, revenge, and vindication. When people get hurt or feel immensely threatened, people will devote their personal energies to retaliation and vindication. Like it or not, it is just the way it is.
Glen seems to understand this now and attempting to calm the ELI community down by reaching out. Oscar has some good theories and makes some good points that as long as the Vincent Tylor issue is answered satisfactorily, HAN's credibility will always be suspect.
The next step is Glen's. He has a platform to communicate worldwide. We will see how it is used or if he changes his mind and withdraws.
-
Let me say I am not a big fan of melodrama and uncontrollable emotions because it clouds the ability to think and process. I also discourage it because it gives the "other side" too much power due to a person's own naivete and ignorance. As adults, no matter how we feel, we have a certain responsibility to "get it together" to deal with the problem at hand.
I completely agree & well said. I know I would never have lost emotional control if the threat was only about the money, however, the fear of being separated from my son won over...but you are right, I wasted time & strength being fearful when I should have been finding a solution sooner than I had.
-
Wow this is going to be a great thread and Glen, I give you credit for having the courage to come here and talk to us. Like mcfilms said, I do not agree with your current business model. I would like to know how you justify asking for outrages amounts after it is shown that the person has either innocently or un-willfully infringed an image. How can companies like HAN/VKT seem to turn a blind eye to anyone who can show they have used one of your images innocently? Why not a simple cease and desist letter or if you/HAN feel there must be damages paid not the 200.00 minimum fine that is routinely used for innocent/ non-willful infringers. I know what the law says, you are guilty regardless of how the image was obtained but wouldn’t it serve your company, its reputation, and the artist you represent much better to show a little compassion and understanding rather than demanding outrages sums and threatening jail time?
Again Glen, I thank you and I appreciate your willingness to come and talk to us and I hope you will remain a part of this forum.
I would also like to invite any Getty representatives to show the same amount of courage Glen has shown and join us. I personally have MANY questions I would like answered from you.
I look foward to posting on these forums daily and addressing the concerns that have been brought up on the appropriate thread. The outcome may not be as glamorous or conspiratorial as expected but there is still plenty of anger and frustration to go around as a result of the current law and how it's utilized by stock photo agencies. I don't have as much flexibility on the HAN issues but will do my best to contribute as a member of CSI. Thanks guys and expect more tomorrow.
-
I would like to know how you justify asking for outrages amounts after it is shown that the person has either innocently or un-willfully infringed an image. How can companies like HAN/VKT seem to turn a blind eye to anyone who can show they have used one of your images innocently? Why not a simple cease and desist letter or if you/HAN feel there must be damages paid not the 200.00 minimum fine that is routinely used for innocent/ non-willful infringers. I know what the law says, you are guilty regardless of how the image was obtained but wouldn’t it serve your company, its reputation, and the artist you represent much better to show a little compassion and understanding rather than demanding outrages sums and threatening jail time?
For the answer to this, look at Matt's questions No. 8 and No. 9 in another topic:
8. What are the actual split percentages of a typical settlement? ELI has estimated a 60/40 split whereby 60% goes to the stock photo agency and 40% to the collection lawyer. Out of "your" portion, how much goes to HAN, the photographer, PicScout, and any other parties you distribute proceeds to?
9. What percentage of your revenues come from straight sales and licensing vs. infringement settlements?
Glen Carner's answer to Matt's questions No. 8 and No. 9:
#8/9 - Unfortunately I cant comment on this. Sorry.
Translation of "Unfortunately I cant [sic] comment on this. Sorry.":
It's all about the money, so screw individual circumstances, individual explanations, and anything else that affects the size of the payment we can extract with whatever bullying tactics we and others using extrajudicial settlement demand schemes can come up with.
Geesh.
-
Mulligan, that's a possibility but we owe Mr. Carnen the benefit of the doubt. He did mention that he can't comment on HAN specifically because there's ongoing litigation. Those are good questions and may actually end up being part of the discovery process.
After the litigation is concluded, of course it's up to Mr. Carnen to answer those questions. I know he's made statements along the lines of question 9 in the past, but I would be curious to hear an update:
Since teaming up with PicScout, Hawaiian Art Network has experienced strong revenue recovery. Recovered revenue now accounts for about 50% of Hawaiian Art Network’s income,
Source: http://www.picscout.com/images/stories/pdfs/HawaiianArtNetwork.pdf (on page 4)
-
Great thread! Extortion-Victim-No Longer thanks for sharing your motivation in this fight.
We are all together in a common fight for what we believe is right. Our motivations may be different. I like to think that mine is to "fight for truth, justice, and the American way." (hope I didn't infringe on any copyrights there) But we are all in the same battle.
I, for one, am happy that Extortion-Victim-No Longer may have brought Mr. Carner here to give us a counterpoint. I hope he can help change some of the practices that have united us so strongly. If he is only here to try and mollify some of the readers of this forum and not correct the abuses of his industry, his time might be better spent playing tiddly winks.
-
My thoughts:
I think that his (Mr. C.) court case is not going the anticipated path. He is showing goodwill and is joining this forum. So he can tell the judge: Look I really want to understand both sides and this is not a business model. I have to protect Mr. Tylor bla bla bla.
No accusation just thoughts !
Khan
-
When you're in Mr. Carner's industry, image matters as much as images do.
-
Speaking of images:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7nNESK2AAg&hl=en_GB&fs=1
When you're in Mr. Carner's industry, image matters as much as images do.
-
I would like to know how you justify asking for outrages amounts after it is shown that the person has either innocently or un-willfully infringed an image. How can companies like HAN/VKT seem to turn a blind eye to anyone who can show they have used one of your images innocently? Why not a simple cease and desist letter or if you/HAN feel there must be damages paid not the 200.00 minimum fine that is routinely used for innocent/ non-willful infringers. I know what the law says, you are guilty regardless of how the image was obtained but wouldn’t it serve your company, its reputation, and the artist you represent much better to show a little compassion and understanding rather than demanding outrages sums and threatening jail time?
For the answer to this, look at Matt's questions No. 8 and No. 9 in another topic:
8. What are the actual split percentages of a typical settlement? ELI has estimated a 60/40 split whereby 60% goes to the stock photo agency and 40% to the collection lawyer. Out of "your" portion, how much goes to HAN, the photographer, PicScout, and any other parties you distribute proceeds to?
9. What percentage of your revenues come from straight sales and licensing vs. infringement settlements?
Glen Carner's answer to Matt's questions No. 8 and No. 9:
#8/9 - Unfortunately I cant comment on this. Sorry.
Translation of "Unfortunately I cant [sic] comment on this. Sorry.":
It's all about the money, so screw individual circumstances, individual explanations, and anything else that affects the size of the payment we can extract with whatever bullying tactics we and others using extrajudicial settlement demand schemes can come up with.
Geesh.
In all fairness, if someone asked me to reveal the income of my business and publish what percentage I pay out to freelancers (or affiliates), I'd take a pass on this question too. These are answers that competitors could use to an advantage and frankly none of your damn business. :)
Regardless of how we feel about HAN, GI, MF or whoever; they are businesses. This means they are a profit-seeking enterprise. I am in no way excusing what happened to Extortion-Victim-No Longer. I find the manner in which her case was handled particularly abhorrent. A good business would try and find a path to make amends. I am sure HAN and the lawyer representing this situation have had their image tarnished. And that's as it should be.
I also don't see a huge ulterior motive here I prefer to take Glen at his word. Mistakes and missteps have occurred on both sides of this issue. Maybe there is a way to build a consensus of how alleged infringement should be handled. At the moment it seems that we are worlds apart. But if we explore this with an open mind, with honesty and integrity intact, maybe a reasonable solution can be found.
-
Mulligan, that's a possibility but we owe Mr. Carnen the benefit of the doubt. He did mention that he can't comment on HAN specifically because there's ongoing litigation. Those are good questions and may actually end up being part of the discovery process.
Moe and McFilms, I don't think we owe this man the benefit of the doubt, given his history and the self-serving comments he's made so far on ELI.
He's welcome to comment all he wants, but anyone who thinks settlement demand letters aren't all about the money is -- in my opinion -- naive.
He's written nothing to date on the forum here that convinces me otherwise regarding his operation.
With that written, I'll go into lurk mode because I have no tolerance for self-serving BS, and, in good conscience, I can't be polite to a copyright troll who has treated people the way this man treated EVNL and others.
-
Yes, it's difficult to form a "consensus". I'd like to see "fair dealing", however. Maybe that's the closest that we'll ever come?
1) People (artists and photographers) should be not expected to work for free.
2) The criminal types need to stop lying and entrapping people in order to make money.
3) The sneaky types need to forward proof of their claims when it's requested.
4) Lawyers involved in this need to be ethical and only work within the framework of legality and law.
5) Settlement demands should be within the range of "actual market value" for similar works used in a similar manner plus a "fair penalty".
I know that #5 is a real sticking point. Part of the problem is that the sales by "premium" stock art houses are way down.
That's because images of similar quality are available for pennies on the dollar from royalty-free microstock.
It isn't right that the premium stock houses are attempting to make up for their sales shortfall by making completely unreasonable settlement demands.
While an actual infringer is in the "wrong" and should compensate the actual copyright owner, it's not his/her duty to make up for market conditions that now favor inexpensive royalty-free stock art.
I mention a "fair penalty", otherwise people may simply use copyrighted works for free, and the only penalty would be to pay the retail price. Some people would take that chance.
I hate to say this, but if "premium stock house A" wants a 10,000 dollar settlement over a photo of a sprinkler head, but there are similar photos available everywhere else for 2 dollars, then the settlement should be the lower 2 dollars, all other things being equal.
Add in a 100 percent penalty for a total of 4 dollars. Some lawyer-types might say, "But that's not worth suing over."
My answer is "That's right. However, that's market value plus a 100 percent penalty".
An infringement should NOT be an excuse to rip people off.
I think that the premium stock art houses are resisting change and taking the path of least resistance.
However, this isn't sustainable in the long term. They must change or die.
S.G.
-
Glen says ELI speaks with "one voice". I have to chuckle at that because we do disagree with each other at times and this is one of those times!
I didn't ask for the actual profit numbers because I knew that would get turned down. I didn't even ask for gross revenues. I asked what the percentage was from copyright enforcement vs. actual sales. I don't care if it's NOT my business. He can always decline answering which he has. I think it's safe to say that most of us derive a very high percentage of our income from engaging what we do, not collections. If it's 50% or higher as has been said elsewhere, then that says something.
The software industry (also a victim of piracy) derives a miniscule portion of their copyright enforcement efforts. Like the media companies, they have the means to go after the "little guy" but they don't. They hate piracy but handle it very differently.
Regarding how we "feel", I don't accept the argument they are simply businesses and profit-seeking. Especially in small businesses, the owner and principal makes the decisions and are held accountable whether they like it or not.
For example, Oscar and I have discussed the revenue-generating aspect of ELI to keep ourselves going because we are not doing charity work here. If he and I really wanted to crank up the revenues for ELI-related activities in the name of profit-making, we would tell people the likelihood of being sued and experiencing misery is very high and that MOST people NEED our services to help them. But we don't pitch it that way at all and I know we generate less revenues as a result of it. We tell people to to use ELI Services to make your life easier, get less stress, save time, save effort, and the most important reason of all, you want ELI to exist for longer than 1 year at a time. We don't do fear-mongering, we try to empower people with options.
Businesses are accountable for their actions because it all decisions and actions trace back to some person. And for any "businesses" that disagree with that, that is why there are complaint boards, online petitions, BBB, small claims court, etc. all over the Internet to help people who have issues and complaints with businesses.
In all fairness, if someone asked me to reveal the income of my business and publish what percentage I pay out to freelancers (or affiliates), I'd take a pass on this question too. These are answers that competitors could use to an advantage and frankly none of your damn business. :)
Regardless of how we feel about HAN, GI, MF or whoever; they are businesses. This means they are a profit-seeking enterprise. I am in no way excusing what happened to Extortion-Victim-No Longer. I find the manner in which her case was handled particularly abhorrent. A good business would try and find a path to make amends. I am sure HAN and the lawyer representing this situation have had their image tarnished. And that's as it should be.
-
Soylentgreen, I think you are absolutely right "they must change or die".
But how do we get them to see this, when they are so close to it? Is Glen Carner here because he is beginning to see the end is near, or to further his PR agenda?
You are also right about doing what's fair. But the law doesn't necessarily agree, and as long as that is the case, people will try to use the law for advantage. Our leverage is to ensure that those business that do, DIE.
-
Personally, I think that the trolls "know" that it'll be over eventually. They're milking it for the short-term gain.
Things will only actually change when trolling isn't economically viable anymore.
For the most part, people only make efforts when there's something in it for them. When that's gone, it'll fade.
I think that the law is intended to be "fair". But, it's not perfect.
Additionally, experts use their knowledge to sway people who aren't aware of the laws or how the laws apply to their situation.
It's my opinion that lawsuits filed by the trolls haven't panned out in court for the most part.
However, the prospect of "court" (even if it's a remote possibility) scares most people.
Also, the sociopaths in this business are clearly the loudest, most threatening voices.
I won't lie. I'm glad that Carner is here. I read his posts with great interest.
Like I said, people do things when there's some "reward" in it for them; that's not necessarily a bad thing.
However, I'm sure that he's not posting here just because he has nothing better to do than be challenged.
I'm trying to figure out where he's going with this, as his postings confuse me a bit.
I did find something that Carner wrote to be quite chilling.
He said, "First and formost (sic), I want CSI to develop new solutions for collecting revenue retroactvily (sic) that dosent (sic) require copyright law."
I suspect that Carner knows that the law isn't really on his side here. There are some big hurdles to overcome in his lawsuits.
So, I suppose that it would be to his advantage to say, "Let's just set the law aside. You've infringed, and Uncle Glen wants to help you with your problem.
Kindly make your check out to Hawaiian Art Network".
Recent history has taught us that the law has actually protected alleged infringers from paying the trolls.
Getty's one of the biggest trolls with the most resources, but the law keeps them from collecting on phony infringements.
Righthaven was created to enforce copyrights and it sank faster than the titanic.
Yes... "change or die"... it's really true. BUT, some companies may have already missed the chance to change. It may be too late for some.
S.G.