HAN / Copyright Services International Settlement Notification Phone Call

[Matthew Chan]

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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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.

[lucia]

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!

[SoylentGreen]

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.

[Mulligan]

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.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

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.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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

[SoylentGreen]

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.

[Glen Carner]

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.

[Matthew Chan]

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".

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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.

[Matthew Chan]

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.

[Peeved]

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!

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

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.

[Glen Carner]

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.