HAN / Copyright Services International Settlement Notification Phone Call

[Khan]

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

[Moe Hacken]

When you're in Mr. Carner's industry, image matters as much as images do.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Speaking of images:

When you're in Mr. Carner's industry, image matters as much as images do.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

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]

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.

[SoylentGreen]

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.

[Matthew Chan]

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.

[stinger]

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.

[SoylentGreen]

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.