Glen Carner's First 8 Questions for Matthew Chan

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

no problem, as long as it's within reason I'll glady pay.. 

Buddhapi, I'm going to have to send you a bill for all the coffee that came out of my nose and got on my laptop.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Glen, I think you are still missing the point.  While kinder and gentler demand letters designed to soften the blow may be nice, if someone puts a gun to your head (metaphorically speaking) and says give me your money, oh wait, I meant to say please give me your money, it’s still the same thing.  The main issue, at least for me is the amounts being asked for.  While a kinder letter would have not immediately put me on the defensive, until I got to the amount part, it is still wrong and smells no matter how much perfume you try and put on it. While my letter came from Getty Images rather than HAN I would have reacted totally differently if it had said something more to the effect of:

 We saw an image that belongs to us on your website and we cannot find your licensing of the image, if you have a license please provide it to us.  Here is what the law states about copyright infringement and recourse available to us to protect our IP.  We ask you remove the image or register it immediately, enclosed is a proof of registration and contract giving us right to protect this artist and this image.  If you have not removed or registered within X number of days, or provided proof of your valid license we will pursue our rights provided to us under the current copyright laws.

If I had received that, I would not be here now and I would not be committed to being here and supporting ELI any way I can until we are no longer needed.  If it had been one of the nicer letters you are talking about and the amount still the same, I would still be here, no difference.

Until you stop using the courts as a means of profit rather than as justice to go after willful infringers I see no change in the attitudes and actions against you and the other stock photo companies.  You will continue to see more resistance, when you do bring cases to court you will see more counter suits against you and you will see your companies and the artists you represent image and public standing continue to fall.

These are just my opinions and you may take them or leave them and I really don’t care.  Your comments so far have seemed to be more about how can you still get outrageous sums of money from people and make them feel better about it.  I will again say I give you credit for coming to the forums, and I know you have only been here a few days now but it looks to me like you are just trying to find a way to keep doing business as usual while trying to improve your public image/relations.  Please prove me wrong and I hope continue to talk on the forums.  Things will change whether you do it or are made to do it, they will change.

[SoylentGreen]

I think that there will never be much common ground between infringers (alleged or willful) and trolls that wish to collect on infringements.
It's like the two of them being across an impassable gulf of water, with no boat.

On the one hand, we have the content owners (who are perceived to be sketchy).
They want to be paid sums that amount to thousands of times what the content is actually worth.
I think that their perception is that anyone that is "caught" infringing has to make up (pay) for all other infringements that might exist, whether real or imagined.
Of, course there's also the "greed" factor.

On the other hand, there are the alleged infringers. These people know that these photos are worth a couple of bucks at most.
If an alleged infringer is the brunt of over the top threats, or the accuser can't provide any proof, then the reputation of the retailer and/or artist is damaged.
Demanding less money from the alleged infringer won't improve results either.  Unless a couple of dollars is demanded, the settlement demand will be seen to be unfair.
A "fair" settlement is probably two dollars in most cases.  But, people couldn't be bothered putting a 2-dollar check in the mail.

There's a solution to the whole problem.  But some people aren't going to like it.
Stock image businesses will have to sell images at a price that people will pay.
Furthermore, a bit of savvy marketing is needed to let people know that a plethora of affordable images exist in a convenient, friendly place to do business.

Now, I can already hear the hollering all the way up here in the woods.
I'm hearing, "I can't make six-figures doing that!!" and "I can't feed my family".
Get over the sense of entitlement.  Tell your wife/husband to get a job.  Maybe photography isn't for you.  Maybe you need a better and different business model that makes money.

DO NOT expect copyright laws to be "loosened" to the point that registration isn't required, or that non-exclusive agents (retailers) can collect statutory damages.
It's not going to happen.



S.G.

[Lettered]

. . . He is frustrated that, unlike everyone else, I demanded a $1,000 ELI Contribution for me to give "silver platter" service.  Maybe the amount was too "extortionate" for him? . . .

Matt,  In all fairness, $1000 + fees are usually reserved for goods and services that require an extremely high level of artistic or technical expertise and ability.  You know, things like snapping a thumbnail quality photo of a seagull,  a shopping cart, or a football for example.

[Glen Carner]

While we wont ever get to a point where our photographers are having their work used for profit and then the business is expected to only remove them, there is no reason not to try and modify the recovery process in a way that is more palatable for the end user (and a new attorney for that matter).  My comment towards Matt is in recognition of his frustration and suspicion.  I understand there is much anger towards to process (obviously) but as business owner its my responsibility to examine that regardless of what I think.  Where else to better get feedback then ELI.

Until copyright law changes, the agencies will continue to function as they do, recoveries using attorneys will continue, and ELI will be there to shame them in the process.  There is no reason not to continue examining the process and improving it in any way possible which is why our account staff was trained specifically on a "no legal language" approach when asking for the license fee only with no mention of copyright, penalties, or any legal position what so ever.  We will continue to do this and I again appreciate your positions and feedback. 

I know you see the agencies as greedy, archaic, abusers of the law and most agencies see businesses using our images as thieves, pirates, and whatever other name calling is common these days but I don't subscribe to either of these extreme positions.  What I believe in is solutions and finding the best way to do things with the parameters I am given.  The fact that both positions are so entrenched is unfortunate but hopefully improvements can be made.

[Peeved]

While we wont ever get to a point where our photographers are having their work used for profit and then the business is expected to only remove them, there is no reason not to try and modify the recovery process in a way that is more palatable for the end user (and a new attorney for that matter).  My comment towards Matt is in recognition of his frustration and suspicion.  I understand there is much anger towards to process (obviously) but as business owner its my responsibility to examine that regardless of what I think.  Where else to better get feedback then ELI.

Until copyright law changes, the agencies will continue to function as they do, recoveries using attorneys will continue, and ELI will be there to shame them in the process.  There is no reason not to continue examining the process and improving it in any way possible which is why our account staff was trained specifically on a "no legal language" approach when asking for the license fee only with no mention of copyright, penalties, or any legal position what so ever.  We will continue to do this and I again appreciate your positions and feedback. 

I know you see the agencies as greedy, archaic, abusers of the law and most agencies see businesses using our images as thieves, pirates, and whatever other name calling is common these days but I don't subscribe to either of these extreme positions.  What I believe in is solutions and finding the best way to do things with the parameters I am given.  The fact that both positions are so entrenched is unfortunate but hopefully improvements can be made.

And there you have it......What is going to keep us in the "extortion" business and yet keep us off of ELI.
 

[Extortion-Victim-No Longer]

We saw an image that belongs to us on your website and we cannot find your licensing of the image, if you have a license please provide it to us.  Here is what the law states about copyright infringement and recourse available to us to protect our IP.  We ask you remove the image or register it immediately, enclosed is a proof of registration and contract giving us right to protect this artist and this image.  If you have not removed or registered within X number of days, or provided proof of your valid license we will pursue our rights provided to us under the current copyright laws.

In a perfect world this would be the perfect letter + it would mean actually having a clear & clean conscience. As long as there is crack on an addicts table the addiction will remain...The difference is that at least many addicts wish they could come clean if they were strong enough to beat it. But when you make a living "selling your soul" for money, as Budahpi puts it... lines have been crossed & well past the time for perfect letters...

[SoylentGreen]

Look, nobody's going to pay some huge fee even if the letter comes from "kindly Uncle Glen" for what amounts to an image that's offered for free.
Then the gloves are off again, and everybody's back to square one.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

My comments are inline again.

While we wont ever get to a point where our photographers are having their work used for profit and then the business is expected to only remove them, there is no reason not to try and modify the recovery process in a way that is more palatable for the end user (and a new attorney for that matter). 

Last time we checked, the collection lawyers are (smartly I might add) making changes all by themselves without asking us. If you don't want to modify, then don't. Be prepared for the consequences. Most of us in the know, know the drill and what to do.  Those who don't, get initiated very quickly. Many us in our own private lives tell others to be careful not to caught up in the copyright trolling fiasco as we have and many have a cavalier attitude about it and I don't try to save them from themselves.

Glen, you should be happy to know that I feel some people actually "deserve" the stress and getting worked up over the extortion letters because some were already warned by me and others in the ELI Community. I don't feel that much sympathy for the people who have been warned.  Hence, they have do decide if they want to cope with the stress and hassle to deal with it themselves, pay ELI, or pay you guys.  Everyone always pays one way or another.

My comment towards Matt is in recognition of his frustration and suspicion.  I understand there is much anger towards to process (obviously) but as business owner its my responsibility to examine that regardless of what I think.  Where else to better get feedback then ELI.

I am not sure what frustration you are talking about. I am pretty happy with my position and what I do. However, you better believe I am absolutely suspicious and skeptical. Here on ELI, you will get all kinds of answers. Most of it is easy to understand. Mine could be more cryptic simply because I don't have all the time in the world to fully explain the full scope of my reasoning in a "free format" but rest assured that I am very results-oriented and go way beyond traditional thinking and conventions.

Until copyright law changes, the agencies will continue to function as they do, recoveries using attorneys will continue, and ELI will be there to shame them in the process.  There is no reason not to continue examining the process and improving it in any way possible which is why our account staff was trained specifically on a "no legal language" approach when asking for the license fee only with no mention of copyright, penalties, or any legal position what so ever.  We will continue to do this and I again appreciate your positions and feedback. 

Sure, go ahead with that premise that the copyright law will be the solution to your and other media industry related problems. You still don't get there are much larger forces at work decimating ALL THE large media companies that are MIDDLE-MEN. You are a middle-man because your photographers are too lazy to reinvent themselves. They feel entitled because they made money before, they need to continue making money without changing.

Regarding the so-called "shaming" part. Go ask your collection lawyers if the so-called "shaming" does not, in fact, have real impact.  Prior to ELI coming on the scene, nearly everyone thought the way to fight back was through legal means. That is because people stupidly and blindly accepted your industry's propaganda.  They didn't know any better. The legal aspect of all this is one tool and one talking point that people keep obsessing over. On the flip side, your photographers' solutions to their problems does NOT lie with they copyright law. It is only one tool. 

Just so you know, I have more than once asked Oscar Michelen, a very smart lawyer, why he doesn't just go on without me or ELI? Even his blog courtroomstrategy.com he works with me when he doesn't have to.  I don't think he needs me or ELI at all to do what he does. And yet, someone who has this tremendous legal reputation and online presence continues to work with me and ELI, an unconventional and renegade website entity. I keep asking him isn't ELI embarrassing him by what we do? But he seems to like us anyway.

He hasn't explicitly told me this but I have inferred from his comments to me that he understands that his services and legal part is simply one component of a much larger repertoire of tools and abilities. I am guessing he likes being part of an online community that makes a big difference also.

You keep dwelling on extortion letters, how to collect money, copyright laws, copyright registrations, etc. while upheavals continue to devastate ALL the major media industries. I do have proposals and ideas but I am not going to give them out for free. It goes way outside what everyone has been suggesting.  I am a web strategist for hire and good at what I do. I have given you some free hints, go do your part and get smart or pay someone to make you smarter. FYI, I am not the only person with this knowledge. Plenty of smart people to hire to enlighten you. But your incestuous industry probably wouldn't even know where to look.

I know you see the agencies as greedy, archaic, abusers of the law and most agencies see businesses using our images as thieves, pirates, and whatever other name calling is common these days but I don't subscribe to either of these extreme positions.  What I believe in is solutions and finding the best way to do things with the parameters I am given.  The fact that both positions are so entrenched is unfortunate but hopefully improvements can be made.

I see the agencies as incestuous and having blinders on. Jonathan Klein, CEO of Getty Images, thinks he is smart but all he has done is to go on an acquisition spree to create a monopoly with investor money given to him.  He doesn't seem that smart to me based on the interviews he has given.  Only the people in his incestuous industry is in awe of what he says. At some point, when you buy everything up, then what?

Wal-mart has gone through the same thing.  They are worldwide and there is a Walmart store nearly everywhere. At some point, you can only buy your way so far. You actually have to perform and do right by customers/end-users.

Quite frankly, your industry antics help MY and Oscar's position in life. We continue to gain in influence and notoriety with every extortion letter that goes out. It's free marketing to us.  So keep going with it.  That is more badwill for you guys and more goodwill for those of us for helping them.  Did I mention that Oscar and I give MOST of our information for free and yet people still wanting to pay us to help them?

I don't even know how many thousands of people would never have heard of Oscar or me without the extortion letter industry.  Keep up the good work. We enjoy the free marketing at YOUR expense. Remember, every extortion letter sent out is one new enemy of your industry and a friend to ELI. Go read the book "Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. We have hit a few tipping points already and will continue to hit more at this rate. It is a transfer of positive karma from your industry to us. And Vincent Tylor makes more enemies with every passing day with each extortion letter that goes out. What a way to travel through life, building enemies up on a daily basis.

Whether your industry puts ELI out of business because no one needs ELI anymore or whether they keep sending letter recipients our way, Oscar and I win either way. I know BuddhaPi really enjoys his daily "ELI crack" habit.  He is obsessive and hounds me every other day.  He pays to work on ELI with his time, energy, PACER fees, and his forensic detective skills.

It used to be I couldn't get the guy to put his real name or photo on anything. Now, he wants to put on business clothes and asking do more ELI videos! BuddhaPi is starting to make me nuts pushing so hard. He keeps digging and digging information without asking me, you'd think he was an obsessed dog trying to dig his way to China!

Did I mention that all of this helps BuddhPi's business as a web-hosting provider? I think he would admit he has learned a ton of new PR and marketing techniques for his own and his client's businesses being part of ELI. Plus he loves the drama.  Unlike it is for me or Oscar, ELI is his hobby! I don't mind feeding his "online ELI Crack" habit. BuddhaPi is so predictable, I just know what to do to get him going. Like a druggie, he thanks me for continuing his addiction. I take advantage of him all the time.

The ELI Community members love watching the drama so keep the extortion letters coming.  Their participation is like being part of an "online reality show" where their comments are being read world-wide by hundreds if not thousands of people.

So, don't change. Keep up what you guys are doing.

[aimiyo]

This may be off topic of the "8 questions", but Matt I could not agree more with you young fellow!  I have been a participant in the internet and observer for well over 30 years from the days of it being a research tool ( no I am not like Al Gore and invented the internet). Its a changed us for the better.

My first web site if you could call it that, was in early 1990's and I was one of the first plastic surgeons  in 1993 to advertise my services on the internet. There were 8 maybe 9 of us I think who did this around that time we were scolded by the societies then, look at it today.

Lately for reasons related or directly to ELI, I have received a call almost weekly from some local designer or blogger and even had inquires about doing work for them,  by our VERY small web development company=AiMiYo. Karma is everything live honest , treat others as you want to be treated and be transparent and benefit.

What we are seeing now is the realization of change by the old guard,  who want to see things done the old way forever, now trying all they can to prevent the change with lawyers etc. Of course  I am speaking of the bigger picture,  not copyright infringement. They are simply upset that the old way of business is DEAD. No longer will the middle men control what they have , its impossible, game over, find a new job ! Integrity, honesty and transparency are even more important today instead of the back room deals.

As example a local artist musician friend of mine who runs the group HAPA,  is doing well on Itunes and guess what NO middle man to speak of like the old days. Although I guess apple is a middle man to a small degree, look at the self publishers on Amazon with ebooks, Artist like him are not controlled by the big labels or even the smaller ones ..I shed no tears for that loss.

Great points Matt.

Michael

[bruceh7463]

The idea of using attorneys less is still my goal but I think we can (and will) play a more active role in what they send out on our behalf based on these points.  When HAN hires an attorney using current tracking systems, they are provided with a retail price based on the use and told to do the best they can.  We don't have access to what is a more appropriate letter and what is extreme under the law. 

I think that retaining control over what is being presented in your behalf is an extraordinarily good idea.  Allow me to frame this up a little differently for you.  Suppose I rent you a room for $100 a night.  After you check out, I go into the room and discover that you have spilled red wine on the carpet.  About a week after you arrive home, you get a letter from an attorney that you have never heard of demanding that you pay me $5000, or WE WILL SUE.

Wouldn't it be better if I sent you an e-mail saying "Hey Glen, I had to get a professional carpet cleaner in to get rid of the red wine stain for $200, and I couldn't rent the room for 2 nights because of it, please send me a check for $400."  That's reasonable, that is defensible. 

My issue with this whole mess is the unreasonableness of the demands.  The burdens being placed on people far exceed the damages.  And in this case, at least you knew you had spilled the wine, in my Getty case I was not only unaware, but also unaware of the actions of the design firm.

I don't think people should be using licensed images without compensating the artist.  I also don't think licensing companies should use unreasonable extortion methods and commission based lawyers as the initial point of contact.

Don't start the discussion by pointing a gun at me.