"The biggest assumption you make is that stock photo agencies are embarrassed of doing this."
I never stated nor assumed that the stock photo agencies (yours included) are embarrassed by doing this. That is clearly an assumption on your part. I fully agree it's not true, they aren't embarrassed in the least, because for the most part they are ethically and morally bankrupt, and see only dollar signs.."but you say nothing about the business owner who uses the image having any responsibility what so ever. It’s always on the content creator who is at fault here and that's simply not correct or fair."
Again.. SOMETIMES (not always) the business owner has to own up to the responsibility, but in a good amount of the cases we have seen the business owner is truly not responsible, and you still have not addressed who is responsible for all of these images on 100's of wallpaper sites? Isn't it the responsibility of the owner of said images to control his own stuff? Are you going to sit there and tell that if you had an AC repairman come in and fix you air, and he inadvertently put in a faulty part that was supplied by the manufacture, that caused your house to burn down, you would seek relief from the repairman??....again this is flawed thinking (but a good example I must say!)I'll say it again although I may be turning blue from repeating it, it's not so much WHAT you're doing, it's the method in WHICH you are doing it!"Is it immoral to call up a business and say "hello, we see that you are using our image to sell your business services and we would like to work out a fee for past use?" I think not. If you have problems with the law, damages or otherwise, know that CSI is trying to use less of that language and more "person to person" communications that users on ELI seem to appreciate."
Oy! I kindly request you not twist up my words and statements to fit your own selfish needs, it's not going to fly here and I will continue to call you out on these matters.. No it is not morally wrong to call a business, it is morally wrong to call a business and offer them a "discounted" rate of $700.00 for images that are clearly not worth that much; this is evident by VK Tylor pricing structure on your own site! I have no problems with the law at all, if it is proven to be willful infringement, then by all means there are penalties involved. However Hawaiian Art Network, Glen Carner, Vincent K Tylor and your stable of lawyers are not judge and jury."Regarding DMCA Takedowns. We have sent out thousands for our artists. CSI even developed a special script to run them in bulk."
Congrats on your "special script" CSI ( Copyright Services International) is apparently at the forefront of breaking technology, too bad it has to deal with all this negative press. As for Takedown notices, I'm not buying into this, until I see solid proof of such. It is well documented thru-out the net that GoDaddy not only removes content, but they shut the entire account down, yet even today we see sites with VK Tylors image alive and well and hosted thru GoDaddy....EPIC FAIL THERE!"As for taking advantage of the system. What system? You mean the law that we follow in the recovery of money for our agency and artists. You mean Federal Law? That system? Do you expect artists to abandon their collections because of the unauthorized distribution? That's not realistic."
What is not realistic is sending out demand letters or having your "collection specialist" call requesting absurd amounts, I’m not going to play this game with you any longer, and you just don't seem to "get it". You know damned well as does the rest of the ELI community that the stock agencies (yours included) plays on the fear and ignorance of normal everyday people. You send your letters in the hope you will make a quick buck, if that fails you escalate this to your attorney, thus instilling more fear and again hoping to make a fast buck, all the while threatening a lawsuit. In the event a suit is filed are you going to tell us that you really want that suit to go the distance? I highly doubt it, as you would most likely be in the red at the end of the day, I'm sure you are smart enough to realize this..That what I mean by taking advantage of the system.. You were probably never expecting a counter suit to be thrown in your lap and were probably hoping that the default judgment would stand, so you could continue on your merry way of sending out extortion letters.. (My opinion naturally)"Regarding innocent infringement. Where does the responsibility of the business owner to pay for the images he uses on his business website lie? Do you feel there should be any responsibility at all? It sounds like you feel that there should be none. Is that true?"
Nope not true, but it needs to be FAIR, apparently your definition of fair differs from mine greatly. If Getty images had approached me with a fair amount in the first place I would have gladly paid them and would probably still be a customer of stock photo agencies EVEN THO I held and do still have a license agreement. They chose to not honor my license agreement solely because I had no receipt to go along with it."Here's something you may not know. When a stock photo agency hires an attorney, it is under the attorneys guidance as to what goes into the letter. Its not the stock photo agency that dictates that but the attorney. We hire them under the assumption that they know the law best. It seems that a big problem you have about using the law as its written is attorneys stating the damages and penalties as they are written. Why is this the attorneys fault? They look at the law and say this applies, this applies, and that applies. The receiving party can refute that if they feel its unfair. You are beating up the attorney for following the law as they feel it is best implemented."
WRONG AGAIN! I have myself have sent out cease and desist letters, and I have also quoted the law, as well as the amounts that would be available if it were to go to court..I have no problem with the law. Perhaps something you should consider is to look over the letter before they are sent to make sure they are in line to what your principles are. I find it hard to believe that:
a. you would assume a lawyer that had been admitted less than 2 years ago and appears on a list of "headhunters"' from picscout would have free reign on dealing with people that could possibly be turned into customers.
b. that you are not copied on this correspondence, where you could quickly and easily address items that were over the top..Do you indeed never see the letters that are sent?"What is the value of an image when its being used to sell a products and service worth hundreds of dollars online repeatedly or in the promotion of a business? The only mechanism a website has to sell its products or services is its images and text. Should another business make a profit off our photographers images with no compensation even though they used it in their promotion? "
What is the value of an image that appeared on a page buried 6 - 8 pages deep, that has 2 dozen page views ( most of them probably from bots like picscout sucking that persons bandwidth, where the site sold hardly any products or service?...Most of these case are just that from what we have seen."The stock photo industry has never pursued individuals that used our products unless they were being used for profit. "
Really? I guess the guy that was collecting cigarettes and food items for veterans as a good will gesture, doesn't fit into this.. Maybe if we were in times of bartering, cigarettes and food items could count as "profit" Yet Hawaiian Art Network, Getty Images and the other trolls still see themselves as acting in a moral and ethical manner..
(I’m not saying the above case was one of yours, as it escapes me at the moment, but you referenced the stock photo industry.)"I think the most affecting point is the "morality" issue for you and maybe others. So what is the moral position? You probably agree that the artist should be compensated but you don't like copyright law which is the only mechanism set up to make that happen. What do you propose? I am in a position to propose other solutions to artists which we are looking for. Ill be in here often so we can get to that soon.
This has all been addressed above.."BuddhaPi, did you actually download that Hawaii Pictures Screensaver and see whats on there? Here's a free copy
http://ge.tt/5fsdTTI/v/0. Who or what BrotherSoft is I have no idea. Ill post about that issue on the related thread because that does need to be refuted. I can't begin to explain the irony of you accusing VK Tylor or whoever of that because you will not meet a more aggressive protector of his copyrights who flys off the handle at the first sight of unauthorized distribution."
NO I did not nor will I, I'm a photographer myself and am perfectly capable of taking pictures of tropical sunrises. You never heard of Brothersoft?? Well then I guess someone just made up the name Glen Carner opened an account and just happened to have some of Tylor images available to upload..Isn’t that odd..
Vincent K Tylor may be an aggressive protector or whatever you may wish to call it, but his images got out there somehow. I already mentioned webshots, so I won't rehash it since you neglected to address it in my first post.
Topic: Matthew Chan's First 10 Questions For Glen Carner (Read 13779 times)